Why "Queen Mother" rather than "Queen's Mother?"
Daniel P. B. Smith
Why is the mother of the Queen of England known as the "Queen Mother"
rather than the "Queen's Mother?"
(Am I misguided in my attempts to save the endangered apostrophe? Should
I stop wincing over usages such as "driver licenses," "doctor bills,"
"taxpayer dollars," "patriot day," etc.)
--
Daniel P. B. Smith
Email address: dpbs...@world.std.com
"Lifetime forwarding" address: dpbs...@alum.mit.edu
Vita Lodo
"Queen Mother" is a title.
"Daniel P. B. Smith" <dpbs...@bellatlantic.net> schreef in bericht
news:dpbsmith-BF272D...@news.fu-berlin.de...
Don Aitken
<dpbs...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>This seems like as good a time as any to ask...
>
>Why is the mother of the Queen of England known as the "Queen Mother"
>rather than the "Queen's Mother?"
>
The title derives from the fact that she was:
1. Queen (because her husband was King, and the title is kept for
life), and,
2. The mother of the sovereign.
It does not mean that she was "the Queen's mother". If Elizabeth II
was a man (and therefore a King), the title would have been exactly
the same.
As to why it was used, when Elizabeth II came to the throne both her
mother and her grandmother (Queen Mary, the widow of George V) were
living. The QM could not be Queen Dowager, which is the more usual
title, because that belonged to Queen Mary. She could not be just
"Queen Elizabeth" because that would lead to confusion with her
daughter. So her full title was "HM Queen Elizabeth, the Queen
Mother". There are precedents of the use of that form going back
several centuries, but she was the first to have it as a formal part
of her title.
The "Queen Mother" title was for use only during her widowhood. She
will be remembered simply as "Queen Elizabeth", which is the way she
was referred to by those who knew her or worked for her, as you will
notice if you listen to the interviews. Elizabeth II, by contrast, is
always "The Queen".
>(Am I misguided in my attempts to save the endangered apostrophe? Should
>I stop wincing over usages such as "driver licenses," "doctor bills,"
>"taxpayer dollars," "patriot day," etc.)
>
I hope you will keep up the fight; but "Queen Mother" is not such a
case.
--
Don Aitken
James Bremner
> This seems like as good a time as any to ask...
>
> Why is the mother of the Queen of England known as the "Queen Mother"
> rather than the "Queen's Mother?"
>
English, what she says goes. Hope that helped.
James Bremner
Joona I Palaste
> It is "Queen Mother", because she was a queen in the early days.
> "Queen Mother" is a title.
She was never a queen who was actually in charge of stuff, but she was
still a queen. So I call her Elizabeth the One-and-a-halfth. Whole
numbers are reserved for people who are in charge of stuff.
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pal...@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"He said: 'I'm not Elvis'. Who else but Elvis could have said that?"
- ALF
Raymond S. Wise
>
> Why is the mother of the Queen of England known as the "Queen Mother"
> rather than the "Queen's Mother?"
>
> (Am I misguided in my attempts to save the endangered apostrophe? Should
> I stop wincing over usages such as "driver licenses," "doctor bills,"
> "taxpayer dollars," "patriot day," etc.)
To answer your last question first, yes, stop wincing over such
usages. That doesn't mean you have to adopt them yourself, of course.
As to "Queen Mother": It appears that "Mother" here is acting as an
adjective. Similar uses, taken from various articles in *The Century
Dictionary,* are "queen dowager" (of which "queen mother" is a
subset), "queen regnant," "queen regent," "prince consort," "queen
consort," "prince regent," "prince imperial," "prince royal," and
"Prince President, a title given to Prince Louis Napoleon while he was
president of the French republic, 1848-52."
The French equivalents to "the queen mother" and "the queen dowager"
are, respectively, "la reine mère" and "la reine douairière." The
other expressions listed above no doubt have their own French
equivalents composed of a noun followed by an adjective.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Harold Pekteno
> This seems like as good a time as any to ask...
>
> Why is the mother of the Queen of England known as the "Queen Mother"
> rather than the "Queen's Mother?"
Because "the Queen's mother" would mean something else entirely, that
is, the mother of the Queen.
The Queen Mother is the widow of the late king, that is, the former
Queen Consort, and incidently, the mother of the current king or
queen. A synonym is "Dowager Queen".
Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was, of course, both.
Any more questions?
Lars Eighner
<47dd044c.02040...@posting.google.com>,
the lovely and talented Raymond S. Wise
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
> As to "Queen Mother": It appears that "Mother" here is acting as an
> adjective. Similar uses, taken from various articles in *The Century
> Dictionary,* are "queen dowager" (of which "queen mother" is a
> subset), "queen regnant," "queen regent," "prince consort," "queen
> consort," "prince regent," "prince imperial," "prince royal," and
> "Prince President, a title given to Prince Louis Napoleon while he was
> president of the French republic, 1848-52."
Here is what the various queen titles mean:
Queen regnant: the sovereign.
Queen regent: guardian of the sovereign (usually a minor child and
if the sovereign is also her child, then she is also Queen
mother, and probably Queen dowager).
Queen consort: wife of the sovereign.
Queen dowager: widow of the sovereign.
Queen mother: mother of the sovereign.
Exceptions: Sometimes the wife of the sovereign is not afforded the
rank of queen and her children are not in succession to the throne
(morganic marriage). Then she will never become Queen dowager nor
Queen mother because she was never queen Consort. This is sort of
topical because if Prince Charles is ever permitted to marry
Parker-Bowles, it will almost certainly a morganic marriage and she
will never be a queen of any kind.
A childless Queen might be Queen dowager, but not Queen mother
because she couldn't be the mother of the sovereign (since she
is no one's mother) but would probably be the aunt of the
sovereign, and there simply is no such thing as a Queen aunt
(unless your dialect permits a pretty bad pun here).
If a woman's child becomes sovereign she does not automatically
become Queen Mother. If she wasn't Queen consort, she won't be
Queen mother.
Sexism is pretty thoroughly at work in all things royal. For
this reason Prince Philip did not become King consort. If
he were a king he would outrank the queen which is impossible
because she is sovereign. (There is, however, a pretty good
argument that Philip is more "royal" than Elizabeth. The
late Queen mother was not royal. When she married the late
King there was simply no expectation that he would become King.)
Of course Mary of Orange got around this. Parliament was short
of sovereigns and she found herself in a bargaining position, so
she was able to get them to make her husband William King and
co-sovereign.
All of this stuff is nowadays in the hands of Parliament,
more or less. Sometimes people ask "Why doesn't Elizabeth
abdicate so Charles can be king and she can have a nice
retirement as her mother had?" Well, basically, the
example of the 20th century aside, abdication just isn't
done. And whatismore, she would have to have the permission
of Parliament to do it. In point of fact, the late Duke
of Windsor did not just abdicate - he had to get an act of
Parliament to do it.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
If A is a success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y
is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut. --Albert Einstein
Spehro Pefhany
> It is "Queen Mother", because she was a queen in the early days.
