• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

England: Time to break the Church-Monarchy link?


Shqiptar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
6,309
If you were to ask a representative group of Irish people if they thought the Roman Catholic Church should occupy some elevated and constitutionally mandated position in Irish society, I doubt that the affirmative answers would exceed 10%. Yet, by contrast in the UK, nearly 75% of people think that Queen Elizabeth II, the head of state should continue in her other role as head of the Church of England.

Despite her age, Queen Elizabeth is still very sprightly and clearly has many years left in her. She takes her role and vows very seriously and has no attention resigning. She's in this for life.

And yet, there's a subtle transition under way. Prince Charles, her successor, will be attending the Commonwealth summit in Sri Lanka in her stead. This is where it gets interesting. Charles is an eclectic chap with a wide range of spiritual interests and a distinct leaning towards Buddhism. Even leaving aside the anomalous situation of a modern European country where the head of state is also a religious leader, won't this be a little odd?

Perhaps it's time to break the link for once and for all and let the monarch be head of state only?

Queen Elizabeth II Should Remain Head Of Church Of England, According To Poll
Britain
 

Deadlock

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2011
Messages
6,292

theObserver@hotmail.com

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
2,424
I suspect those who care enough to form a strong opinion will be religious conservatives who want the church-monarchy link to remain.
 

Prester Jim

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
10,071
The PM can appoint bishops??

Bloody hell.....
Bishops in an irrelevant and outdated state institution.
Far worse if a justice minister can appoint Garda commissioners IMO.
Both should be appointed by independent BOMs.
 

Prester Jim

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
10,071
If you were to ask a representative group of Irish people if they thought the Roman Catholic Church should occupy some elevated and constitutionally mandated position in Irish society, I doubt that the affirmative answers would exceed 10%. Yet, by contrast in the UK, nearly 75% of people think that Queen Elizabeth II, the head of state should continue in her other role as head of the Church of England.

Despite her age, Queen Elizabeth is still very sprightly and clearly has many years left in her. She takes her role and vows very seriously and has no attention resigning. She's in this for life.

And yet, there's a subtle transition under way. Prince Charles, her successor, will be attending the Commonwealth summit in Sri Lanka in her stead. This is where it gets interesting. Charles is an eclectic chap with a wide range of spiritual interests and a distinct leaning towards Buddhism. Even leaving aside the anomalous situation of a modern European country where the head of state is also a religious leader, won't this be a little odd?

Perhaps it's time to break the link for once and for all and let the monarch be head of state only?

Queen Elizabeth II Should Remain Head Of Church Of England, According To Poll
Britain
It is ripe for change as the Anglican church is a a bit of a joke in England and Wales; ineffective, wooly-thinking inadequates and ministers who don't believe in God...
I am far from sure that the change will do any good at this stage, but it is worth a try.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,845
You're starting this off the back of (yet another) poll that says roughly 3/4 Englishers (Not just COEers) want her to remain?
 
S

simeongrimes

If 75% of people want to keep the link then who is going to remove it. I think secularists make a mistake in their understanding of democracy. We had a catholic country when we had a committed catholic majority. When people became secular that was reflected in our laws eventually. If a future Ireland was to have a Muslim majority we would see aspects of that belief system turning up in our laws. There is no over-riding correct model that should be imposed against the wishes of the majority.

Of course minorities have rights too. But in the end they have the rights the majority are prepared to give them. An intelligent majority will give them more but a majority is still a majority.

If the British people became republicans the monarchy would be doomed. But they are far from that.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
52,042
If we had a ban on Protestant Presidents down here imagine what the Unionists would say. The royals are not even allowed marry a Catholic. :roll:
 

Shqiptar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
6,309

Cai

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2004
Messages
7,897
If you were to ask a representative group of Irish people if they thought the Roman Catholic Church should occupy some elevated and constitutionally mandated position in Irish society, I doubt that the affirmative answers would exceed 10%. Yet, by contrast in the UK, nearly 75% of people think that Queen Elizabeth II, the head of state should continue in her other role as head of the Church of England.

Despite her age, Queen Elizabeth is still very sprightly and clearly has many years left in her. She takes her role and vows very seriously and has no attention resigning. She's in this for life.

