Sunder, if a Protestant marries a Catholic, the only way that the Catholic church will recognise the union is if the Catholic swears to raise the children as Catholics. Effectively, unless the spouse renounces her Catholicism, then the children will be Catholic.

I’m sure that you can appreciate the difficulty of having a Catholic as governer of the Church of England.

Let’s disestablish the church and have a referendum/parliamentary vote on the future of the monarchy.

Tim J

I understand that is no longer the case. (I was baptised as a Catholic – lapsed agnostic – but am not an expert). That has been stated during today’s Commons debate by some members speaking with some authority on it. I will provide something on it from Hansard tomorrow, but can’t confirm the details

In any case, the Harris bill has nothing to do with that. It leaves untouched the point that those who inherit the throne itself can not be Catholic. So if the children were Catholic, they would not themselves be eligible to succeed, so the concern that you have does not in any event arise.

(There is a more complex academic debate about various means as to how – given that the monarch must act on ministerial advice – one could in theory handle the issue of eg the supreme governor of the Church could not be a member of it, but that is in this case an academic point: the bill is about spouses, not monarchs, and I am quite sure the government will not touch that, just as the recent backbench bills have not).

Well, that was the advice given to me by the Brompton Oratory in 2007 when I married a Catholic.

It’s in Canon 1124 & 1125:

“Canon 1124 Without the express permission of the competent authority, marriage is prohibited between two baptised persons, one of whom was baptised in the catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act, the other of whom belongs to a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the catholic Church.

Canon 1125 The local Ordinary can grant this permission if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions are fulfilled:

Canon 1125.1 the catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith, and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power in order that all the children be baptised and brought up in the catholic Church;

Canon 1125.2 the other party is to be informed in good time of these promises to be made by the catholic party, so that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and of the obligation of the catholic party.

Canon 1125.3 both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage, which are not to be excluded by either contractant.”

There might be a little wiggle room in the ‘do all in his or her power’ but there isn’t much I wouldn’t have thought.

The problem is Sunder, that you do not care about the Monarchy .I would imagine your views would be something of the sort set out by Orwell ..( it keeps them happy let them have it… ) . I am not especially suggesting especially that you are wrong , although I think you are , I am just suggesting you are dis-honest about your objectives .
This is , I assume ,to retain the form hollow it out and replace it with a set of contemporary Liberal nostrums for our education and enlightenment . Equality , ooman rights , that sort of thing
It is obviously an absurdity to talk about rationalising a spiritual symbol of the tribe .Is a Crown and Sceptre rational.? Is the Nation`s deepest sacrament , the Coronation , to be moved to the South bank and turned into an inclusive multi-cultural day of face paint and dance ? That might be very nice ….

……. but I would prefer you left it alone.
( I would hazard a guess that our wonderful Queen would agree with me )

Newmania, do you think that a man should generally be preferred to a woman on succession? If so, why?

TimJ @4:

Canon 1124 Without the express permission of the competent authority, marriage is prohibited between two baptised persons, one of whom was baptised in the catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act, the other of whom belongs to a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the catholic Church.

That actually says they can’t marry anyone who isn’t Catholic except an atheist: since ‘ecclesial community’ includes any other religion.

Chris Baldwin @2:

Let’s disestablish the church

Charles wants to. Works for me.

Newmania @5:

The problem is Sunder, that you do not care about the Monarchy

Regardless of Sunder’s opinions, I do: yes, I’m an anti-Tory monarchist, which gets me all kinds of flak. I still agree with these reforms, to the best of my knowledge about them so far. So this particular ad hominem</em. needs restructuring. What would you say to me?

John – yes that’s right, without the permission of the local authority. And that permission will only be given etc etc…

Without wanting to defend the idea of the property or title passing to the oldest male by right, Sometimes it has had hilarious results. There have been numerous cases of large Estates, having been in the same family for hundred of years ,destroyed after it was past on to the oldest male who just happened to be as thick as mutton.

It must have so pleased the family as they watched centuries of work pissed away in the gambling and drinking clubs in West London.