> "Queen Mother" is a title.
I've heard both "Queen Mother" and "The Queen Mother". Which is correct?
Best regards,
--
Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
9-11 United we Stand
Peter P.
"Joona I Palaste" <pal...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:a8q8at$q2k$2...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
> Vita Lodo <vita...@hotmail.com> scribbled the following:
> > It is "Queen Mother", because she was a queen in the early days.
> > "Queen Mother" is a title.
>
> She was never a queen who was actually in charge of stuff, but she was
> still a queen. So I call her Elizabeth the One-and-a-halfth. Whole
> numbers are reserved for people who are in charge of stuff.
>
Queen was out of date and they substituted Queen Mother. The present Queen
Elizabeth II is queen in her own right by being the eldest daughter of a
king who had no sons whilst her late mother was queen only by virtue of
being married to a king and she ceased to be queen when her husband died.
How about Nick the Greek for King?
Peter P.
Mark Brader
> Because "the Queen's mother" would mean something else entirely, that
> is, the mother of the Queen.
>
> The Queen Mother is the widow of the late king, that is, the former
> Queen Consort, and incidently, the mother of the current king or
> queen. A synonym is "Dowager Queen".
I find this hard to believe. As I understand it, the title of Queen
Mother was invented specifically for the late Queen Elizabeth because
the word "dowager" was not liked, and was chosen because she *was*
the mother of the new sovereign. Thus it would not extend to a dowager
queen who was not.
Is there an authoritative cite to the contrary?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "[That] statement is so full of hubris
m...@vex.net | you can hear the wax melting." -- Steve Summit
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Tony Cooper
>
> It is "Queen Mother", because she was a queen in the early days.
> "Queen Mother" is a title.
>
and once called down to the staff and said "Will one of the
old queens down there bring some gin up to the old Queen up
here."
--
Tony Cooper aka: tony_co...@yahoo.com
Provider of Jots and Tittles
Raymond S. Wise
Mark Brader wrote:
> Harold Pekteno writes:
> > Because "the Queen's mother" would mean something else entirely, that
> > is, the mother of the Queen.
> >
> > The Queen Mother is the widow of the late king, that is, the former
> > Queen Consort, and incidently, the mother of the current king or
> > queen. A synonym is "Dowager Queen".
>
> I find this hard to believe. As I understand it, the title of Queen
> Mother was invented specifically for the late Queen Elizabeth because
> the word "dowager" was not liked, and was chosen because she *was*
> the mother of the new sovereign. Thus it would not extend to a dowager
> queen who was not.
>
> Is there an authoritative cite to the contrary?
"Peter P." wrote:
> "Joona I Palaste" <pal...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:a8q8at$q2k$2...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
> > Vita Lodo <vita...@hotmail.com> scribbled the following:
> > > It is "Queen Mother", because she was a queen in the early days.
> > > "Queen Mother" is a title.
> >
> > She was never a queen who was actually in charge of stuff, but she was
> > still a queen. So I call her Elizabeth the One-and-a-halfth. Whole
> > numbers are reserved for people who are in charge of stuff.
> >
> As I see it, somewhere along the line they decided that the term Dowager
> Queen was out of date and they substituted Queen Mother. The present Queen
> Elizabeth II is queen in her own right by being the eldest daughter of a
> king who had no sons whilst her late mother was queen only by virtue of
> being married to a king and she ceased to be queen when her husband died.
> How about Nick the Greek for King?
While "Queen Mother" as a title is new, the term itself is ancient.
Harvey V once posted a cite from the OED for "Queen-mother," dating to
at least 1577. I posted cites from the 1835 edition of the
*Dictionnaire de L'Académie Française* and from *The Century
Dictionary* (an American dictionary of perhaps 1895):
From
http://duras.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/quick_look.new.sh?word=m%E8re
[quote]
Mère
Mère, s'emploie quelquefois adjectivement, comme dans les locutions
suivantes:
_La reine mère,_ La reine douairière.
[end quote]
[my translation]
Mother
"Mother" is sometimes used as an adjective, as in the following
expressions:
_The queen mother,_ The queen dowager.
[end translation]
The following is from the entry "queen" in *The Century Dictionary* at
[quote]
Queen dowager, the
widow of a deceased king.--Queen mother, a queen
dowager who is also mother of the reigning sovereign.
[end quote]
That edition of the French Academy's dictionary obviously gives "queen
dowager" as a definition of "queen mother," but it's more complicated
than that.
GrapeApe
>still a queen. So I call her Elizabeth the One-and-a-halfth. Whole
>numbers are reserved for people who are in charge of stuff.
So the fellow doing needlepoint was actually in charge of stuff?
R J Valentine
} Harold Pekteno writes:
}> Because "the Queen's mother" would mean something else entirely, that
}> is, the mother of the Queen.
}>
}> The Queen Mother is the widow of the late king, that is, the former
}> Queen Consort, and incidently, the mother of the current king or
}> queen. A synonym is "Dowager Queen".
}
} I find this hard to believe. As I understand it, the title of Queen
} Mother was invented specifically for the late Queen Elizabeth because
} the word "dowager" was not liked, and was chosen because she *was*
} the mother of the new sovereign. Thus it would not extend to a dowager
} queen who was not.
}
} Is there an authoritative cite to the contrary?
You mean like the title "queen dowager" already being in use by Queen Mary
at the time George VI died? I'd guess that Queen Mary liked the title
well enough.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
R J Valentine
...
} Exceptions: Sometimes the wife of the sovereign is not afforded the
} rank of queen and her children are not in succession to the throne
} (morganic marriage). Then she will never become Queen dowager nor
} Queen mother because she was never queen Consort. This is sort of
} topical because if Prince Charles is ever permitted to marry
} Parker-Bowles, it will almost certainly a morganic marriage and she
} will never be a queen of any kind.
Nope. There's no such thing as "morganatic marriage" in British
law. There's like "marriage" and "not marriage". If HRH The Prince of
Wales marries and his mother HM The Queen predeceases him, his wife will
be queen if she's not Catholic or he'll be passed over for king if she is
Catholic.
} A childless Queen might be Queen dowager, but not Queen mother
} because she couldn't be the mother of the sovereign (since she
} is no one's mother) but would probably be the aunt of the
} sovereign, and there simply is no such thing as a Queen aunt
} (unless your dialect permits a pretty bad pun here).
There wasn't such a thing as a Queen Mother when HM Queen Elizabeth The
Queen Mother became Queen Mother. If there's a need for a Queen Aunt,
there'll be a Queen Aunt.
