British monarchy under threat of being opened up to [Roman] Catholics

It looks like we could be in for yet another installment of false rage now the DUP has endorsed a shared (sic) future platform.

The Telegraph is reporting that the political and constitutional reform committee have said that:

“The scenario does beg the question of whether it remains appropriate for the monarch to be required to be in communion with the Church of England.

“The most obvious difficulty in having a Catholic monarch — beyond the purely statutory obstacles — is the crown’s role as supreme governor of the Church of England.”

They will no doubt be enraged at the idea that a western democracy would enshrine, or not have repealed, laws that expressly enshrine casual discrimination against Catholics. It is hard to predict the impact on the DUP of the realisation that they live in a pseudotheocratic state with a relgious-cum-secular head.

Whilst, obvioiusly, DUP members, like Jeffrey Donaldson, recently protested their outrage that the British monarch might be allowed to marry a Roman Catholic. That was in the days before sharing. Now, presumably, the party will be throwing itself into a campaign in support of the removal of the necessary legal barriers. Certainly, the public utterances of the party’s members will give a clear sense of the depth of sharing the party wants with Catholics.

, , , , , ,

  • FuturePhysicist

    Surely the Orange Order owes its existence to the existence a Catholic Monarch?

  • This is the rub. Protestantism is first and foremost [as a Christian movement]centred on a negative aim, and not a positive one. They define themselves by what they’re against, not what they’re for. The obsession that the more fundamentalist among them [especially among the rednecks of the DUP here], have with the minutiae of Catholic theology, is undermining any positive message they have. The last thing Protestantism needs is wee Jeffrey extolling their virtues.

  • Alias

    I would think it highly unlikely that Willian will divorce Kate and marry a wee lass from Derry but then I guess you never know if this *utterly outrageous sectarian discrimination* (outburst of false rage) will ever have any practical consequence in NI.

    On the other hand, a Lord Mayor (of the capital city of Northern Ireland) snubbing a young girl because of her constitutional affiliation will have practical consequences in NI.

  • Cynic2

    “They will no doubt be enraged at the idea that a western democracy would enshrine, or not have repealed, laws that expressly enshrine casual discrimination against Catholics.”

    What? Like allowing Catholic schools to discriminate against Protestants who apply for teaching jobs?

  • FuturePhysicist

    There are Protestant teachers in Catholic schools.

    Do Protestant and Integrated schools discriminate priests, even if they don’t teach RS?

  • Kilmore

    John quite correctly places ‘Roman’ in brackets. After all, the monarch by virtue of being supreme governor of the Church of England is already a Catholic, albeit one, as with the church of which she is the figurehead, who is not in communion with Rome. All practicing Anglicans will recite either the Nicene Creed or the Apostle’s Creed on a weekly/daily basis. The language can take the form of that contained in the 1662 Prayer Book or something more contemporary. Amongst other things, this serves to affirm the worshiper’s belief in one holy catholic and apostolic church. In addition, as a large constituency within Anglicanism accepts the real presence and transubstantiation, then the Church of England, the Scottish Episcopal Church and even elements within the Church of Ireland are much closer in outlook and practice to that of Rome than their evangelical and presbyterian brethren. The legacy of Newman, Keble, Pusey et al is more than evident within the Anglican Communion. Perhaps this has escaped the attention of certain Ulster Protestants due to the more democratic structure of their churches – i.e. lack of an episcopacy – and their non-celebration of the eucharist. Happily, these are non-issues for the vast majority of people in the UK. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for parts of north east Ulster.

  • In this context, I would love to know the precise nature of the “threat”. Would Protestants have to accept the supremacy of the Pope, for example, should a Catholic ascent to the throne?

  • dwatch

    Alias “I would think it highly unlikely that Willian will divorce Kate and marry a wee lass from Derry”

    What could be possible is if Kate converted to Catholicism and insist any Children they both have be brought up in the Catholic faith. Wee Jeffery & the OO would go ballistic.