Regardless of Sunder’s opinions, I do: yes, I’m an anti-Tory monarchist, which gets me all kinds of flak. I still agree with these reforms, to the best of my knowledge about them so far. So this particular ad hominem</em. needs restructuring. What would you say to me?

I think I would try and explain what the Monarchy is , which is not a department of Ministry of Pomp but a living connection with our past and focus of National loyalty .Harriet Harman and her modish concerns should keep a respectful distance . If you persisted in your ,no doubt , honest error . I would continue to explain that the whole point of the Monarchy is that it is unchanging in this sense and while we have negotiated people to King/Queen we have previously imposed a role on Her Majesty to act as a poster girl for “Progressivism” is a step to far.
What , I would say , do you see as the end-game of imposing “ Equality “ on the Queen ? How do you thin such concepts sit with the head of a notional hierarchy.
Finally I would assure you that if you wanted to Queen and country to continue to mean anything you would join me against the Internationalist soulless barbarians and refuse to take a step back , any step , because they will never be satisfied .

“I think I would try and explain what the Monarchy is , which is not a department of Ministry of Pomp but a living connection with our past and focus of National loyalty”

It is paid for by the tax payer so it is part of the govt as far as I am concerned.

The Windsor’s are nothing more than a bunch of Germans, that were thrust on us by a Conservative establishment, they have nothing to do with my link with the past.

The real purpose of the Monarchy is to allow Conservatives to feel better about themselves when they are politically out of power. They can console themselves that the head of state is the King or Queen and not the Labour Prime Minister. All those Chief Constables and Air Marshals and Admirals can hang a picture of the Queen in their office and feel happy. . But they would be have been quite happy to have a portrait of Thatcher on the wall in the 80s.

I love how to the Tories Harriet Harman is representative of the far left of the Labour Party and the only difference between left and right flanks of the Labour Party is that the right are less convinced they can get away with as much as the left would do.

the only difference between left and right flanks of the Labour Party is that the right are less convinced they can get away with as much as the left would do.

I BLOODY KNEW IT !!!!

Sorry, but I’m against the Monarchy on principle and any attempt to reform it will make it harder to get rid of.

I prefer it when they behave like greedy, lazy racist bastards: primogeniture is just the icing on the cake.

I remember the last set of reforms that fixed the inherent unfairness of a male taking the throne over a woman. Surely it is unfair for anyone to take such a position of power, just because they were born into it?

The only meaningful reform of the monarchy is the abolition of the monarchy.

The obligation to bring the kids up in their own faith is not exclusive to Catholics. Lots of religions that the heir to the throne IS allowed to marry into have pretty much the same rule.

And for all your highflown words, Newmania, you’ve yet to say anything to defend male primogeniture.

A “division of the Ministry of Pomp”? Well, that’s exactly what a lot of the monarchy’s defenders claim it is; interesting to see that you disagree. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard the “argument” that we’d lose all that pageantry if we lost the monarchy.

Because, of course, republics are rubbish at pageantry. Just look at France and the U.S.A.: their drab public events will never compare to the majestic pomp of Sweden or the Netherlands. [insert "sarcasm" icon here]

shatterface: Sorry, but I’m against the Monarchy on principle and any attempt to reform it will make it harder to get rid of.

Yup, pretty much agreed.

Of course, republican opposition to the Monarchy is a perfectly legitimate position. I think it is highly questionable strategy for republicans to oppose sensible reforms to the Monarchy on the grounds that they wish it to be as ridiculous as possible.

For a start, this has not practically helped republicans to advance one iota. In practice, they end up becoming allies for the most conservative forces in this debate: what I call the ‘Ming Vase’ monarchists: those ardent supporters of the monarchy whose belief in it turns out to be so fragile that they believe small and sensible reforms will shatter it. Does anybody sincerely doubt that we will have a Monarchy in 25 years time? (I would say 50 years, and probably considerably more than that). Does it really advance the republican case to oppose reforms – such as abolishing anti-catholic discrimination – within the existing institutions?

