Q. What’s the difference between a Catholic, a Jew and a Muslim?
Article posted by David Gold
DISCLAIMER: This article contains the personal views of the author and should not be inferred to be the views of Unlock Democracy.
A. It is only catholics who royals are prevented from marrying whilst preserving their position in line to the throne… liberal, no?
This anachronistic law could be reformed, giving equal rights to woman and catholics within the monarchy. Evan Harris MP proposed a change to the existing rules of Primogeniture (royal ascent to be granted to the first born son), established in 1066, and The Act of Settlement of 1701, which rules that royals cannot marry a Catholic if they wish to maintain a claim to the throne.
It makes you wonder why this has taken over 300 years to be passed, but rather than look back, we should look forward. More to the point, to discriminate against any religion would be rather pointless. We did away with such discrimination years ago…and the same goes with the move to allow women to be able to take the throne before her brother on the basis of age.
These reforms are an important symbol of our democracy and liberties, and long overdue. Our preservation of the monarchy is something we should take pride in, but only as long as the institution reforms in line with the values of the country. If the monarchy remains as discriminatory as it is currently, the arguments for keeping it will erode. To preserve the monarchy means that the monarchy must preserve the liberty of all. Royals may no longer be able to prove their love to person of their dreams by pledging to ‘give up the throne for him/her’, but quite frankly, when was the last time that happened anyway?
Conversely, the Bishop of Winchester, Michael Scott-Joynt, asked the eternally vague question: “What kind of state have we and what kind of state do we want?”.
A state in which religion is kept separate from politics would be nice…
February 14th, 2009 at 11:07 am
CHRISTIAN, JEW & MUSLIM
The concept of Monarchy of a country is an anachronism and totally unjustifiable as such along with all it’s foibles.
Within the UK legal system it performs a vital political function and as such it should be and is non political and non-religious.
The ban against Roman Catholics is partly historic and partly the allegiance to Rome with it’s political dictates which clashes with allegiance to the Crown and parliamentry democracy. In theory, Monarchy could convert to Judaism or Islam, however the Crown takes on the accepted religion of the land which is Protestant, Christian.
However the Crown has a very important function in our democracy.
In theory it has the final say in the passing of any legislation.
(this was used in Australia to dissolve a stalled parliament)
It is the final test of legislation even if has not been used in recent times.
November 26th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
In reply to the question What is the difference between a Catholic a Jew and a Muslim? I would suggest the bed they were born in.
The difficulty arises regarding Monarchical privelages in this country.If the true meaning of the word Catholic is adopted then any of the above mentioned religions are catholic.Catholic being defined as universal.A protestant is one of a catholic background protesting against the rule of Rome.Protestant churches still read the creed stating they are “one catholic and Apostolic church”Technical it may seem but the only answer can be that of bigotry nothing more nothing less.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
I don’t think parliamentary time should be wasted repealing a law which only discriminates against ONE family. The argument for retaining the Monarchy itself is based on tradition, and if the tradition is that only Protestant Christians may hold the throne, then let it remain that way. And where are these Jewish and Muslim royals we are protecting?