why not "Sir?

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:54:42 +0200, Öjevind Lång
<bredband.net.TakeThisOut@ojevind.lang> wrote:

>"John Wright" <john.TakeThisOut@pegasus.f2s.com> skrev i meddelandet
>news:v8ednRpMWYN3yjnVRVnyjQA@pipex.net...
>
>[snip]
>
>> It may well be - there is still a law in the UK which prevents the heir to
>> the throne marrying a Roman Catholic, as well as many others. There is the
>> establishment of the CofE to consider as well.
>
>To my knowledge, Camilla Parker Bowles did not abandon Catholicism when she
>married Prince Charles.

She didn't abandon Catholicism for the simple reason that she was not
a Catholic. Her first husband was (I think he converted during the
marriage) but she never was.

--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
 >> Stay informed about: why not "Sir? 

"John Wright" <john DeleteThis @pegasus.f2s.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:l7WdnRCRebr4ojnVnZ2dnUVZ8vWdnZ2d@pipex.net...

[snip]

>> But, joking aside, persecution of Catholics followed pretty quickly after
>> the founding of the C of E. When he nationalized the monasteries, Henry
>> was committed, and so were the nobility who bought former Church lands.
>> There were religious persecutions in the next several reigns (though
>> during Mary's it went the opposite direction), and as someone has already
>> pointed out, Catholics were denied full civil rights for three centuries
>> after Henry's reign.

Henry wasn't committed to Protestantism. In fact, he persecuted and executed
Protestants. And quite a lot of the conifscated Church lands fell into the
hands of Catholic nobles who were allied to Henry. Henry's stance was
similar to that of the gallicans in France a little later: they were
Catolics but didn't want to take orders from the Pope. It wasn't until
Napoleon made his concordate with the Pope in 1800 (following on a period of
persecution of Catholicism after the revolution) that the Pope got control
of church affairs in France.
In Catholic countries, Protestants were denied full rights or burned at
the stake for three centuries. Let's not start a game of "Who is the bigger
martyr".

Öjevind
 >> Stay informed about: why not "Sir? 

On 14 août, 21:51, Öjevind Lång <bredband.....DeleteThis@ojevind.lang> wrote:
> "John Wright" <j....DeleteThis@pegasus.f2s.com> skrev i meddelandetnews:l7WdnRCRebr4ojnVnZ2dnUVZ8vWdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> [snip]
>
> >> But, joking aside, persecution of Catholics followed pretty quickly after
> >> the founding of the C of E. When he nationalized the monasteries, Henry
> >> was committed, and so were the nobility who bought former Church lands..
> >> There were religious persecutions in the next several reigns (though
> >> during Mary's it went the opposite direction), and as someone has already
> >> pointed out, Catholics were denied full civil rights for three centuries
> >> after Henry's reign.
>
> Henry wasn't committed to Protestantism. In fact, he persecuted and executed
> Protestants. And quite a lot of the conifscated Church lands fell into the
> hands of Catholic nobles who were allied to Henry. Henry's stance was
> similar to that of the gallicans in France a little later: they were
> Catolics but didn't want to take orders from the Pope. It wasn't until
> Napoleon made his concordate with the Pope in 1800 (following on a period of
> persecution of Catholicism after the revolution) that the Pope got control
> of church affairs in France.
>   In Catholic countries, Protestants were denied full rights or burned at
> the stake for three centuries. Let's not start a game of "Who is the bigger
> martyr".
>
> Öjevind

Will we see the traditional wing of the Anglican Church unite with the
Patriotic Catholic Church of China?
 >> Stay informed about: why not "Sir? 

Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:54:42 +0200 from Öjevind Lång
<bredband.net RemoveThis @ojevind.lang>:
> To my knowledge, Camilla Parker Bowles did not abandon Catholicism when she
> married Prince Charles. The rule is that the monarch may not be a Catholic.

While your second sentence is true, it's not the whole truth.
Legislation dating back to pre-Hanoverian times also says that anyone
who marries a Catholics barred from succeeding to the throne.

The Prince of Wales undoubtedly knows this, so if Ms. Parker Bowles
(as she then was) was a Catholic before her marriage (which I've not
heard before), then I am dead certain she conformed to the C of E
before the ceremony, at least publicly. No one but she can know her
private feelings in the matter, but they are not legally relevant.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
 >> Stay informed about: why not "Sir? 

Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:52:13 -0400 from John W Kennedy
<jwkenne RemoveThis @attglobal.net>:
> It should be noted, however, that Elizabeth employed a
> don't-ask-don't-tell policy until a new pope decided to put out a
> contract on her.

She was amazingly enlightened for her day, with her desire not to
"open a window into men's souls" (if I have the phrase right).

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
 >> Stay informed about: why not "Sir? 

"Gary" <specializedallez.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:48a44978$0$4022$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net...

[snip]

> Getting back to the original question...
> Do you believe a primary reason for Tolkien being limited to a "Commander"
> rather than "Sir" J.R.R. is his Catholic allegiance?

I think he didn't get a knighthood because there was still a rathr
dismissive attitude to fantasy writing at the time.

Öjevind
 >> Stay informed about: why not "Sir? 

Can't that be rectified????