I support removing religious discrimination from the statute book. Sunny/Shatterface – is your position ‘yes, but we will oppose that where we think it might bolster the position of the monarchy’. The case for republicanism should be made honestly and on its merits. Of course, you could advocate abstaining from having a position. Or a reasoned amendment of always making the case for a Republic, while supporting such measures. To actively oppose the removal of religious bigotry on the statute book is pretty poor.

You can have a Republic if you can persuade people to want one. The challenge for republicans is a simple one: to build greater public support for their position. Attempts to do this have been a miserable failure in recent decades. The period since the Royal Marriage of 1981 has been enormously difficult for the Monarchy. What is striking in public opinion is that, while support for reform has risen, support for a republic has remained at almost exactly the same level, around or usually just under one-fifth. One can barely imagine the Monarchy having done more to undermine and damage its own legitimacy and standing. Republicanism has benefitted barely an iota. This is perhaps among the greatest failures of any political project in our times. (The only hope – so often voiced – is ‘it will all be different when it is Charles’. But this is probably a pipedream too).

As a result, as democrats, thinking Republicans are forced to acknowledge, the monarchy currently has a fair claim to democratic legitimacy, because it has strong and sustained majority public support. Perhaps it would help to have a referendum on it every 25 years or every 50 years. (I have advocated this previously). Of course, anybody who says ‘this is all nonsense, we must have a Republic NOW, must realise that the Monarchists would be very likely to win it’.

If Republicans had over 33% support then the position would become different: it would probably then be a continued and live issue of public contention. But they are stuck on not much more than half of that, and have no active plan that I can see to improve their position in a way which might appeal to those who are not already signed up.

what I call the ‘Ming Vase’ monarchists: those ardent supporters of the monarchy whose belief in it turns out to be so fragile that they believe small and sensible reforms will shatter it.

That assumes that suggestions made by those who are in fact Republicans and socialists are “small and sensible reforms” or that a manner of thinking appropriate to public sanitation is applicable to a spiritual and symbolic to the Soul of the Nation.
It is more important here that one refuses the accept the principle that the Monarchy is in the same bracket as “Public Sector ” Employee upon which the entire creed of the “Progressive “may be imposed. It is clear to al but the mentally feeble that the socialists belief in equality cannot co-exist with a monarch at all. Thus the continued loyalty of the people to the idea is a standing sources of frustration . Now instead of taking the Princes out and gunning them down in the snow you want to slowly poison the Rose . The Rose you may recall was Ted Hugh`s metaphor for his poem on the Queen mothers birthday . A small amount of sensible poison will work , but slowly .

The case for republicanism should be made honestly and on its merits

Quite . Do that , lose, and then shut up .Stop doing this . It is entirely clear that I have diagnosed the true motive correctly from the test of your post Sunder. It is legitimate for me to point out that your only motive is to remove the Queen by slow poison and as such you have less than no more right to talk about “Ming Vases?” than a Thief has to complain he was only going to take on e or two of them.

I think thats really all there is to be said about it and the reason it arises at all is because there are two many pointless New Labour MP s with their noses in the trough and nothing to do than irritate people about a subject quite irrelevant for the foreseeable future anyway.

Newmania

You are being both rude and silly.

Try reading this Times leading article, supporting these reforms, and then work out whether you agree or disagree with them on their merits
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article401365.ece

I can not see why you prefer to impute false motives. I believe that it is perfectly possible for a democratic Monarchy to have legitimacy, through having and retaining public consent. That is clearly the case in the UK. These proposals would strengthen it, as the alternative could be damaging controversy, eg if William had a daughter then son, at which point there would be a crisis, averted by these reforms being passed in a hurry at that point. (Hence the Republican opposition to principles they would otherwise support)

