Theresa May, Last UK Primer Minister? ACE for H.M. the Queen and Prince William?

a reply to: DISRAELI

well, this is a rumor that has had wide spread in the media for years based in different facts:

1) The confirmation of Mrs Middleton in the Anglican faith was the last stage of a fast track sacraments conferred to her few weeks before her bride with Prince William in order to try to remove concerns because she didn't have it.

abcnews.go.com...

2) An Irish Catholic Cardinal was present on the bride of William with Kate, something that didn't have precedents in modern British History.

www.catholicherald.com...

3) Michael and Carole Middleton were no religious people was said to the media to explain why they didn't attend regularly services of any Anglican Church along years.

hollowverse.com...


4) This Rumor has been so strong that even there are forums that have opened threads to discuss the subject.

forums.catholic.com...

Kate Middleton is a Catholic?

why it matters that Kate Middleton can be Catholic Now?

Thanks

The Angel of Lightness

originally posted by: The angel of light
well, this is a rumor that has had wide spread in the media for years based in different facts:
1) The confirmation of Mrs Middleton in the Anglican faith was the last stage of a fast track sacraments conferred to her few weeks before her bride with Prince William in order to try to remove concerns because she didn't have it.

If she was confirmed into the Anglican faith at all, that's good enough as far as the law is concerned. The law is not interested in the ideas in the back of her mind, only in what her religion is officially.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Now Dear DISRAELI,

it would be really interesting to determine what is the historic origin of such an openly discriminatory law by the way, who dictated it or suggested it?

The good King Henry VIIIth? , who separated the Church of England from the Catholic one just to justify her divorce from the Queen Catherine of Aragon and then marry Anne Boleyn ? one of her other five wives?

it does not sound also really ethical a Law that is promoting internal divisions in a country that any way has some millions of Catholics by the way.

One sure is true that is not a Universal law, there is nothing really wrong to be Catholic, but Adultery, as well as Bigamy or Polygamy, is certainly rejected not only by Christianism , as a Capital sin, but by almost any serious religion in this world.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

originally posted by: The angel of light
it would be really interesting to determine what is the historic origin of such an openly discriminatory law by the way, who dictated it or suggested it?

There is no mystery here, to anyone acquainted with English history.
The law was part of the Act of Settlement of 1702, which was a response to the events of 1685-8, viz. the reign of James II. James was an avowed Catholic who was taking gradual steps to place Catholics in places where they could begin to control the army and even the Church of England. It looked as though he was manoevring into a position of being able to bring England under Catholic control by brute force,in alliance with the French king Louis XIV.

The alliance with Louis seemed to confirm the association of Catholicism with foreign tyranny and domestic persecution which had been growing in English minds since Queen Mary was burning Protestants in Smithfield and Guy Fawkes was planning to blow up Parliament.
So this mainly Protestant country resisted that, sent him packing, and took steps to make sure it could not happen again.
Those steps included not allowing a Catholic king to rule England any time in the future.
The nearest parallel situation I can imagine, in modern times, is the Cold War, when Americans would not have been welcoming to a Communist candidate for the Presidency.
The problem was the association of Catholicism with dictatorship and foreign rule. Not wanting to live under a dictator dependant on the support of foreign armies meant not wanting to live under a Catholic king.

it does not sound also really ethical a Law that is promoting internal divisions in a country that any way has some millions of Catholics by the way.

Let me remind you that Queen Mary was burning people on public fires for being Protestant. You think that was ethical? You think that wasn't promoting "internal divisions?
The law keeping Catholics out of the British throne was designed to prevent Protestants being burned in public. It was designed to keep the country free from foreign tyranny. I still think that was a good thing.

However, I did not come here to discuss what laws ought to be in place in England.
My original purpose was to explain what laws are in place in England. in order to show you what outcomes of the situation are possible, and what outcomes are not possible.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
There is diddly/squat chance of Brenda trying to stop German Charlie from becoming King - despite the fact that in my opinion he'll be a bloody awful king.

Unfortunately Charles is much less a German than Hillary and Trump are English

But maybe the US should instigate a rule that you can only become POTUS if all your ancestors have been born in the USA for at least 6 generations? Think about it ..... Most Americans are much less American than Charles is British.

(Not that I think Charles would be a good king, but thats a different issue - I just hate this ignorant memem about the Royal Family being German. And even if they were, they are better than the Norman French who took us over and imposed feudalism on us in 1066!)

originally posted by: [post=21002966] Adultery, as well as Bigamy or Polygamy, is certainly rejected not only by Christianism , as a Capital sin, but by almost any serious religion in this world.