Öjevind Lång wrote:
> "Gary" <specializedallez DeleteThis @yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
> news:48a44978$0$4022$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net...
>
> [snip]
>
>> Getting back to the original question...
>> Do you believe a primary reason for Tolkien being limited to a
>> "Commander" rather than "Sir" J.R.R. is his Catholic allegiance?
>
> I think he didn't get a knighthood because there was still a rathr
> dismissive attitude to fantasy writing at the time.
>
> Öjevind
 >> Stay informed about: why not "Sir? 

Gary wrote:
> Öjevind Lång wrote:
>> "Gary" <specializedallez.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
>> news:48a44978$0$4022$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Getting back to the original question...
>>> Do you believe a primary reason for Tolkien being limited to a
>>> "Commander" rather than "Sir" J.R.R. is his Catholic allegiance?
>>
>> I think he didn't get a knighthood because there was still a rathr
>> dismissive attitude to fantasy writing at the time.

> Can't that be rectified????


The persistent appearance of LOTR at the top of various polls (just
*one* example being the BBC's Big Read poll) is one aspect of this
rectification.


--
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin
 >> Stay informed about: why not "Sir? 

"John W Kennedy" <jwkenne.TakeThisOut@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:48a4a83b$0$20910$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> Öjevind Lång wrote:
> > The rule is that the monarch may not be a
>> Catholic.
>
> Neither may the consort.

>
The person who prepared the succession list at
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5655.asp
appears to believe that, if everyone ahead of the Duke of Kent in the line
of
succession were to die, he would become King (and his wife would presumably
become Queen Consort). That person also appears to believe that the Earl of
St Andres and Prince Michael of Kent are not in the succession.
The difference is that the Duke of Kent's wife was Protestant at the time of
the
marriage and converted later, while Lady St Andrews and Princess Michael
were RC's when they married.
(NB - I realise that a certain contributor to this thread may hold a
different view.
He is of course entitled to that view, just as every other contributor is
entitled to
decide whether to agree with him or with the official website of the British
Monarchy).
--
Your right to extend your fist ends where my nose begins.
And so does your right to exhale smoke.
 >> Stay informed about: why not "Sir? 

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:15:26 +0100, "Graham Truesdale"
<graham.truesdale DeleteThis @tiscali.nospam.com> wrote:

>"John W Kennedy" <jwkenne DeleteThis @attglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:48a4a83b$0$20910$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>> Öjevind Lång wrote:
>> > The rule is that the monarch may not be a
>>> Catholic.
>>
>> Neither may the consort.
>
>>
>The person who prepared the succession list at
>http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5655.asp
>appears to believe that, if everyone ahead of the Duke of Kent in the line
>of
>succession were to die, he would become King (and his wife would presumably
>become Queen Consort). That person also appears to believe that the Earl of
>St Andres and Prince Michael of Kent are not in the succession.
>The difference is that the Duke of Kent's wife was Protestant at the time of
>the
>marriage and converted later, while Lady St Andrews and Princess Michael
>were RC's when they married.
>(NB - I realise that a certain contributor to this thread may hold a
>different view.
>He is of course entitled to that view, just as every other contributor is
>entitled to
>decide whether to agree with him or with the official website of the British
>Monarchy).

I am always irritated by the excessive reverence shown to "the
official website of the British Monarchy". It has been caught out in
serious errors many times, and seems remarkably slow to correct them.
Those who compile it seem to have a rather limited knowledge of both
history and law. It certainly has no special authority to prnounce on
matters of law (although in this particular case I think it is
probably right).

--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
 >> Stay informed about: why not "Sir? 

Öjevind Lång wrote:

> In Catholic countries, Protestants were denied full rights or burned at
> the stake for three centuries.

Really? There were still stake-burnings in the 19th Century?

> Let's not start a game of "Who is the bigger martyr".

OK, since only you have brought up the Catholic countries; the rest of
the thread is about persecution of English Catholics by the Anglicans.

But it should be mentioned that it was the general European appetite
for religious persecution that so disgusted the framers of the U.S.
Constitution that the they separated church and state.


-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
 >> Stay informed about: why not "Sir? 

John Wright wrote:

>> Mind you, I think no country should have a state religion.
>
> This debate in the UK has been going on since the 19th century.

I am firmly on the side of antidisestablishmentarianism since it's
such a cool word. Mind you, I have no idea which side that puts me on!


--

-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
 >> Stay informed about: why not "Sir? 

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:11:06 -0400, Flame of the West
<SPAM_ME_NOT_jsolinas RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote:

>Öjevind Lång wrote:
>
>> In Catholic countries, Protestants were denied full rights or burned at
>> the stake for three centuries.
>
>Really? There were still stake-burnings in the 19th Century?
>
>> Let's not start a game of "Who is the bigger martyr".
>
>OK, since only you have brought up the Catholic countries; the rest of
>the thread is about persecution of English Catholics by the Anglicans.
>
>But it should be mentioned that it was the general European appetite
>for religious persecution that so disgusted the framers of the U.S.
>Constitution that the they separated church and state.

Actually, from what I've always understood, it was more the fact that
most of the Colonies had Established Churches of their own -- and they
weren't all the same denomination. The Federal Government was
prevented from establishing a church because each State wanted to be
free to continue to have its own or, in some cases, to have none. They
definitely did not want the Federal Government to establish a church
different from their Established Church.

The last Established Church was disestablished in the 1820's, IIRC.
The word "antidisestablishmentarian" denotes an individual who wanted
to keep the Established Church established.
--
"A portent, therefore, happens not contrary to nature,
but contrary to what we know as nature."
 >> Stay informed about: why not "Sir?