johnny botwright
Member
- Feb 25, 2010
- 957
- 0
There has been found at ground zero the remains of an 18th century ship.
I wonder if there is any conection to this 18th century law, that could stop Charles becoming King?
and put others before Andrew?
even bring the monachary down, the whole pack of cards, the twin towers?
would it be fair to say, this 18th century law, does not allow a Monarch to be Catholic.?
or a Monarch to marry a Catholic, as Charles has.
Camilla had a Catholic wedding, so her wedding/marrage to Charles would not be reconized. by Rome.
what consession will be made. to the Pope and powers that are.
to make this right?
johnny
i had an engaging conversation with the Queen or her with my self, posted in the dreams forum, some intresting replys.
and i was left with one word/name from this conversation, very clear, with a lasting impression.
It was said almost as if it was the ace card being played.
the word / name Genevieve.
mean any thing to any one.
The Daily Mail
ANALYSIS:
Changing the act of succession would put a question mark over the monarchy
By Steve Doughty
Last updated at 2:35 PM on 27th March 2009.
Justice Secretary Jack Straw launched the review into the Act of Settlement last year
The Act of Settlement has long been a target of the political Left, who believe the 308-year-old pillar of the constitution is an offence against human rights.
Primogeniture, the automatic precedence of men over women in line for the throne which goes back as long as history has been written, is even more offensive to the diversity and equality lobby.
Campaigning against what the Left see as the twin evils of the Act and primogeniture began seriously at the turn of the Millennium, when the Guardian newspaper led the cause.
The Human Rights Act, which went into effect in 2000, gave a powerful boost to the idea.
Unhappiness has recently been shared by senior members of the Government. Justice Secretary Jack Straw launched a review of the Act of Settlement at the end of last year, calling it 'antiquated' and saying it discriminated against non-Protestants.
Leading Roman Catholics find the law irritating, although there has been no obvious sign of discontent among the millions of ordinary Catholics.
But the trouble with pulling down pillars of the constitution is that you never know what may fall with them.
Tinkering with either the 18th century law or the principle of primogeniture would put a question mark over the future of the monarchy, at a time when its popularity has been rocky.
The Act of Settlement was a law to ensure that the Roman Catholic Stuart dynasty, chased off the throne in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, could not return.
It barred any Catholic monarch or any monarch from marrying a Catholic, and paved the way for the arrival in 1714 of the Hanoverian dynasty with George I, the monarch from whom the present Queen is descended.
Repeal of the Act might even call into question the right of the Queen to be monarch.
The remnants of the Stuart dynasty now living in southern Germany might feel they had a better claim to the throne.
Removal of the Act of Settlement would threaten the position of the Church of England, England's state religion since 1534, when Henry VIII broke with Rome.
This would not worry some Church leaders. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said last year that disestablishment was 'by no means the end of the world'.
It would, however, be a further blow to Christianity and leave a major constitutional problem.
The role of the CofE is knotted deeply together with that of Parliament and the monarchy in centuries of constitutional law and practice.
The Church crowns the monarch and the monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church. Neither role could continue were the Church to be disestablished.
An end to primogeniture would be seen as a blow to the hereditary principle, already eroded by the removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords.
johnny
I wonder if there is any conection to this 18th century law, that could stop Charles becoming King?
and put others before Andrew?
even bring the monachary down, the whole pack of cards, the twin towers?
would it be fair to say, this 18th century law, does not allow a Monarch to be Catholic.?
or a Monarch to marry a Catholic, as Charles has.
Camilla had a Catholic wedding, so her wedding/marrage to Charles would not be reconized. by Rome.
what consession will be made. to the Pope and powers that are.
to make this right?
johnny
i had an engaging conversation with the Queen or her with my self, posted in the dreams forum, some intresting replys.
and i was left with one word/name from this conversation, very clear, with a lasting impression.
It was said almost as if it was the ace card being played.
the word / name Genevieve.
mean any thing to any one.
The Daily Mail
ANALYSIS:
Changing the act of succession would put a question mark over the monarchy
By Steve Doughty
Last updated at 2:35 PM on 27th March 2009.
Justice Secretary Jack Straw launched the review into the Act of Settlement last year
The Act of Settlement has long been a target of the political Left, who believe the 308-year-old pillar of the constitution is an offence against human rights.
Primogeniture, the automatic precedence of men over women in line for the throne which goes back as long as history has been written, is even more offensive to the diversity and equality lobby.
Campaigning against what the Left see as the twin evils of the Act and primogeniture began seriously at the turn of the Millennium, when the Guardian newspaper led the cause.
The Human Rights Act, which went into effect in 2000, gave a powerful boost to the idea.
Unhappiness has recently been shared by senior members of the Government. Justice Secretary Jack Straw launched a review of the Act of Settlement at the end of last year, calling it 'antiquated' and saying it discriminated against non-Protestants.
Leading Roman Catholics find the law irritating, although there has been no obvious sign of discontent among the millions of ordinary Catholics.
But the trouble with pulling down pillars of the constitution is that you never know what may fall with them.
Tinkering with either the 18th century law or the principle of primogeniture would put a question mark over the future of the monarchy, at a time when its popularity has been rocky.
The Act of Settlement was a law to ensure that the Roman Catholic Stuart dynasty, chased off the throne in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, could not return.
It barred any Catholic monarch or any monarch from marrying a Catholic, and paved the way for the arrival in 1714 of the Hanoverian dynasty with George I, the monarch from whom the present Queen is descended.
Repeal of the Act might even call into question the right of the Queen to be monarch.
The remnants of the Stuart dynasty now living in southern Germany might feel they had a better claim to the throne.
Removal of the Act of Settlement would threaten the position of the Church of England, England's state religion since 1534, when Henry VIII broke with Rome.
This would not worry some Church leaders. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said last year that disestablishment was 'by no means the end of the world'.
It would, however, be a further blow to Christianity and leave a major constitutional problem.
The role of the CofE is knotted deeply together with that of Parliament and the monarchy in centuries of constitutional law and practice.
The Church crowns the monarch and the monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church. Neither role could continue were the Church to be disestablished.
An end to primogeniture would be seen as a blow to the hereditary principle, already eroded by the removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords.
johnny
How did you go from a ship, to some old law and then to the RCC?