} If a woman's child becomes sovereign she does not automatically
} become Queen Mother. If she wasn't Queen consort, she won't be
} Queen mother.
If she was, she won't, either.
} Sexism is pretty thoroughly at work in all things royal. For
} this reason Prince Philip did not become King consort. If
} he were a king he would outrank the queen which is impossible
} because she is sovereign.
Where's it say that a king consort outranks a queen regnant?
} (There is, however, a pretty good
} argument that Philip is more "royal" than Elizabeth.
There's a pretty good argument that he's a non-Papist descendant of the
Electress Sophia, but there's no good argument that he's senior to
Elizabeth in the descendancy.
} The
} late Queen mother was not royal. When she married the late
} King there was simply no expectation that he would become King.)
That so?
} Of course Mary of Orange got around this. Parliament was short
} of sovereigns and she found herself in a bargaining position, so
} she was able to get them to make her husband William King and
} co-sovereign.
Actually, Parliament was pretty long on sovereigns at the time. This was
the real William the Conquerer. The first one was arguably next in line
in his time, anyway.
} All of this stuff is nowadays in the hands of Parliament,
} more or less. Sometimes people ask "Why doesn't Elizabeth
} abdicate so Charles can be king and she can have a nice
} retirement as her mother had?" Well, basically, the
} example of the 20th century aside, abdication just isn't
} done. And whatismore, she would have to have the permission
} of Parliament to do it. In point of fact, the late Duke
} of Windsor did not just abdicate - he had to get an act of
} Parliament to do it.
He requested an act that removed him and his descendants from the line of
succession. It takes more than permission to abdicate nowadays. James II
was the last one to get permission, and he didn't particularly want it.
If you don't want to be king, the way at it is to marry or become a
Papist.
Alan Jones
"R J Valentine" <r...@smart.net> wrote in message
news:ub2a0oh...@corp.supernews.com...
Not a direct reply, but here's an authoritative cite for the title Queen
Mother. At the end of the fineral servce in the Abbey, Garter King of Arms
will proclaim "The Styles and Titles" of the late Queen. Here they are,
snipped: "Thus it hath pleased Almighty God to take out of this transitory
life unto His Divine Mercy the late Most High, Most Mighty and Most
Excellent Princess Elizabeth, Queen Dowager and Queen Mother, Lady of the
Most Noble Order of the Garter [....] Relict of His Majesty King George the
Sixth and Mother of Her Most Excellent Majesty Elizabeth the Second [....]".
I have read somewhere that, though the Heir to the Throne would be
disqualified if he married a Roman Catholic, once King he could marry as he
pleased. Is that true? It may be that this last - I think it's the last -
encumbrance on Roman Catholics' civil rights will soon be lifted, anyway.
After all, there appears to be no bar on the Heir's marrying a Muslim.
Alan Jones
Mark Brader
> > I find this hard to believe. As I understand it, the title of Queen
> > Mother was invented specifically for the late Queen Elizabeth because
> > the word "dowager" was not liked, and was chosen because she *was*
> > the mother of the new sovereign. Thus it would not extend to a dowager
> > queen who was not.
> >
> > Is there an authoritative cite to the contrary?
> You mean like the title "queen dowager" already being in use by Queen Mary
> at the time George VI died?
No, I don't. I mean like the title "queen mother" being in use for a
queen dowager who was not a mother of a sovereign, the way the previous
poster claimed it worked.
--
Mark Brader | "[These] articles should be self-explanatory.
Toronto | If they *don't* explain themselves,
m...@vex.net | you'll have to read them." -- Michael Wares
Harvey V
> Mark Brader:
>>> I find this hard to believe. As I understand it, the title of
>>> Queen Mother was invented specifically for the late Queen
>>> Elizabeth because the word "dowager" was not liked, and was
>>> chosen because she *was* the mother of the new sovereign. Thus
>>> it would not extend to a dowager queen who was not.
>>>
>>> Is there an authoritative cite to the contrary?
>
> R.J. Valentine:
>> You mean like the title "queen dowager" already being in use by
>> Queen Mary at the time George VI died?
>
> No, I don't. I mean like the title "queen mother" being in use
> for a queen dowager who was not a mother of a sovereign, the way
> the previous poster claimed it worked.
I think both qualifications are required.
The title "Queen Mother" wasn't invented for the recently-deceased
lady[1] -- according to the OED, it was used in the 16th and 17th
centuries for the dowager queen who was mother of the sitting monarch.
The title appears to havae been the same whether the sitting monarch
was male or female, so the "Queen" in "Queen Mother" refers to her
status as a dowager queen, and not to sex of the monarch whose mother
she is.
(There was no "Queen Mother" in Victoria's reign: Queen Adelaide, who
survived until 1849, was a Dowager Queen, but not a Queen Mother. The
Duchess of Kent, on the other hand, was the mother of a queen, but
also not a Queen Mother.)
[1] Although this "invented title" thing is regularly trotted out, the
OED confirms that the formal title "Queen Mother" was clearly not
invented in 1952. It was, I think, the formal inclusion of her *name*
in the title, as "Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother", that was the
"invented" aspect of that title.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Nick Wedd
Jones <a...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>I have read somewhere that, though the Heir to the Throne would be
>disqualified if he married a Roman Catholic, once King he could marry as he
>pleased. Is that true? It may be that this last - I think it's the last -
>encumbrance on Roman Catholics' civil rights will soon be lifted, anyway.
>After all, there appears to be no bar on the Heir's marrying a Muslim.
When Edward VIII intended to marry a Roman Catholic, he was persuaded to
abdicate; though not (at least ostensibly) because of her Catholicism.
Nick
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
Don Aitken
wrote:
Wallis Warfield was not a Roman Catholic, she was an Episcopalian.
--
Don Aitken
Skitt
"Don Aitken" <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> Nick Wedd <ni...@maproom.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >When Edward VIII intended to marry a Roman Catholic, he was
> >persuaded to abdicate; though not (at least ostensibly)
> >because of her Catholicism.
>
> Wallis Warfield was not a Roman Catholic, she was an
> Episcopalian.
Ah, Catholic Lite.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
j...@radidelmex.net
> I find this hard to believe. As I understand it, the title of Queen
> Mother was invented specifically for the late Queen Elizabeth because
> the word "dowager" was not liked, and was chosen because she *was*
> the mother of the new sovereign. Thus it would not extend to a dowager
> queen who was not.
I hear that Queen Alexandra was referred to as 'Alexandra, the Queen
Mother', so the title didn't originate with Elizabeth.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Queen+Mother+group:alt.talk.royalty
&hl=en&scoring=r&selm=CNNd8.23419%24UE.334334%40read1.cgocable.net&rnum=3
Harvey V
> Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
>
>> I find this hard to believe. As I understand it, the title of
>> Queen Mother was invented specifically for the late Queen
>> Elizabeth because the word "dowager" was not liked, and was
>> chosen because she *was* the mother of the new sovereign. Thus
>> it would not extend to a dowager queen who was not.
