Prime Minister Tony Blair could boost the peace process in Northern Ireland by lifting the ban on Catholics ever becoming King or Queen, it has been claimed.
The Irish Republic's Green Party leader Trevor Sargent called on the Prime Minister to lead the fight against sectarianism by changing the 1701 Act of Settlement.
The Act bans Catholics from ever becoming the monarch and requires the King or Queen to be in communion with the Church of England and uphold the Protestant line of succession.
As Greens on both sides of the Irish border prepared to launch a joint paper next week on the future of the Good Friday Agreement, Mr Sargent said: "Not only does the Act of Settlement embed sectarianism but it gives the all clear to those who make sectarian comments.
...
I would like to think that if God allows the Windsors to remain on the throne in the UK that He might make one of them a Christian. If they were I think they would have to leave the Anglican communion. The current AB of C is a Druid. Most of the priests want to rejoin Rome. Homosexuals are being ordained Bishops and they have as many pedophiles as Rome judging from the law suits against them for sexual molestation. I would like to see the UK become a Christian nation and keep Rome out of their government. They have a lot of back taxes owed to Rome, but the main problem is what Romanists did to Protestants during the Puritan period and the inquisition, which is still open for business today if they can get control of a country. Just look at the history of what they have done in the past and you'de never let them into your government or vote for a RC like Kerry. Their politics, like their war tactics are based on deception, just like the Muslims. For them the end justifies the means even if it meeans lying and murder. Anglicans are almost the same as Rome, but give me anything, but Rome anytime!!!
Obviously the Queen's role is that of a constitutional monarch, so yes I agree that formality does plays the major role.
I'm no expert but I think that some sort of Crown Appointments committee recommends a shortlist of 2 to the PM, who then recommends 1 to the Queen who either accepts or rejects. Something like that, not totally sure.
So in a sense the Queen does make the actual final decision, but it would be uncharacteristic of her to make a stand.
I'm not a fan of the system, and reject the mixing of church and state. But, in fairness to the Queen she is renowned for working very hard and I would imagine that she would take a considerable interest in the appointment.
The point I was trying to make was a technical one that Parliament itself (as far as I recall) plays absolutely no role in the appointment.
The Prime Minister is acting solely as the Queen's foremost advisor, not as an elected Member of Parliament.
Oh no, we are all doomed! The UK have always had trouble with Romanist influence in power (hence the law in the first place). Cleaver trick of Tony to get it through on the premise of peace. I would never have thought of that.....
The appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury by Tony Blair proves to me that Parliament, not the Queen, has the real authority in the Church of England today. King John would be just as appalled as Pope Innocent III. While royal autocracy is dangerous, so is Parliamentary tyranny.
This is a hard one. The British monarch is supposed to be head of the Anglican Church. If the monarch isn't an Anglican, who is head of the Church?
I don't think Charles is too likely to become an RC (even if it's only because he might have to give up any idea of marrying Camilla); but he seems to be casting his gaze beyond the Anglican communion. At one stage he showed an interest in Islam, but lately he's been paying a lot of attention to Greek Orthodoxy.
1
There are a total of 8 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