And yet, there's a subtle transition under way. Prince Charles, her successor, will be attending the Commonwealth summit in Sri Lanka in her stead. This is where it gets interesting. Charles is an eclectic chap with a wide range of spiritual interests and a distinct leaning towards Buddhism. Even leaving aside the anomalous situation of a modern European country where the head of state is also a religious leader, won't this be a little odd?

Perhaps it's time to break the link for once and for all and let the monarch be head of state only?

Queen Elizabeth II Should Remain Head Of Church Of England, According To Poll
Britain
Charles is as mad as a box of frogs & believes whatever pseudo spiritual mumbo jumbo that's half popular at any given time.
 

murkeyside

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
966
She isn't really head of the CofE - she's "supreme governor" which is ceremonial - an acquaintance of mine is the actual head (Justin Welby)

Also the prime minister rubber stamps the choice of bishops which is done by a CofE committee- the only issue recently was Thatcher being difficult about an ABC appointment.

Members of the Royal family can marry Catholics they just lose their place in the succession order - thanks to a bit of anti French legislation from 300 years ago
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,845
That is one poll - it's hardly a definitive answer.

I believe in complete separation of church and state. They tend to be mutually harmful in the long run. It is already being discussed in the upper echelons of power in the UK.

Queen's role as head of Church of England 'may no longer be appropriate' - Telegraph
Do you have any recent poll at all that makes it even a close run thing? Or that they UK doesn't want a monarchy? I'm a republican and find monarchies ridiculous, but the UK like their monarchy and are quite happy with it. And come on, "harmful in the long term" it's been like this for centuries!
 

Lempo

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
6,314
Personally I'm all for the Brits, or at least those in power at the early 18th century, wanting to have a sovereign who don't regard the Pope as his superior. But it's me, I find the Swedes changing their order of succession to be gender-neutral in 1980 after Prince Carl Philip was born after Princess Victoria totally unapprovable.

If you start to throw away them stupid old rules, you can as well discontinue the whole monarchy thing. (coming to a kingdom near you if Katie pops out a girl baby)
 

rainmaker

Administrator
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
21,861
I believe in complete separation of church and state. They tend to be mutually harmful in the long run.
That's a little disingenuous - the CoE has no influence on legislation or matters of government. Any link is (thankfully) purely ceremonial.
 

Shqiptar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
6,309
Charles is as mad as a box of frogs & believes whatever pseudo spiritual mumbo jumbo that's half popular at any given time.
He currently defines himself as "Defender of All Faiths". Now, I'd be worried about a head of state to-be taking public positions vis-a-vis any faith(s) but as long as he really means all faiths (including atheism and agnosticism since they, of course, are also faiths) then there's no huge problem. But there's a clear conflict between being head of the Church of England whilst declaring oneself as defender of all faiths.
 

Shqiptar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
6,309
She isn't really head of the CofE - she's "supreme governor" which is ceremonial - an acquaintance of mine is the actual head (Justin Welby)

Also the prime minister rubber stamps the choice of bishops which is done by a CofE committee- the only issue recently was Thatcher being difficult about an ABC appointment.

Members of the Royal family can marry Catholics they just lose their place in the succession order - thanks to a bit of anti French legislation from 300 years ago
Just? Do you not think that's kind of a biggie?
 

Shqiptar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
6,309
Do you have any recent poll at all that makes it even a close run thing? Or that they UK doesn't want a monarchy? I'm a republican and find monarchies ridiculous, but the UK like their monarchy and are quite happy with it. And come on, "harmful in the long term" it's been like this for centuries!
And it's been harmful. Where was the Church of England with its Christian ethos when Great Britain was colonising large chunks of the world? Where was the independent voice suggesting that imperialist wars might just be contravening the fifth and seventh commandments? Ooops, the "independent voice" was marching right alongside the red coats advocating providentialism and muscular Christianity.

Is it not harmful that a member of a particular nation should be barred from being head of state on account of their religion or on account of their spouse's religion? I think it is.
 

Shqiptar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
6,309
That's a little disingenuous - the CoE has no influence on legislation or matters of government. Any link is (thankfully) purely ceremonial.
Don't C of E bishops sit in the House of Lords?
 
Top