Perhaps you have read the Fabian Monarchy Commission report, published in 2003? (I joined the Fabian staff after this was completed). Its content was controlled not by the Fabians, but by the independent Commissioners, led by David Bean QC who is now a High Court judge. I can not see what grounds you have to impute false motives to them also. Perhaps you could explain why you think that about this group of individuals? I can’t see why they should have put 18 months into it for that purpose. Nor, evidently, was that the impact they had, with what has been widely acknowledged to be the most serious piece of work on the monarchy in the last 20 years. Certainly Buckingham Palace said so, publicly and privately. (The Commons briefing paper draws on the report itself, and the evidence sessions the Commission held). Of course, there may be Republicans who say why bother with any of this, but that was not the approach taken. Its terms of reference were not to discuss the case for or against a monarchy, but to offer proposals which would strengthen its

You can legitimately disagree with its recommendations. But you simply prove yourself to be unserious by refusing to engage with content by throwing out ad hominen attacks

http://www.fabians.org.uk/publications/books/the-future-of-the-monarchy

I like the monarchy but would be a lot happier with it if it weren’t so sexist so I’m fully in favour of giving males and females equal succession rights.

Newmania still hasn’t presented an actual defence of any of the discriminatory rules in question, beyond what translates as “Monarchy is *meant* to be unfair and irrational, that’s what makes it great”.

The only explanation for Newmania is that he’s a closet lefty republican who is trying to undermine the conservative position by making it look silly.

11 Sally . Constitutional monarchies can offer some practical advantages.

If one looks at monarchies -Japan, Thailand, Belgium, Netherlalds , Sweden, Norway, Spain and the UK, they coincide with economically successful and politically stable countries. It was the Japanese Emperor who persuaded the military to surrender after the two atoms bombs were dropped. It was the Spanish King who ordered the military , in particluar the major general in charge of the Valencian division back to barracks. Hence the Spanish King saved the lives of many socialists and they know it and are grateful. The Belgium King is helping the country to stay together.

President’s Wilson demand for the abdication of the Kaiser and the Austro Hungarian Emperor rather than the creation of constitutional monarchies, helped to create the power vacuum , which assisted in the rise of the Nazis.

If Kerensky had enabled a constitutional monarchy to be created after the February 1917 Revolution, it may have prevented the Bolshevik Revolution and he murder of tens of millions of innocent people.

It was the Queen who let it be known she did not agree with Lady Thatcher and therefore reduced and help to heal, the rift with the Commonwealth. In particular, it is President Mandels’s respect for the Queen which meant the RSA rejoined the Commonwealth. The actions of the Queen greatly assisted in repairing the damage done by the Tories in their relationship with the ANC and therefore the government of the RSA.

When Chamberlain resigned,George VI was able to discuss the who would be PM with the various factions and political parties which smoothed the promotion of Churchill .

Aha , “Rude and silly” no less , I love it when you get pompous Sunder . Well firstly had you ever done anything other than opining you would know that all Lawyers do it tell you what you told them and send a bill . Even if that were not the case they are at best the engine not the steering wheel , they do not have any special expertise to offer on the role of sacrament ritual and tradition to the living heart of the Nation. None .I`d as soon leave a fox in charge of the chickens, come to think of it ,and that goes for anything the Fabian Society has to say about the Queen and her heirs . Do you think I do not know what you are up to ?
The Queen cannot defend herself and it is highly un-chivalrous of you to summon whatever polite ‘ahem’ she may have dutifully proffered in the cause of the dismantling the institution.
The mighty wave of Republican opinion with which you threaten me is somewhat less great than the proportion who would throw Parliament in the Sea and retain the Queen , especially if that meant having our country back ,and the progress of that sell out tells us all we need to know about slippery slopes and cynical managerialism. The supposed clamour to make a gild a proxy King dopes not exist and the calamity you envisage is one crated if at all by you and others like you who think the Queen is Queen by virtue of opinion Polls and focus groups

Gotta go but I will return to the true motive of this sinister plot time allowing. It is to do with symbolism and ownership

“It’s to do with symbolism” – Vague, vague, vague. Meaningless in fact. Leaving aside the anti-Catholic rule, for which there is a rationale, albeit one I disagree with: would you please tell us, Newmania, on what grounds you think the discrimination against women is justified? Actual grounds, not just “because”, which is what your position so far has amounted to.

We’re waiting.