>
> I hear that Queen Alexandra was referred to as 'Alexandra, the
> Queen Mother', so the title didn't originate with Elizabeth.
Merriam Webster and the OED both record the title in the late 16th
century (non-English, of course), and Evelyn (or Pepys?) used it in the
17th century in a British context.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
j...@radidelmex.net
> I have read somewhere that, though the Heir to the Throne would be
> disqualified if he married a Roman Catholic, once King he could marry as he
> pleased. Is that true?
No ... the alt.talk.royalty FAQ ... the Bill of Rights of 1689 ...
"That all and every Person and Persons that then [in 1689] were or
afterwards should be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the
See or Church of Rome or should professe the Popish religion or marry
a Papist should be excluded and are by that Act [the Bill of Rights]
made forever incapable to inherit possess or enjoy the Crown [...]";
Nick Wedd
ait...@freeuk.com> writes
>Wallis Warfield was not a Roman Catholic, she was an Episcopalian.
Indeed she was. But by 1936, she had changed her surname and her
religion, for connected reasons.
Robert Bannister
> Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
>
> > I find this hard to believe. As I understand it, the title of Queen
> > Mother was invented specifically for the late Queen Elizabeth because
> > the word "dowager" was not liked, and was chosen because she *was*
> > the mother of the new sovereign. Thus it would not extend to a dowager
> > queen who was not.
>
> I hear that Queen Alexandra was referred to as 'Alexandra, the Queen
> Mother', so the title didn't originate with Elizabeth.
I'm getting mixed up here: who was the Princess Royal? I thought that was
Alexandra, but maybe it was a different one.
--
Rob Bannister
Don Aitken
wrote:
>In article <3cb204e9...@news.freeuk.net>, Don Aitken <don-
>ait...@freeuk.com> writes
>
>>Wallis Warfield was not a Roman Catholic, she was an Episcopalian.
>
>Indeed she was. But by 1936, she had changed her surname and her
>religion, for connected reasons.
>
Do you have any evidence for this assertion?
--
Don Aitken
Don Aitken
The current Princess Royal is Princess Anne. Before her it was
Princess Mary, Countess of Harewood, daughter of George V, and before
her Princess Louise, Duchess of Fife. The title is conferred on the
eldest daughter of the sovereign, but it is held for life, and only by
one person at a time, so the present Queen never had it, as there was
no vacancy while she was eligible. No-one called Alexandra has ever
been Princess Royal.
--
Don Aitken
Steve Hayes
He had to abdicate because she was divorced.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Hayes
And Edward's marriage to her would have violated Anglican/Episcopalian canon
law at the time, which did not recognise divorce, so in terms of canon law the
marriage would not be valid.
Nick Wedd
ait...@freeuk.com> writes
>On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 23:01:13 +0100, Nick Wedd <ni...@maproom.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3cb204e9...@news.freeuk.net>, Don Aitken <don-
>>ait...@freeuk.com> writes
>>
>>>Wallis Warfield was not a Roman Catholic, she was an Episcopalian.
>>
>>Indeed she was. But by 1936, she had changed her surname and her
>>religion, for connected reasons.
>>
>Do you have any evidence for this assertion?
I think that the following is uncontroversial:
Wallis Warfield was born in 1896. In 1928 she converted to Roman
Catholicism so as to marry Ernest Aldrich Simpson, a Roman Catholic. In
1936 she divorced Simpson and changed her name back to Wallis Warfield
(or to Wallis Warfield Simpson). Later in 1936, King Edward VIII
announced his intention of marrying her. Parliament disapproved, and he
was induced to abdicate.
The reasons for parliament's disapproval are less clear, at least to me.
Here are three reasons. I do not know their relative importance.
1. She was a divorcee (a double divorcee, in fact; Simpson was not
her first husband). The British monarch is head of the Church of
England, which disapproves of divorce.
2. She was a Roman Catholic. When I was taught history, and about
the British constitution, it was always stated that the monarch could
neither be nor marry a Catholic. No such restriction on divorcees was
mentioned.
3. Edward had nazi sympathies. This might have been the effective
reason for the disapproval, though it could not be the ostensible
reason.
david56
> I have read somewhere that, though the Heir to the Throne would be
> disqualified if he married a Roman Catholic, once King he could marry as he
> pleased. Is that true? It may be that this last - I think it's the last -
> encumbrance on Roman Catholics' civil rights will soon be lifted, anyway.
> After all, there appears to be no bar on the Heir's marrying a Muslim.
Although marriage to a Catholic disbars an heir from becoming Monarch,
there is no similar block for other religions, or for none.
So Prince Charles could now marry a Buddhist, jew, muslim, pagan,
wiccan, vampire slayer, or alternatively an atheist, without losing his
right to inherit the throne. Just as long as they aren't Catholic.
--
David
I say what it occurs to me to say.
The address is valid today, but I will change it to keep ahead of the
spammers.
J. J. Lodder
> Sexism is pretty thoroughly at work in all things royal. For
> this reason Prince Philip did not become King consort. If
> he were a king he would outrank the queen which is impossible
> because she is sovereign. (There is, however, a pretty good
> argument that Philip is more "royal" than Elizabeth. The
> late Queen mother was not royal. When she married the late
> King there was simply no expectation that he would become King.)
>
> Of course Mary of Orange got around this. Parliament was short
> of sovereigns and she found herself in a bargaining position, so
> she was able to get them to make her husband William King and
> co-sovereign.
He wouldn't have bothered to come otherwise.
> All of this stuff is nowadays in the hands of Parliament,
> more or less. Sometimes people ask "Why doesn't Elizabeth
> abdicate so Charles can be king and she can have a nice
> retirement as her mother had?" Well, basically, the
> example of the 20th century aside, abdication just isn't
> done. And whatismore, she would have to have the permission
> of Parliament to do it. In point of fact, the late Duke
> of Windsor did not just abdicate - he had to get an act of
> Parliament to do it.
Nonsense.
She can just do it, and what can parliament do about it,
except legalise it?
Jan
Don Aitken
wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 21:22:39 GMT, don-a...@freeuk.com (Don Aitken) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 18:34:02 +0100, Nick Wedd <ni...@maproom.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <kabs8.4933$p4.5...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>, Alan
>>>Jones <a...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>>>I have read somewhere that, though the Heir to the Throne would be
>>>>disqualified if he married a Roman Catholic, once King he could marry as he
>>>>pleased. Is that true? It may be that this last - I think it's the last -
>>>>encumbrance on Roman Catholics' civil rights will soon be lifted, anyway.