Maybe.

But some of us arent living in the Bronze Age anymore. And we even know what causes lightning and earthquakes. And dont think we can do want we want and then pay priests money to absolve us of our sins and make it all right.

a reply to: DISRAELI:Let me remind you that Queen Mary was burning people on public fires for being Protestant. You think that was ethical? You think that wasn't promoting "internal divisions?
The law keeping Catholics out of the British throne was designed to prevent Protestants being burned in public. It was designed to keep the country free from foreign tyranny. I still think that was a good thing.


Well Dear Disraeli,

Please what surprises you of what Queen Mary I did? after all she was daughter of Henry VIIIth who also burnt a lot of Catholic monasteries , killed thousands of monks and nuns and he did that after he broke with the Holy see, because before that time he used to do the same against Protestants, after all he received the title of Defender of the faith (Fidei Defensor) from the Pope in his time as a Roman Catholic.

Pls check:

www.newadvent.org...

www.primaryhomeworkhelp.co.uk...

So according with what you say the law was created to put domestic Tyranny over foreign one? because King Henry VIII th also ordered the execution of two of his six wives, and divorced two , always using false charges against them. Now, the first one died imprisoned, the third one died delivering his only male son and the last one was the only lucky that survived him.

Pls read:
tudorhistory.org...

That monster was the founder of the Church of England that you claim was created to prevent tyranny.

Does your statements mean that all the Kings of England that were Catholics, before Henry VIII th were tyrants? that is a huge contradiction since The Magna Carta was signed at least four hundred years before the foundation of the Church of England.

It is the signing of the Magna Carta what brought to England democracy, not the revolutions of Orange or Cromwell that we know by sure brought also a blood bath to England with taken away also the lives of two Kings too.

www.bl.uk...
Who says that Henry VIII th , founder of the Church of England, was Protestant or his legacy is Protestant? that is not true at all, the Church of England follow exactly the same liturgy and also the same Theology of the Roman Catholic Church, it shares the same sacraments and also they venerate the Virgin Mary as Holy Mother of God.

They must be more properly called separated Catholics, since their only difference with respect to Rome is that the head of the Church is the King of England, but they are absolutely nothing to do with the reform ideas of Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.

Finally, with all respect, it is funny that you try to defend the creation of an openly discriminatory Anti Catholic law in England arguing that Catholics were bringing a foreign tyranny over the country, when as I have already showed the Magna Carta was the principal Product of the Catholic England and second the fall of James II was carried out through a revolution that was not really British but promoted by a foreign Invasion, the last of British History, commanded by a Dutch Prince over England.

Pls check:

en.wikipedia.org...

Please check:

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

originally posted by: The angel of light
Does your statements mean that all the Kings of England that were Catholics, before Henry VIII th were tyrants?

All this is beside the point.
I am trying to explain to you how the people of 1702 were thinking and WHY they wanted to introduce a law banning Catholics from the throne of England.
They remembered Mary as a tyrant, they could see in front of them Louis XIV doing much the same thing towards his own Protestants, they had lived through a century of wars in which Catholics kings were using force to bring populations back to Catholicism, and they wanted to defend themselves.

They must be more properly called separated Catholics, since their only difference with respect to Rome is that the head of the Church is the King of England, but they are absolutely nothing to do with the reform ideas of Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.

Your theories about whether they were Protestants or not have no relevance to the situation of 1702.
They thought of themselves as Protestants. That is the point. They thought of themselves as part of a European community of Protestants facing up to the danger of Roman Catholic political power. They reacted to events on that basis.
(And I take it you have never read the Thirty-Nine Articles, which are the doctrinal standard of the Church of England. The whole tone is Calvinist, including the doctrines of predestination. Up to the Civil War, the Church of England thought of itself as part of European Calvinism, and even sent representatives to the Synod of Dort.)

We began this conversation because I mentioned that this law existed; first you were unwilling to believe it, then you asked how it came into existence, and I have been telling you.

You are not going to be capable of making good predictions about what England will do until you understand something about English history and society.
At the moment, you don't understand English history and society, and I am tryng to explain them to you.

Don't make yourself so unteachable. Do some listening, try to gain some understanding of other national cultures.

a reply to: DISRAELI

With all respect Dear DISRAELi, I really appreciate your interest to reply, believe me I am not trying to close my mind, but judging the situation as it appears it looks as if Britain suddenly became a battle field in between the fundamentalist Catholics of France and the fundamentalist Protestants of Netherlands.