  • Alias

    They’re actors. That type of dissent isn’t in the script. It’s basically TOWIE with lots of perks…

    Besides, is it only the Shinner brand of ‘republicans’ who dream of marriage into the Royal family? I can’t exclusion as a serious issue now that heads aren’t being lopped off over it. True, some OO fanatics might see it as the Jacobites in the ascendancy and see it as their loyal duty to be ever-vigilant but they’re mad anyway…

  • USA

    Getting rid of the requirement for the British monarch to be of the Protestant faith would obviously be a good thing.
    It is an interesting test of Britain’s maturity and it’s commitment to a pluralist democratic principles. As it would also be of other countries. Many have already passed the test and have no sectarian, racial or gender based requirements of the figure-head.

    It will be an even greater test of DUP maturity and commitment to pluralist democratic principles. But I strongly suspect this is another issue that will again lay bare the bi-polar nature of the DUP. It will be painful for Robinson to watch as the various DUP talking heads are quoted in the media and expose the weakness of Robinson’s attempted rapprochement to Catholic voters. His project has already been recently undermined by the pronouncements of his underlings, and further expressions of disquiet that a Catholic could be monarch will obviously sit very uneasily with the Irish Catholic electorate. Blue Peters Project will take another torpedo below the water line, and all because of the monarchy….ohhhh the irony.

  • Harry Flashman

    If you want a secular state then by all means have one, remove the place of protestantism from the British constitution where it is very much enshrined as it is in those bastions of bigotry Norway, Sweden and Denmark if I am not mistaken. Rip the heart out of the political basis of centuries of peaceful evolution and replace it with some nice “modern” touchy feely system that doesn’t “offend” anyone.

    But do so for the right reasons and in full knowledge of the consequences, do not tinker with one minor element of the system overthrow the entire British constitutional settlement and get on with it.

    I mean come on, why would anyone wish to maintain a beautifully subtle constitution which has prevailed for three centuries and which has led to democracy and civil liberty and evolved political and legal reform without red revolution and bloody civil war as tended to happen in other less benign realms?

    The British put their political system in direct opposition to the Vatican for very good reason. The Taoiseach of the so-called Republic of Ireland has only got around to doing so very recently.

    It’s only tradition and history after all, who needs that old mumbo-jumbo in this modern world?

    The world needs more “reforms”, there can never be enough “reform”.

  • Reader

    madraj55: The obsession that the more fundamentalist among them [especially among the rednecks of the DUP here], have with the minutiae of Catholic theology, is undermining any positive message they have.
    Well, one of the things you and they have in common is a shared bit of scripture: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.”
    So there is a big prize at stake for the peacemaker who will stop fussing over the “minutiae” – i.e. the Assumption, Immaculate Conception, Transubstantiation and Papal Authority. (have I missed any?).
    What peacemaker will make the first move?

  • Alanbrooke

    Of course if we did get a Catholic monarch would the unionists seek a republic and the nationalists beome strong monarchists ?

  • Cynic2

    “There are Protestant teachers in Catholic schools”

    In some there are but they can and do discriminate in favour of Catholics – who will be in tune with the pastoral care needs and ethos of the school

  • Cynic2

    ” if we did get a Catholic monarch ”

    Only a minority would give a stuff

  • carl marks

    Reader, says
    So there is a big prize at stake for the peacemaker who will stop fussing over the “minutiae” – i.e. the Assumption, Immaculate Conception, Transubstantiation and Papal Authority. (have I missed any?).
    What peacemaker will make the first move?
    So basically what your saying is that if Catholics become protestants then you wouldn’t have a problem with one on the throne.
    Most people would regard a peacemaker as someone who accepts other people difference and lives with them, the “minutiae” you refer to (silly as they are) are key parts of catholic theology and for someone to suggest that they give them up and you might treat them as equals betrays a level of intolerance that runs deep.

  • ayeYerMa

    This issue is often brought up by Nationalists and media commentators who are stuck in an over-simplified “Peace Process” mindset of “Prod v. Taig”, and use it as a stick to try and beat and point-score against Unionists. They do so while usually showing ignorance to the fact that Unionists who are Presbyterians, Methodists, Atheists, Agnostics (and dare I say it in case I offend Republican delusionists, RCs) outnumber Anglicans by some margin.

    I would hazard a guess that the proportion of Anglicans within the DUP and their voters is even less than the Unionist vote as a whole.

    Then again, I could also complain that I am around 45634567th in line to the throne and that it all matters for sweet FA. Personally, as a religious agnostic, I would prefer that any preferred religion is removed from the monarch as this would send out a more secular message. I would also be in favour retaining a ban on any monarch who would swear allegiance to a foreign power such as the Vatican – this is sensible, and perhaps could be implemented in terms of some form of oath.

  • Reader

    carl marks: So basically what your saying is that if Catholics become protestants then you wouldn’t have a problem with one on the throne.
    I wouldn’t have a problem with one right now. I think I would rather have an Assumptionist on the throne than a Creationist, for instance. Though it was madraj55 who referred to the differences as minutiae. I was wondering if he had considered the actual list, and how important they might be to religious types on *both* sides. (i.e. – not to me)

  • Drumlins Rock

    Mad ra, Protestant, from latin root, pro = for, testan = to testify, to protest against comes from the same roots of course but neither had the same negative meanings you give them. Doctrine wise most of what we believe we share with the Roman and other Catholic churches, and indeed Orthodox churches in various forms. But reject many later teachings that were added and we generally believe contradict the bible teachings.
    With regards the Monarch the main issue remains that of being head of the Church of England, the issue of a Roman Catholic Monarch is not possible so long as that remains the case, nor should it be sufficient grounds to call for disestablishment, that should be argued on its own merits. With that regards I am still an antidisestablishmentarianist, but mainly because I like using the big word.
    Spouse wise, if religion is an important element in your life then it is probably advisable you spouse shares you faith, as head of the Church of England it is taken for granted the teaching of that faith are important in your life, so therefore you should really have an Anglican spouse.
    Are these issues enough to turn Orangemen into Nationalists if altered to allow a Roman Catholic Monarch? umm no. it aint a big issue, nice wee one to play with like the annual christmas stamps debate but not gonna make one bit of difference, in fact the possibility of making the Union more attractive to Catholics is much more realsitic.

  • between the bridges

    If we got a RC monarch, would his/her majesty side with the holy fathers view that Protestantism is not a proper religion, and that protestant ministers are phony? Would this cause any difficulties in dealing with the archbishop of Canterbury or would that be an ecumenical question?

  • Framer

    Perhaps the position of head of state of the internationally recognised Vatican could be opened up to non-Catholics in a balancing measure?

    The concept of ‘false rage,’ which is being touted so much of late here, illuminates an important aspect of northern Republicanism which is based on something similar that is not faux.

    That anger and rage which was the motor of their unwarranted thirty year war is certainly synthetic and can be turned on or off or up at the will of the leadership. Just a pity the foot soldiers never saw that.

  • Alan N/Ards

    I would say that most of the christian’s in Northern Ireland from a “unionist” background believe that Christ is the head of the church not the monarch. I wouldn’t lose one minutes sleep if the king/queen is a RC, Jew etc as I give my allegiance to a greater power. The queen has done a fantastic job and is no doubt a wonderful person but she is not Christ. She is just like the pope in that regard. Both of them are no more special than you or me as Christ is the head of the Christian church. Here endeth the sermon.

  • Alias

    The irony is that the ‘false rage’ is on the nationalist side on this issue, not where John puts it.

    I’d like to see a family of Hare Krishna members on the throne. If for no other reason that those orange outfits and, erm, minimalist hairstyles will stop another generation of hardline republican women from West Belfast styling their hair and clothes fashion after another princess….

  • Reader. Most Catholics these days don’t obsess over the various aspects of Catholic theology, but pay only lip service the those you cited, [Assumption etc] already. They[in N.I at least] define themselves by the political identity,[nationalist] not the catholic one as there’s little to be proud of in being catholic now. On the other side, high profile unionist politicians [PR a notable exception],still define themselves by the religious label, [their protestantism], which is a label imposed on them before they were able to think through any of it. A convenient tool to imply negatives about the other side.

  • Barnshee

    FP

    “There are Protestant teachers in Catholic schools.

    Do Protestant and Integrated schools discriminate priests, even if they don’t teach RS?”

    A complete load of crap A protestant cannot apply for a post in an RC school because of the “requirement to contribute to the catholic ethos of the school”

    FOI request to Dept of Education “how many protestants have obtained post as SUPPLY TEACHERS in RC schools (note just supply teaching just the odd period etc)

    Answer –None

    WTF is a roman catholic doing in a state school when protestants are unable to access employment in RC schools?

    “Do Protestant and Integrated schools discriminate priests, even if they don’t teach RS?
    WTF would priests be doing in “protestant” schools

    Separate out the Monarchy from the CofE and let them marry whoever they want

  • DoppiaVu

    Alias

    “I’d like to see a family of Hare Krishna members on the throne.”

    I agree with much of your reasoning, but you’re forgetting they are vegetarian so that’s just unacceptable. I want my monarch to be from a meat-eating religion, even if that religion that doesn’t allow you to eat the whole wonderful range of meats and meat-related products.

    That’s why its so great to be a Christian, you can eat any old crap you want.

  • SK

    The cries of ‘no big deal’ from unionists demonstrate that they miss the point completely. It is outrageous for a modern, plauralist state to discriminate against its citizens on religious grounds. Full stop.

    If the south imposed a rule declaring that Protestants were automatically ineligable for the office of president, the same Unionists would be the first to point and whinge.

    Evidently sectarianism is only sectarian when it’s a Prod at the receiving end.

  • Reader

    madraj55: Most Catholics these days don’t obsess over the various aspects of Catholic theology, but pay only lip service the those you cited
    Then aren’t they actually Protestants? And, since the topic actually is religious faith and the monarchy, why on earth are you trying to obscure it with national identity and culture? There are English Catholics too, you know.
    (By the way, I think I left out one of the beliefs from the list in my first post – Intercession, Does it still apply?).

  • DoppiaVu

    “It is outrageous for a modern, plauralist state to discriminate against its citizens on religious grounds. Full stop.”

    Agreed.

    But as for those bloody vegans

  • CoisteBodhar

    I’d like to see the recently married couple have a first born daughter grow up and fall hopelessly in love with a Muslim.

  • @USA – “It is an interesting test of Britain’s maturity and it’s commitment to a pluralist democratic principles. As it would also be of other countries. Many have already passed the test and have no sectarian, racial or gender based requirements of the figure-head.”

    Ain’t nothing democratic about the UK’s brand of monarchy.

  • Alan N/Ards

    I am in favour of referendum being held to drop this ban. I would personally vote for the ban to dropped.

    slightly of track here but in last weeks Sunday Times there was an article about the new papal nuncio to the Republic. Archbishop Charles Brown has been made the dean of the diplomatic corp. His first duty as leader of the diplomatic corp will be to lead all the diplomats to Aras an Uachtarain on 18.1.12 to meet President Higgins. President Higgins in a debate (Murphy report)in the dail in December 2009 was critical of the Republic giving this title to the papal nuncio as the nuncio Giuseppe Leanza had refused to appear before the foreign affairs committee and the murphy commission.

    Is this so called independant country falling back into line, as they did for decades, and giving special privileges to the servants of the vatican? Anybody any thoughts

  • carl marks

    Well it seems some things never change, a line that seems to run through some posts here is just versions of the old unionist one of, “ i wouldn’t have a taig about the place”. How can we trust them sure aren’t they all plotting with the pope to kill us in our beds, they don’t believe in the same as us so you can’t trust them,
    also Many posters also don’t seem to be able to tell the difference between the pope (the head of a religion and a monarch (the head of state), hence the silly call for a prod Pope as if this was comparable to a catholic king or queen, perhaps if i was to explain the archbishop of Canterbury is the head of the Church of England. The monarch should represent no religion or be a guarantor of freedom of belief for all. Check your watches’ boy and girls it’s not the 16th century anymore, and you wonder why the rest of the world regards you as redneck bigots.

  • sonofstrongbow

    The “line” that is running through the posts here is one of bigoted misdirection by the thread author. He ignores the quote he reproduces in his piece, the one that refers to the difficulty in having a Roman Catholic monarch given the monarch’s role vis-a-vis the Anglican Church, to go off on one about “enshrined” bigotry.

    Anyone who can compose the word ‘google’ can discover how and why the UK has a Protestant monarchy, but I guess it’s too much temptation not to play the MOPE card.

    An argument can be advanced on the potential difficulties a Roman Catholic may present. A few months ago there was a row in Scotland when Roman Catholic Church leaders called on politicians to vote with their religious conscience against legislation on gay marriage. Perhaps it is not too much of a stretch to imagine the Church calling on the Head of State not to sign into law something that challenges religious sensibilities. Such a row could escalate drawing in the Pope, Vatican Head of State, calling on his UK opposite number to fall into line.

  • Reader 1.54 p.m. I haven’t a clue whether ‘intercession’ is current or not. I paid little attention for decades, and especially since the child abuse cases began to be known.

  • Drumlins Rock

    Hey guys, it could we worse, the yanks could be on their way to getting a Mormon Head of State, a taig might not be so bad after all!

  • SK

    few months ago there was a row in Scotland when Roman “Catholic Church leaders called on politicians to vote with their religious conscience against legislation on gay marriage. Perhaps it is not too much of a stretch to imagine the Church calling on the Head of State not to sign into law something that challenges religious sensibilities.”

    _

    And what if the Catholic Church called on its followers to refuse to perform some specific medical procedure, or to arrest people for certain crimes? Should we stop taigs from being doctors and policemen too, just in case?

  • Such a row could escalate drawing in the Pope, Vatican Head of State, calling on his UK opposite number to fall into line.

    Isn’t that what started it all in the first place?

  • sonofstrongbow

    SK,

    Yes, if they consider complying with the demands.

    Police and doctors are relatively ease to sack and their departure would not have any constitutional ramifications whatsoever.

    Joe,

    You could very well be correct.

  • unicorn

    The laugh of this whole debate is that the “monarchists” are almost all actually republicans* who want a pretendy “monarchy” and the “Roman Catholics” are all Protestants who want a pretendy Catholic church, but believe what they like and wear rubber johnnys.

    You couldn’t make it up.

    *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

    Both sides won’t admit what they actually are.

  • SK

    “Police and doctors are relatively ease to sack and their departure would not have any constitutional ramifications whatsoever.”

    _

    Again, a unionist misses the point completely.

    You say that Catholics can’t be trusted to be head of state because the Pope might one day cajole them into doing something dodgy, Essentially, you’re saying that Catholics shouldn’t be put in a position of authority because they simply cannot be trusted.

    Backwards.

    Perhaps it would be easier for you to provide a list of jobs that you feel should be Protestant only?

  • John Ó Néill

    sonofstrongbow – I’d suggest you google misdirection.

    The wording from the Act of Settlement is set out below:
    Provided always and it is hereby enacted that all and every person and persons who shall or may take or inherit the said crown by vertue of the limitation of this present Act and is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or church of Rome or shall profess the popish religion or shall marry a papist shall be subject to such incapacities as in such case or cases are by the said recited Act provided enacted and established.

    If you substituted Judaism, Islam, Hinduism or any other religion there, there would be outrage. But since it *just* refers to Catholics (and despite the public claims to outreach), that’s consider okay by some.

  • The battle between popes and kings over supremacy goes back at least until the 12th century when Henry II uttered the infamous words “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”
    The English king shortly later bent the knee (literally) and so the pope reigned supreme until Henry 8.

  • Incidentally, although the Queen is titular head of the Anglican Church, I have never heard of her making a religious proclamation. The acting head, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is selected by the PM from a short list of candidates.

  • Jimmy Sands

    The important thing is that now I’m eligible. This will be a gamechanger.

  • Jimmy Sands

    Incidentally, although the Queen is titular head of the Anglican Church, I have never heard of her making a religious proclamation.

    So long as Prince Philip has, that’s all that matters.

  • andnowwhat

    Barnshee, I know for a fact that there were at least 2 protestant teachers teaching in St Loiuse’s, Falls Rd in the 80’s.

    As I understand it, there is a course one needs to do to teach in a catholic school.

  • Nobody has yet responded to my query as to the exact nature of the “threat”.

  • USA

    Drumlins Rock,
    Your casual use of the word “T**G” is racist and exposes you for what you are.

  • Calm down, USA. He was tongue in cheek. DR is in no way a racist.

  • Drumlins Rock

    thanks joe, if you read back to what “Carl Marks” said I was poking fun at his comment and indirectly quoting from him, I’m more of the “Voldemort” school of thinking, than the “He Who Must No Be Named” one.

  • Cynic2

    USA

    Thats called humour over here

  • I wonder if someone is up to recognizing his/her error and apologizing?

  • carl marks

    Drumlins Rock
    Thanks for inserting some humour into the debate (I’m sure I’ll get the joke eventually), but you raise a valid point a Mormon, Hindu, or indeed a person of any religion or none can be the British head of state, except a taig of course.
    Which is indeed strange considering that the largest religion in Britain is Catholic (I’m open to correction on that point but I think it’s right), also is it not hypocritical of some people (not necessarily posters here) who state that a Catholic cannot be monarch as they would be loyal to their religion first and the state second then declare their own loyalty is dependent on the head of state being a prod.
    But then maybe not as Unionists do the hypocrisy thing so well.

  • Reader

    SK: You say that Catholics can’t be trusted to be head of state because the Pope might one day cajole them into doing something dodgy, Essentially, you’re saying that Catholics shouldn’t be put in a position of authority because they simply cannot be trusted.
    And that should be a non-issue. We have got rid of a number of kings who wouldn’t do what they were told, and it has got easier every time. By now it’s probably easier to get rid of a recalcitrant monarch than a policeman or doctor who won’t do their job properly.

  • John Ó Néill

    USA/DR/Joe/Carl – rest assured if anyone makes sectarian or racist comments, it will be removed. At the same time, the likes of DR and Joe have a well established modus operandi on here and don’t need to put in a disclaimer or smiley to make the point that they are being sarky or ironic.

    Joe – I don’t get the question about the ‘threat’?

  • carl marks

    John Ó Néill
    Thanks for the clarification but in my case not needed , I didn’t take offence at DR’s use of the word taig (after all I used it first ) however probably because I’m Jetlagged I fail to see the joke,

  • John Ó Néill

    Now, Carl – I didn’t say either of them is actually funny. Joe does some great one-liners but DR, bless him, is from South Tyrone.

  • Barnshee

    I”f you substituted Judaism, Islam, Hinduism or any other religion there, there would be outrage. But since it *just* refers to Catholics (and despite the public claims to outreach), that’s consider okay by some.”

    Had Islam Judaism etc been invovled in the dispute with HenryVIII and his sucessors they might well have been included along with the main protagonist.

    Had Rome (and Irish lackeys) avoided supporting threats to the English throne they may well have avoided some of the nastier events in Irish history

  • Greenflag

    @ DR ,

    ‘.Hey guys, it could we worse, the yanks could be on their way to getting a Mormon Head of State, a taig might not be so bad after all!’

    Actually the leading GOP contender for the nomination is now a Catholic i.e Newt (the lizard) Gingrich . Gingrich’s ‘religious odyssey ‘ has taken him from Lutheran to Southern Baptist to Catholic .

    The good news is that this disqualifies Gingrich from ever becoming King of England .

    The GOP contest for the nomination has brought out such a menagerie of weirdos that even a member of what can be described as a ‘cultist ‘ religion is beginning to seem a safer bet than any of the other wackos . Even Ron Paul is striking a chord with the younger voters who know that the system is corrupt virtually beyond redemption or resolution .

    Back to thread – There are probably more RC’s than COE’s in the UK and both of these are vastly outnumbered by secular /agnostic/atheist Britons . The Monarch’s religion should be the monarchs own business . It would be preferable to have no monarchy of course but given that there is one then all that’s required is for the Archbishop of Canterbury to become the head of the COE .

    The UK is the only state apart from the Vatican in which the head of state is also head of the church .

    Render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to the ‘Unknowable ‘that which is unknowable ‘

  • JR

    “Had Rome (and Irish lackeys) avoided supporting threats to the English throne they may well have avoided some of the nastier events in Irish history”

    Barnshee, you seem to forget that you are the ones who celebrate the vicoty of the last forign invador to usurp the legitimate monarc. He incidently took it by force with the backing of Rome.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15428024

  • Mick Fealty

    Where’s the rage John?

  • Barnshee

    “Barnshee, you seem to forget that you are the ones who celebrate the vicoty of the last forign invador to usurp the legitimate monarc. He incidently took it by force with the backing of Rome”

    Rome backed James to poke France in the eye

    Ireland teamed up with (amongst others) -Philip (Spain) Louis (France) – James, Napoleon and flirted with old Adolph and brought retribution from those nasy brits on each occassion-then whinged about it

  • JR

    Rome backed William, sorry but it’s a fact. As for the rest, I take it from your stance on collective, multigenerational, pre-emptive punishment you support the retribution delt out by the Germans on the Polish, French, Dutch etc who resisted them? The Spanish on the Native Americans who resisted them and the Kenyans who resisted the British?

  • Into the west

    it seems to me unionists do rage based on the spleen
    republicans do rage based on the ideal.
    Mick did an article on this some years back.
    but it can be summed up in the line
    “croppy lie down “

  • Barnshee

    JR

    Sorry bad typing -of course Rome backed William (as I meant to say)

    Don`t know about “pre-emptive punishment ” It is a fact that Ireland regularly backed/supported enemies of the English state and suffered because of it.

    Germany etc ? went to war lost and got royally crucified when retribution set in

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes

    PS check your history The Irish INVITED the brits in

  • Drumlins Rock

    John, Tyrone humour can be a bit dry I admit.

    JR, your entirely right about old King Billy, although it generally was a welcome invasion by the populace. Ironically he was probably the most liberal of Kings up then and for a century after, much underrated and undermined, and prob if alive today embarassed by his more frevent followers! The Act of Settlement was a necessity for stability at the time, and yes is probably dated, but don’t think it is a priority.

    ITW, I have never ever once heard “croppies lie down” used by a unionist outside of an historical context. 99% of them wouldn’t have a clue what your on about, and most of the 1% only know it as the title of an old loyalist song. I can’t understand why republicans are so fond of it, Gerry in particular.

  • JR

    Which of course you fully support of because of your consistantly pro retribution stance.

    PS, there is a bit more to Anglo Irish history than that.

  • Barnshee

    “Which of course you fully support of because of your consistantly pro retribution stance”

    Where do I support retribution?

    Just outlining the facts

  • John,

    Your byline uses the word “threat”

  • sliabhluachra

    “The UK is the only state apart from the Vatican in which the head of state is also head of the church”

    What about the Nordic monarchs?
    The problem is monarchy and why Dissenters would think the sun shones out the Queen’s throne is baffling.
    The current Queen is no doubt a puppet of sorts in any event. After her, the deluge will come. Charles is an odd ball: the head of a church who wants to be a used tampon and William’s wife, I fear, will quickly lose the lustre her social climbing got by marrying into The Firm via a very part time RAF pilot (of sorts). She looks a little goofy to me as does her husband who moonlights for/parasites off the FA and other worthy bodiies.
    Is Kate Middleton the Commander of any Armed Forces yet?
    The British should first of all ban Guy Fawkes night which is a sectarian hate fest against an English patriot who truly understood Westminster. If the 5th November hate fest was banned, that could get the 12 July rubbish binned too.
    If monarchy ended, the Dublin government could stop giving their civil servant leeches time off for Empire Day and the like. Monarch and leeching seem to go together.

  • DR,

    For those who don’t know
    from wiki:
    The name “croppy” derives from Ireland in the 1790s as a reference to people with closely cropped hair, a fashion which was associated with the anti-wig (and therefore, anti-aristocrat) French revolutionaries of the period.

  • John Ó Néill

    Mick, if this constitutional change actually happens, you don’t think it will be taken as a threat by the DUP (inter alia) which will include some raged outworking?

    Recent supporting evidence is in the Jeffrey link and the recent prison symbols ‘crisis’.