>>>>After all, there appears to be no bar on the Heir's marrying a Muslim.
>>>
>>>When Edward VIII intended to marry a Roman Catholic, he was persuaded to
>>>abdicate; though not (at least ostensibly) because of her Catholicism.
>>>
>>Wallis Warfield was not a Roman Catholic, she was an Episcopalian.
>
>And Edward's marriage to her would have violated Anglican/Episcopalian canon
>law at the time, which did not recognise divorce, so in terms of canon law the
>marriage would not be valid.
>
Wrong, wrong, wrongitty wrong. The Church of England is an established
Church. It is bound by the law of the state in these matters, not vice
versa. The clergy may disapprove, but they have no standing whatever
to consider such a marriage invalid.
--
Don Aitken
Don Aitken
wrote:
>In article <3cb23ad4...@news.freeuk.net>, Don Aitken <don-
>ait...@freeuk.com> writes
>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 23:01:13 +0100, Nick Wedd <ni...@maproom.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3cb204e9...@news.freeuk.net>, Don Aitken <don-
>>>ait...@freeuk.com> writes
>>>
>>>>Wallis Warfield was not a Roman Catholic, she was an Episcopalian.
>>>
>>>Indeed she was. But by 1936, she had changed her surname and her
>>>religion, for connected reasons.
>>>
>>Do you have any evidence for this assertion?
>
>I think that the following is uncontroversial:
> Wallis Warfield was born in 1896.
Her date of birth has been disputed, but you are probably right.
> In 1928 she converted to Roman
>Catholicism so as to marry Ernest Aldrich Simpson, a Roman Catholic. In
>1936 she divorced Simpson and changed her name back to Wallis Warfield
>(or to Wallis Warfield Simpson). Later in 1936, King Edward VIII
>announced his intention of marrying her. Parliament disapproved, and he
>was induced to abdicate.
>
All entirely uncontroversial, apart from the conversion. I have read a
number of biographies of Wallis, and have one here right now ("The
Duchess of Windsor" by Greg King, 567 pp.). I have read a considerable
number of accounts of the abdication, which is one of the
best-documented episodes in British history. None mentions any
religious issue.
Furthermore, Ernest Simpson divorced a previous wife to marry Wallis.
They were married at Chelsea Register Office on 21 July 1928. The
marriage certificate describes him as "Ernest Aldrich Simpson,
divorced husband of Dorothea Parsons Simpson, formerly Parsons,
spinster" and her as "Wallis Warfield, formerly the husband of Earle
Winfield Spencer, from whom she obtained a divorce." How is this
compatible with Roman Catholicism on the part of either of them?
[snip]
> 2. She was a Roman Catholic. When I was taught history, and about
>the British constitution, it was always stated that the monarch could
>neither be nor marry a Catholic.
Perfectly true. So one would expect the issue to be mentioned
somewhere in accounts of the crisis. It is not.
>No such restriction on divorcees was mentioned.
The objection to a divorcee was on social and moral, not legal,
grounds.
You are just wrong about this. It is difficult to prove a negative,
but, if you can find one reputable source which says that Wallis was
ever a Roman Catholic, I will apologise most humbly.
--
Don Aitken
Nick Wedd
ait...@freeuk.com> writes
>You are just wrong about this. It is difficult to prove a negative,
>but, if you can find one reputable source which says that Wallis was
>ever a Roman Catholic, I will apologise most humbly.
I have looked, and I confess that I cannot find any reliable evidence
for my assertion that she was a Catholic. I therefore withdraw it.
Thank you for putting me right.
However, there are unreliable sources that say she was a Catholic. For
instance, http://w1.1761.telia.com/~u176101475/frame_alexandra.htm,
which is directed at philatelists, says "Mrs. Wallis Simpson, whom the
British government would never accept as British Queen, because not only
was she divorced, she was also of Catholic faith". I am not persuaded
by this. But I do wonder where the idea came from, if it was not true.
Alan Jones
"Don Aitken" <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:3cb3043f...@news.freeuk.net...
Yes, but the clergy are required to apply Canon Law, which is part of the
Law of England as enacted by Parliament., or certainly was in those days.
That's one aspect of Establishment, and I assume therefore that the Canon
Law of the disestablished Church in Wales has no force in civil law.
Alan Jones
Bob Cunningham
[ . . . ]
>Furthermore, Ernest Simpson divorced a previous wife to marry Wallis.
>They were married at Chelsea Register Office on 21 July 1928. The
>marriage certificate describes him as "Ernest Aldrich Simpson,
>divorced husband of Dorothea Parsons Simpson, formerly Parsons,
>spinster" and her as "Wallis Warfield, formerly the husband of Earle
>Winfield Spencer, from whom she obtained a divorce."
Since Wallis Warfield was formerly the husband of Earle Winfield Spencer,
the pronoun "she" seems inappropriate.
>How is this
>compatible with Roman Catholicism on the part of either of them?
If Wallis Warfield was indeed male, as your quote implies, then it seems
we have to do with same-sex marriage, which the Roman Catholic Church
probably opposes even today.
Bob Cunningham
>Wrong, wrong, wrongitty wrong. The Church of England is an established
>Church.
The Church of England is an established church.
Harvey V
wrote:
As well as an Established church.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
J. J. Lodder
> Although marriage to a Catholic disbars an heir from becoming Monarch,
> there is no similar block for other religions, or for none.
>
> So Prince Charles could now marry a Buddhist, jew, muslim, pagan,
> wiccan, vampire slayer, or alternatively an atheist, without losing his
> right to inherit the throne. Just as long as they aren't Catholic.
Stands to reason: No Buddhist, jew, muslim, pagan,
wiccan, vampire slayer, or alternatively an atheist
ever sent an Armada in an attempt to tell the English
they should all be Catholics,
Jan
Robert Bannister
> IIn
> 1936 she divorced Simpson and changed her name back to Wallis Warfield
> (or to Wallis Warfield Simpson). Later in 1936, King Edward VIII
> announced his intention of marrying her. Parliament disapproved, and he
> was induced to abdicate.
>
> The reasons for parliament's disapproval are less clear, at least to me.
> Here are three reasons. I do not know their relative importance.
> 1. She was a divorcee (a double divorcee, in fact; Simpson was not
> her first husband). The British monarch is head of the Church of
> England, which disapproves of divorce.
> 2. She was a Roman Catholic. When I was taught history, and about
> the British constitution, it was always stated that the monarch could
> neither be nor marry a Catholic. No such restriction on divorcees was
> mentioned.
> 3. Edward had nazi sympathies. This might have been the effective
> reason for the disapproval, though it could not be the ostensible
> reason.
Am I alone in finding the Church of England's antipathy towards divorce
unreasonable, seeing that the Church was founded purely to facilitate Henry
VIII's divorce in the first place?
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
Nor did they burn English protestants, as happened under Queen Mary's rule.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
Thanks. Could I have been thinking of a Princess Alice?
--
Rob Bannister
Don Aitken
wrote:
>
>"Don Aitken" <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
>news:3cb3043f...@news.freeuk.net...
>> Wrong, wrong, wrongitty wrong. The Church of England is an established
>> Church. It is bound by the law of the state in these matters, not vice
>> versa. The clergy may disapprove, but they have no standing whatever
>> to consider such a marriage invalid.
>
>Yes, but the clergy are required to apply Canon Law, which is part of the
>Law of England as enacted by Parliament., or certainly was in those days.
>That's one aspect of Establishment, and I assume therefore that the Canon
>Law of the disestablished Church in Wales has no force in civil law.
>
I don't think this is true. You may be thinking of Measures of the
Church Assembly and (more recently) the General Synod, which do
receive parliamentary confirmation, and have the same status as
statutes, but these do not deal with matters of canon law. The CofE
inherited the canon law of the Catholic Church as it was at the time
of the reformation. An attempt to revise and codify it was abandoned
unfinished in the reign of James I, and no changes have been made
since - indeed no mechanism for making such changes exists or ever has
existed. It is sometimes asserted that canon law is part of the law of
the land, except insofar as it is inconsistent with common law or
statutory provision, but even this is doubtful - there is certainly no
mechanism for enforcing it. The whole area is a typical British mess.
--
Don Aitken
Don Aitken
<rob...@it.net.au> wrote:
>Don Aitken wrote:
>
>> The current Princess Royal is Princess Anne. Before her it was
>> Princess Mary, Countess of Harewood, daughter of George V, and before
>> her Princess Louise, Duchess of Fife. The title is conferred on the
>> eldest daughter of the sovereign, but it is held for life, and only by
>> one person at a time, so the present Queen never had it, as there was
>> no vacancy while she was eligible. No-one called Alexandra has ever
>> been Princess Royal.
>
>Thanks. Could I have been thinking of a Princess Alice?
>
Nope, no Alice either. A full list, with dates, is here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=341ad034.28897928%40news.hope.uniserve.com
--
Don Aitken
J. J. Lodder
Those were the English among themselves,
teaching each other the benefits
of the one and only true religion.
They all had it,
Jan
Donna Richoux
>
> Am I alone in finding the Church of England's antipathy towards divorce
> unreasonable, seeing that the Church was founded purely to facilitate Henry
> VIII's divorce in the first place?
Although I agree with your basic point, it contains an error. I posted
about this yesterday under the heading "Re: [OT] The British monarchy".
Henry VIII did not "found" the Church of England. It had already existed
for many centuries (exactly how long is disputed, but you could say from
the time of St. Augustine, a thousand years before). What he did was
declare himself to be the sole head of that church. This was an
important break, but somehow it doesn't fit the notion of "founding," to
me. His proclamation, the Act of Supremacy, is to be found at:
http://tudorhistory.org/primary/supremacy.html
But yes, I agree with you, I don't know why the 20th century system was
so set against divorce. Some policy later than Henry VIII, apparently.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Richard Fontana
> But yes, I agree with you, I don't know why the 20th century system was
> so set against divorce. Some policy later than Henry VIII, apparently.
Maybe a result of the Oxford Movement?
Donna Richoux
What's that? Let's see, something around 1830-1845... Google hits
suggest there is no connection between "Oxford Movement' and "Divorce."
The phrases on the first few hits have no logical connection to each
other.
Simon R. Hughes
Stick to making up acronyms, Richard.
--
Simon R. Hughes
Richard Fontana
What's so implausible about this?
Don Aitken
He is right insofar as the Oxford Movement was an early stage in the
Anglo-Catholic movement, of which opposition to divorce is one of the
characteristic tenets.
--
Don Aitken
Simon R. Hughes
Divorce is not recognised (and has not been for hundreds of years)
by the Catholic church.
Henry changed more or less nothing in the church except its head.
Henry granted himself an annulment (he did not divorce Katherine) on
the basis that his marriage had not been legal in the first place.
From the article on "Divorce (in Civil Jurisprudence)" in the
Catholic Encyclopedia:
"In England under Henry VIII, after his separation from the Catholic
Church, the law relative to divorce remained practically unchanged.
An effort was made in the time of Edward VI to secure the adoption
of a new code of ecclesiastical laws, drafted mainly by Cranmer,
under which separation a mensa et toro was not recognized and
complete divorce was granted in cases of extreme conjugal
faithlessness; in cases of conjgal desertion or cruelty; in cases
where a husband not guilty of desertion of his wife, had been
several years absent from her, provided there were reason to believe
him dead; and in cases of such violent hatred as rendered it in the
highest degree improbable that the husband and wife would survive
their animosities and again love one another. Divorce was denied
when both parties were guilty of unfaithfullness, and when only one
was guilty the innocent party might marry again. The ecclesiastical
court was to decide all questions concerning these causes. It is
said by Howard (Hist. of Matrim. Institutions, p. 80) that the
principles of this code, known as the "Reformatio Legum", were
carried out in practice, though not enacted into law. He adds that
"according to the ancient form of judgment divorce was probably
still pronounced only a mesa et thoro; but whatever the shape of the
decrees, there is strong evidence that from about 1548 to 1602,
except for the short period of Mary's reign, 'the community, in
cases of adultery, relied upon them as justifying a second act of
matrimony'". He says also that throughout nearly the whole of
Elizabeth's reign new marriages were freely contracted after
obtaining divorce from unfaithful partners. However, in 1602 the
Star Chamber pronounced a marriage invalid which had been contracted
after separation from bed and board by the degree of an
ecclesiastical judge (Foljambe's case, 3 Salk. 138).
Following this decision the canon law was administered in the
English spiritual courts with such rigour that it required an Act of
Parliament to permit a remarriage after divorce. In the tenth year
of James I (1613) an Act was passed to restrain remarriage by one
party while the other was alive, excepting, however, cases where
sentences had been pronounced by an ecclesiastical courts."
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05064a.htm>
--
Simon R. Hughes
Robert Bannister
Yes, I saw your posting after I had sent this. I would presume the divorce thing
came in with the Puritans around Cromwell's time.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
Fascinating stuff, Simon.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
Thanks for the info.
--
Rob Bannister
Steve Hayes
>>And Edward's marriage to her would have violated Anglican/Episcopalian canon
>>law at the time, which did not recognise divorce, so in terms of canon law the
>>marriage would not be valid.
>>
>Wrong, wrong, wrongitty wrong. The Church of England is an established
>Church. It is bound by the law of the state in these matters, not vice
>versa. The clergy may disapprove, but they have no standing whatever
>to consider such a marriage invalid.