It is clear that both factions interfered in the internal affairs of the island, and were willing to move England either to the Protestant world or the Catholic, after all a neutral position was not acceptable by anybody at that time, and none of them really treated the opponents in a tolerant or benevolent way, there were terrible crimes committed from both sides over their rivals. The Crimes against Catholics after Mary I were no less grave than the ones you describe.

It is also important to remember that the Scottish independence ended when Elizabeth I Tudor took prisoner Mary Stuart, a Catholic Queen, and after years of incarceration ordered her execution. Ironically it was a son of her who became successor of the Throne, since the last Tudor Queen was possibly sterile and didn't want to marry at all.

Now, I don't have doubt that the Church of England also was the scene of intrigues and conspiracies carried out by both bands to control it. Now, in spite of the influence that Protestants had at some point over the Anglicanism, the one you have already referred, there are still evident differences that distinguish them especially from Lutherans and I dare to say also from Zwingli followers.

If you enter on an Episcopalian church not only in England but in other countries that were part of the British Empire the spiritual experience is extremely different than in Evangelicals or Baptists temples, where it became forbidden the use of images, the veneration of saints or of the virgin Mary were terminated and the Priesthood was reduced to a ministry in which the major part of the sacraments were abolished.

Anglican Churches preserve architectonic, as well as artistic and musical elements in the liturgy that are no longer tolerated in those other two main branches of Protestantism I have already mentioned. Also the Hierarchic organization of the Church of England is still like the Catholic one, where there are deacons, priests and Bishops, roles that are no longer present in the Protestant world, who also denied the Apostolic succession.

It neither my personal opinion nor wrong to claim that Anglicanism is a branch of independent Catholicism, as are the Old Catholics of Netherlands or the e Greek ones.

en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks.

The Angel of Lightness

originally posted by: The angel of light
With all respect Dear DISRAELi, I really appreciate your interest to reply, believe me I am not trying to close my mind, but judging the situation as it appears it looks as if Britain suddenly became a battle field in between the fundamentalist Catholics of France and the fundamentalist Protestants of Netherlands.

And you are still missing the point that the English thought of themselves as fairly fundamentalist Protestants.
That's why the turn-over of 1688 was so easy. The Dutch army was far too small to have achieved it by themselves. James had to flee because he realised that everyone was deserting him.

You remain obsessed with discussing the right and wrongs of these historical events, and they are completely beside the point.
I am trying to help you to understand the FACTS of English history.
It is a FACT that the Act of Settlement introduced this law.
It is a FACT that the Englishmen of the time introduced that law because
a) They perceived themselves to be a Protestant community.
b) They perceived the Roman Catholic community of that time to be a hostile foreign power, bent on imposing control over them by brute force, political and military.
Given what was happening in France at the time, that was a fairly reasonable perception.

But whether these perceptions were right or wrong DOES NOT MATTER. The point is that they were there.
The problem is that you are viewing that community from outside, so you do not yet understand what it felt like to be part of it.

Before you start being judgemental about what should be, you need to have a better understanding of what is.
Try focussing on that.

a reply to: DISRAELI
Dear Disraeli, I sincerely feel that here there are more than one misunderstanding that It is important to clarify:

With al respect, you are neither a psychiatrist or psychologist coming here to carry out a diagnostics, also I am not your patient at all, so it sounds extremely arrogant your claim that I am moved by obsessions.

You are trying to judge something without really having any solid base on it, you are trying to speculate from what you possibly know on British History, or was taught to you. You are trying to extrapolate those speculations to arrive to conclusions over my personal motivations or assertions on the subject. Here the mistake is that you are not considering at all something that is not speculative, but a fact, that is, my record as a accurate predictor of events.

I don't need at all your advising or analysis skills to improve my forecasting abilities. I have predicted with meridian precision the abdications of King Juan Carlos of Spain , as well as King Albert of Belgium, also the defeat of President Sarkozy of France and all is recorded here in ATS threads.

I also predicted the election and reelection of President Obama and dozens of other political facts in nations over which I didn't request any advising or take deep courses of political studies.

My successful predictions of the war in between Georgia and Russia, the current crisis in Venezuela, the current Brazilian crisis, The arrival of terrorism to Europe, the rise of ISIS from the revolutions of the Arab world, the election of a non European Pope, couldn't be reached just though mere speculations.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness