Would Queen breach her constitutional oath by meeting the Pope?

Interesting session at the beginning of Sunday Sequence last Sunday, which Will Crawley highlights on his blog… Wallace Thompson suggests the Queen would be in breach of her oath if she met the Pope on his state visit… Evangelicals are a small part of the Ulster population which nevertheless are disproportionately influential with political parties since those that become involved, tend to number amongst the more committed activists… But they also tend to be more narrowly focused when it comes to bringing their religious views to bare on their politics. Will thinks there is no such breach, but it is nevertheless something of a political headache for some of Unionist parties seeking to carry wider provenance in Northern Irish society…

  • Greenflag

    These ‘evangelicals ‘ need to be confronted not placated . They and their political adjuncts have referred to a succession of British Prime Minister’s as ‘traitors ‘. They started with Harold Wilson and have included even Margaret Thatcher on the ‘traitors’ list .

    So it’s the Queen’s turn ? Breach of oath ? So if she’s found guilty is it to be the stake or a beheading ?

    These ‘evangelicals’ are from another century i.e the 17th .

    ‘it is nevertheless something of a political headache for some of Unionist parties seeking to carry wider provenance in Northern Irish society’

    Seeking wider provenance ? How ? Where ? When ? By whom ?

    The Ulster Unionist Association of South Belfast ?

    Pull the other one 😉

  • deirdre

    Give me strength! It would be pretty damn rude for our head of state to refuse to meet another who’s visisting the UK. Is Wallace now going to call on all loyal Prods to boycott the Queen or lead an insurrection against her?
    It seem this is DUP policy now going by Ian McCrea’s comments on the subject. They’ve been remarkably quiet on this one

  • Mark McGregor

    It’ll never happen.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/69752259@N00/1550119017/

    We did get in a time machine and go back to 26th May 1982 to make this somehow relevant?

  • percy

    that’s what I thought Mark, its happened already

  • PaddyReilly

    Well at least she’ll know what to wear:- http://url.ie/2lbr

  • Drumlins Rock

    As one of those evangelical prods I think I can say most evangelicals I know would not follow Ian McCrea way of thinking, however a vocal minority would. The general view I think is he might not be welcomed with open arms by all but he should be given the same honours that any other head of state is due, and the Queen as our Head of State should perform those duties to her usual exceptional standards.
    The trickier bit is if the Pope meets HM as Head of the Church of England and it is protrayed as another step in the process of “returning Anglicans to the fold”, it would be very clumsy of Downing Street, Buckingham Palace & the Vatican allow that to happen.
    Ideally there should be a clear seperation of the Religious and Diplomatic parts of the visit.
    Finally it is quite unusual for a meeting to take place between 2 people who carry ememse prestige and influence, but with little real power, are they both meeting “their equal”? the body language will be interesting!

  • Mick Fealty

    Can you use url.ie to shorten the picture url… otherwise it screws the formatting…

  • Greenflag

    drumlins rock ,

    ‘Ideally there should be a clear seperation of the Religious and Diplomatic parts of the visit.’

    Even more ideally there should be a clear separation of Church and State in the UK.

    I’m not sure about Iran but I believe only the UK and the Vatican are the only States on the planet in which the Head of State is also Head of the Church .

  • Martin

    I believe in disestablishment but the UK and the Vatican are not alone in this. The Queen of Denmark is Head of the National (Lutheran) Chursh in Denmark. As head of the National Church, the monarch must belong to the same (article 6 of the Danish Constitution). This applies to the whole royal house as well. As a result, the Prince Consort Henrik converted from Catholicism before marrying the Queen in 1968, and Mary Donaldson also converted from Anglicanism before marrying Crown Prince Frederik in 2004.

    It is silly but you can’t pin it on some unique British foible.

  • igor

    What utter utter nonsense.

    Perhaps Mr Thompson and Co should have a chat with their invisible friend. He is more likely to listen to them than the rest of us.

    In any case in Roman Catholic eyes isn’t the Queen still technically an apostate who has been excommunicated from the Holy Mother Church and who leads a false church. One and a half steps away from the Antichrist and leading millions of poor deluded souls to damnation!! So in Catholic terms, should the Pope be speaking to Liz?

    Anyway if Papa Doc can talk with Marty I am sure that the Queen can converse with the Pope, although if she later applies for membership of the OO it might be a problem so if I were her I would keep it low key to keep my options open.

    Still I am sure the chat will fascinating

    Q “And what do you do my man”

    P “I’m da Pope”

    Q “That is very interesting. Nice weather we are having”

    Alan

  • Thereyouarenow

    The pope should not be meeting members of the no catholics allowed royal family until the law that singularly prohibits the monarch or future monarch from marrying a catholic is repealed.

    That such a law can still exist today in what is supposed to be a pluralist democratic society displays clearly to catholics in NI how equal (i.e. some are more equal than others) the British establishment views catholics.

  • Thereyouarenow

    Should the pope slip in a side door and have a second class meeting with the no catholics allowed royal family.

  • Jimmy Sands

    His Holiness should not do anything to acknowledge the illegitimate claims of the Hanoverian usurpers.

  • Democratic

    The big question is will the wee man with the funny hat bend over for her highness or will the wee woman with the funny voice kiss his holiness’s ring? ooh-er…..

  • Democratic

    LOL – My unelected head of church & state wrapped in the trappings of a bygone age and empire is morally superior to yours…….

  • Brian MacAodh

    “In any case in Roman Catholic eyes isn’t the Queen still technically an apostate who has been excommunicated from the Holy Mother Church and who leads a false church. One and a half steps away from the Antichrist and leading millions of poor deluded souls to damnation!! So in Catholic terms, should the Pope be speaking to Liz?”

    What is this, the 17th century???

  • ?????

    “In any case in Roman Catholic eyes isn’t the Queen still technically an apostate who has been excommunicated….”

    So, how do you excommunicte someone who was never in communion in the first place?

  • Thereyouarenow

    Democrat said

    “LOL – My unelected head of church & state wrapped in the trappings of a bygone age and empire is morally superior to yours…….”

    Darn it your right.

    Down with the two of them

    All Hail “Thereyouarenow”

  • PaddyReilly

    Can you use url.ie to shorten the picture url…

    I would love to. Can you explain how it is done.

  • Isabella Regnum

    “In any case in Roman Catholic eyes isn’t the Queen still technically an apostate who has been excommunicated….”

    So, how do you excommunicte someone who was never in communion in the first place?

    ::::::::

    The Anglican Church, founded on the balls of Hnery V11, still tries to get legitimacy, something like the CIRA, RIRA, with whom they have a lot in common – or with the Lefebre movement.

    The key thing is tracing the link back to Peter the Aposlte, not Henry the horn dog. To do that, something like CIRA, they must show that the flame has been passed on by apostolic successession.

    So the Pope and the Greek Patriarch should excommunicate her again to show that there are still hard feelings and that the old Hanoverian slapper canot get into the greatest club of all, the club of Romer, through which our holy father in heaven speaks to us. (in tongues but not in the garbled language called English).

  • Democratic

    LOL Isabella! – Hilarious post if you are indeed having a laugh – terrifying though if you aren’t….round these parts it’s sometimes hard to tell!

  • Brit

    Both against the Wall when the revolution comes. ;o)

  • Brit

    Along with Gerry and Marty the petit bourgeoise reactionary nationalist Bakuninites

  • The Holy Father ought to bypass Mrs. Windsor in favour of His Royal Majesty, Francis II.

  • Greenflag

    Update from the 17th , 18th , 19th and 20th centuries .

    We serve neither King , nor Kaiser , nor Queen nor Pope and certainly not the Archbishop of Canterbury and mind your rear end on the way out. But we do serve a nice pint of plain 😉

    And we all serve our Father who lives in Wall St whose investments have not been blest except in the past few months for a lucky few and we await the October meltdown with bated breadth -Amen .

  • ????

    Something tells me he’d rather meet the young princes.

  • CW

    “The pope should not be meeting members of the no catholics allowed royal family until the law that singularly prohibits the monarch or future monarch from marrying a catholic is repealed.”

    A valid point “Thereyouarenow”, but it could eaily work the other way. How about:

    “The Queen should not be meeting members of the no protestants allowed papacy until the law that singularly prohibits the pope or future pope from marrying a protestant is repealed.”

    Benny and Liz would make a good couple.

  • NCM

    Superstition v. superstition.

  • Eleanor Bull

    All this foaming at the mouth (by Wallace Thompson, whoever he is) is very amusing.

    If he did some homework (or “googling”) he’d discover she has already met the (previous) Pope.

    In the Vatican.

    In 1980.

    I can only assume that some of these evangelicals who imagine the world began less than 5000 years ago now regard history (in the matter of Papal-Monarchical tete a tetes) to have begun in 1981.

  • DR

    your completely wrong there Eleanor, history ENDED in 1975.

  • Greenflag

    martin ,

    ‘I believe in disestablishment but the UK and the Vatican are not alone in this. The Queen of Denmark is Head of the National (Lutheran) Church in Denmark.’

    Not a problem in Denmark where about 1% of the population are Catholic, another 98% stay in bed on Sundays and 1% are practicising supporters of the heretic Luther 😉 The UK is somewhat more diverse even if 90% prefer washing the car or mowing the lawn or visiting the garden centre .

    Now if above was the socio religious make up of Northern Ireland there would have been no troubles at all at all , and all (nearly all) the people who would not have died ,would not now be enjoying the benefits of heaven -oh yeah -and would instead still be enjoying the benefits of hell on earth 😉

  • #

    Along with Gerry and Marty the petit bourgeoise reactionary nationalist Bakuninites
    Posted by Brit on Oct 07, 2009 @ 05:39 PM

    Throw all those sectarian, narrow minded, parochial, insular bigoted unionist politicians while you’re at it. They’re just as evil and arguably more evil than Gerry and Marty.

  • The Reincarnation of Paul Revere’s Horse

    Ah c’mon now Wally, are ye not taking this whole religion thing a bit too seriously. Sure its only meant to be a laugh. Ah sure it amazes me what some people argue over.

  • John Brady’s Ghost

    John Brady got traditonal shots over the coffin. Not everyone has sold out for the saxon shilling. Not should we forget that it was a Pope, Nick Breakspeare, who fist got the Anglo Norman savages to come to our blessed isle of saints and scholars.

  • Brit

    “Throw all those sectarian, narrow minded, parochial, insular bigoted unionist politicians while you’re at it. They’re just as evil and arguably more evil than Gerry and Marty.”

    1. Yes there are reactionary bigoted Unionists/Loyalists and some are just as bad as the SF/PIRA leadership.

    2. I am not, of course, a revolutionary but a democratic socialist/ social-democrat so I don’t really approve of putting anyone against the Wall.

    3. I was trying in my admittedly not very funny way of showing the contraditions and hypocracies involved in “revolutionary/socialist” SF’s voters revering a living embodiement of reactionary superstition and obscurantism (as we, in the Left, used to call it), and then tryting to point out that there is nothing Marxist or socialist about sectarian romantic / totalitarian nationalism.

  • Prionsa Eoghann

    Paddy

    Just cut’n’paste into the designated box.

    http://tinyurl.com/

  • Greagoir O Frainclin

    “Would Queen breach her constitutional oath by meeting the Pope?”

    ……but she has already met him before!

  • Ellie, I did some googling and found this reference to Wallace Thompson in Ulster Bulwark:

    Wallace Thompson works for the Democratic Unionist Party in the NI Assembly. He was a special adviser to a DUP Minister from May 2007 – July 2009. Previously, he was a civil servant for 28 years. He also works on a part-time basis for the EPS, and has served as secretary of the EPS and editor of the Ulster Bulwark since 2000. He is Clerk of Session in Knock Evangelical Presbyterian Church in east Belfast and preaches regularly across the Province and beyond. Wallace lives near Stormont and is married with three grown up children. He is a member of the Independent Orange Institution, the Apprentice Boys of Derry and the Caleb Foundation.

  • Jimmy Sands

    “The Holy Father ought to bypass Mrs. Windsor in favour of His Royal Majesty, Francis II. ”

    Indeed. You’re either a monarchist or you’re not. In the immortal words of Python: “You don’t vote for Kings.”

  • An Lorgain

    The queen wore black when she was introduced to pope JP, afaik that’s a sign of respect to the [i]real[i] leader 🙂