Things have changed since back then, and the Church of England now has a
General Synod (since 1969). But back in the 1930s there were the Convocations
of Canterbury and Yor, which were official bodies that could legislate canon
law.
A useful source might be a biography of Cosmo Gordon Lang, who was Archbishop
of Canterbury at the time of the abdication crisis.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Hayes
wrote:
Quite possibly, but bear in mind that the separation of church courts from
secular courts is something quite recent.
Until 1858, all wills in England were proved in church courts, and around that
time (the time of the Oxford Movement) divorce was only possible by Act of
Parliament.
J. J. Lodder
> Queen mother: mother of the sovereign.
This 'queen mother' stuff is merely an English peculiarity,
having no general basis in royal custom.
For example, the former queen Juliana of the Netherlands
became princes Juliana again after her abdication.
Her daughter, princes Beatrix, became queen Beatrix,
and she will also become princes again
if she ever resigns in favour of her son prince Willem-Alexander.
There can be but one king or queen,
Jan
Harvey V
wrote:
> Lars Eighner <eig...@io.com> wrote:
>> Queen mother: mother of the sovereign.
>
> This 'queen mother' stuff is merely an English peculiarity,
> having no general basis in royal custom.
But the first OED citation (from the late 1500s) is in reference to the
court of "King Francis" -- presumably Francis II of France -- so it's
not always been an exclusively English peculiarity.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Richard Fontana
> There can be but one king or queen,
>
> Jan
But which is he (or she)?
david56
Nope, there can be any number of Queens. Each King can have a wife, who
retains the title Queen and the style "Majesty" after his death. Of
course, it doesn't work the other way around.
--
David
I say what it occurs to me to say.
The address is valid today, but I will change it to keep ahead of the
spammers.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Goodwill Zwelithini, of course.
john smith
> <...> If HRH The Prince of
> Wales marries and his mother HM The Queen predeceases him, his wife will
> be queen if she's not Catholic or he'll be passed over for king if she is
> Catholic. <...>
If she is Catholic, can't he just chop her head off and be king anyway?
I mean, these people are sticklers for precedents and tradition, aren't
they?
\\P. Schultz
Gary Vellenzer
Act was enacted. They found that it caused too many complications.
Gary
R J Valentine
I think there are at least two schools of thought on that one. One has it
that they don't perform the eligibility test until there is a vacancy, and
then only on the heir presumptive at the time (these people tend to keep
the full list (or the senior end of it, anyway) and not cross people off
until they have to). The other has it that there is something to the
"forever ineligible" and the "as if dead" parts of the requirements (these
people tend to cross people off when they look cross-eyed at a Catholic).
There seems to be a grey area where people are crossed off for marrying a
Catholic, yet somehow these "dead" people can have subsequent children who
are eligible.
People do seek and get permission to marry Catholics, though. George IV
is said to have married a Catholic (without permission) and later became
king.
A body might say well why don't they just repeal the Catholic stuff, but I
think that HM The Queen swore not to when she was crowned, and I
understand she takes her oath seriously. So the window of opportunity
will only be between the time of her eventual death and the time her
successor swears not to.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
Don Aitken
wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 01:25:07 -0400 john smith <jsm...@company.com> wrote:
>
>} R J Valentine wrote:
>}> <...> If HRH The Prince of
>}> Wales marries and his mother HM The Queen predeceases him, his wife will
>}> be queen if she's not Catholic or he'll be passed over for king if she is
>}> Catholic. <...>
>}
>} If she is Catholic, can't he just chop her head off and be king anyway?
>} I mean, these people are sticklers for precedents and tradition, aren't
>} they?
>
>I think there are at least two schools of thought on that one. One has it
>that they don't perform the eligibility test until there is a vacancy, and
>then only on the heir presumptive at the time (these people tend to keep
>the full list (or the senior end of it, anyway) and not cross people off
>until they have to). The other has it that there is something to the
>"forever ineligible" and the "as if dead" parts of the requirements (these
>people tend to cross people off when they look cross-eyed at a Catholic).
>There seems to be a grey area where people are crossed off for marrying a
>Catholic, yet somehow these "dead" people can have subsequent children who
>are eligible.
>
The rule is that a person who becomes a Catholic or marries a person
who is a Catholic is ipso facto ineligible. That ineligibility is
permanent, and is not affected by subsequent events, such as
conversion or divorce or death of the spouse. OTOH marriage to a
person who is not a Catholic at the time of the marriage, but
subsequently converts, does *not* disqualify - the Duke of Kent is in
this position. The children of a disqualified person are not
disqualified as such - only their own religion is relevant. Most of
the Catholic members of the royal family have children who are being
brought up as Protestants, and these are eligible. These rules are
well-understood, if not widely approved of, and their effect is clear.
The "wait and see" principle applies only to those who are *not*
Catholics, because there is a completely separate requirement which
requires the monarch to "join in communion" with the Church of
England; this is something which could only be tested once the person
concerned has succeeded. No case has yet arisen of a non-Catholic
refusing to do so, nor does one seem likely to. What would or should
be done in such a case is pretty obscure.
>People do seek and get permission to marry Catholics, though.
Descendants of George II who are British citizens require the
sovereign's permission to marry at all (Royal Marriages Act 1772).
This affects more than a thousand people. Such permission has been
refused, but is now granted automatically. The grant of such
permission has no effect on eligibility to succeed.
>George IV is said to have married a Catholic (without permission)
>and later became king.
He could do so because a marriage ceremony contrary to the terms of
the Royal Marriages Act is absolutely null and void, so he was not
married to a Catholic; he was not married at all. If he had been, he
would have committed bigamy when he married Caroline of Brunswick.
>A body might say well why don't they just repeal the Catholic stuff, but I
>think that HM The Queen swore not to when she was crowned, and I
>understand she takes her oath seriously. So the window of opportunity
>will only be between the time of her eventual death and the time her
>successor swears not to.
>
I don't think that an oath to protect the Protestant Church in England
and Scotland, which is all that the Coronation Oath says, should be
taken to require the retention of these restrictions, and I doubt that
the Queen thinks so either. The practical difficulty is that a change
would require concerted legislation by the sixteen different countries
she is Queen of, and it has never seemed particularly urgent.
--
Don Aitken
Mark Brader
> She was never a queen who was actually in charge of stuff, but she was
> still a queen. So I call her Elizabeth the One-and-a-halfth. Whole
> numbers are reserved for people who are in charge of stuff.
What do you call the other two Queen-Elizabeths-who-weren't-in-charge-
of-stuff, then?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto (require 'msb)
m...@vex.net -- Lars Lindberg
R J Valentine
Yes, that would be the second school of thought.
} OTOH marriage to a
} person who is not a Catholic at the time of the marriage, but
} subsequently converts, does *not* disqualify - the Duke of Kent is in
} this position.
True enough, but hardly interesting in an English-usage sense.
} The children of a disqualified person are not
} disqualified as such - only their own religion is relevant. Most of
} the Catholic members of the royal family have children who are being
} brought up as Protestants, and these are eligible.
Catholics? Bringing their children up as Protestants? What kind of
Catholics are they? And are these children conceived after they became
dead under the law?
} These rules are
} well-understood, if not widely approved of, and their effect is clear.
Not so clear when there is an exception for descendants of princesses
marrying into foreign houses. Find me one person supposedly covered by
the Royal Marriage Act who isn't so descended.
} The "wait and see" principle applies only to those who are *not*
} Catholics, because there is a completely separate requirement which
} requires the monarch to "join in communion" with the Church of
} England; this is something which could only be tested once the person
} concerned has succeeded. No case has yet arisen of a non-Catholic
} refusing to do so, nor does one seem likely to. What would or should
} be done in such a case is pretty obscure.
Again true enough, but hardly interesting in an English-usage sense.
}>People do seek and get permission to marry Catholics, though.
}
} Descendants of George II who are British citizens require the
} sovereign's permission to marry at all (Royal Marriages Act 1772).
} This affects more than a thousand people. Such permission has been
} refused, but is now granted automatically. The grant of such
} permission has no effect on eligibility to succeed.
It would seem to have a right significant effect on the eligibility of
their descendants (unless of course they are exempt from the Royal
Marriage Act in the first place).
}>George IV is said to have married a Catholic (without permission)
}>and later became king.
}
} He could do so because a marriage ceremony contrary to the terms of
} the Royal Marriages Act is absolutely null and void, so he was not
} married to a Catholic; he was not married at all. If he had been, he
} would have committed bigamy when he married Caroline of Brunswick.
And would it be treason for a Briton to suggest that he did? It's not at
all clear that a marriage in contravention of the Royal Marriage Act is
null and void, if for instance it is perfectly valid in the country where
it is contracted.
}>A body might say well why don't they just repeal the Catholic stuff, but I
}>think that HM The Queen swore not to when she was crowned, and I
}>understand she takes her oath seriously. So the window of opportunity
}>will only be between the time of her eventual death and the time her
}>successor swears not to.
}>
} I don't think that an oath to protect the Protestant Church in England
} and Scotland, which is all that the Coronation Oath says, should be
} taken to require the retention of these restrictions, and I doubt that
} the Queen thinks so either. The practical difficulty is that a change
} would require concerted legislation by the sixteen different countries
} she is Queen of, and it has never seemed particularly urgent.
Pish tush. Concerted legislation got itself arranged pretty quickly when
Edward VIII suggested his intent to abdicate. It'll be urgent when it
happens and it won't be urgent until then.
I'll go you one better. I say that Papists as envisioned under the Bill
of Rights or the Act of Settlement don't even exist any more. No such
animal. To claim that Roman Catholics today are Papists is pure bigotry.
NOW we're talking English usage.
R J Valentine
} Joona Palaste writes:
}> She was never a queen who was actually in charge of stuff, but she was
}> still a queen. So I call her Elizabeth the One-and-a-halfth. Whole
}> numbers are reserved for people who are in charge of stuff.
}
} What do you call the other two Queen-Elizabeths-who-weren't-in-charge-
} of-stuff, then?
Elizabeth the One-halfth (the queen of Henry VII) and Elizabeth the
One-quarterth (her mother).
In English usage.
Robert Bannister
> I'll go you one better. I say that Papists as envisioned under the Bill
> of Rights or the Act of Settlement don't even exist any more. No such
> animal. To claim that Roman Catholics today are Papists is pure bigotry.
>
> NOW we're talking English usage.
I am thoroughly confused about what you mean by 'Papist'. Bigotry, I can
understand, but what else does the word mean apart from RC?
Mirriam Webster:
Main Entry: pa·pist
Pronunciation: 'pA-pist
Function: noun
Usage: often capitalized
Etymology: Middle French or New Latin; Middle French
papiste,
from pape
pope; New Latin papista, from Late Latin papa pope
Date: 1534
usually disparaging : ROMAN CATHOLIC
- papist adjective, usually disparaging
Roman Catholics are still, AFAIK, controlled by a foreign power in the Vatican
City and as such might not be considered by some to be suitable leaders of a
non-Italian country. Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists,
Hindus, etc, owe no allegiance to a centralised, foreign authority.
--
Rob Bannister
Tony Cooper
>
> Roman Catholics are still, AFAIK, controlled by a foreign power in the Vatican
> City and as such might not be considered by some to be suitable leaders of a
> non-Italian country. Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists,
> Hindus, etc, owe no allegiance to a centralised, foreign authority.
>
interesting. I wish I was articulate enough on this point
to refute it. The doctrine of the faith is under the
control of Rome. The people are not.
I'm not even sure if I think the doctrine is under the
control of Rome. The Pope resides in Vatican City. Vatican
City is foreign, and a power. It's questionable to me,
though, that the foreign power is in control.
Damn. Tough point to argue.
--
Tony Cooper aka: tony_co...@yahoo.com
Provider of Jots and Tittles
R J Valentine
} R J Valentine wrote:
}
}> I'll go you one better. I say that Papists as envisioned under the Bill
}> of Rights or the Act of Settlement don't even exist any more. No such
}> animal. To claim that Roman Catholics today are Papists is pure bigotry.
}>
}> NOW we're talking English usage.
}
} I am thoroughly confused about what you mean by 'Papist'. Bigotry, I can
} understand, but what else does the word mean apart from RC?
}
} Mirriam Webster:
Oy!
} Main Entry: pa·pist
} Pronunciation: 'pA-pist
} Function: noun
} Usage: often capitalized
} Etymology: Middle French or New Latin; Middle French
} papiste,
} from pape
} pope; New Latin papista, from Late Latin papa pope
} Date: 1534
} usually disparaging : ROMAN CATHOLIC
} - papist adjective, usually disparaging
}
} Roman Catholics are still, AFAIK, controlled by a foreign power in the Vatican
} City and as such might not be considered by some to be suitable leaders of a
} non-Italian country. Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists,
} Hindus, etc, owe no allegiance to a centralised, foreign authority.
That's been pretty well demolished by John F. Kennedy, if not Thomas
Dewey. There's a little bit to what you say if we were talking about
Roman Catholic bishops in positions of political authority in
"non-Italian" countries, because arguably they do owe some religious
allegiance (if not political) to a foreign prince. But the pope has
disallowed even that by forbidding Roman Catholic clergy from holding
political office. Britons might be quivering in their boots if they
thought that the person who had large influence over the House of Commons
(and hence the House of Lords, and hence the Sovereign) were to be
discovered to be a Catholic or married to a Catholic, IF THERE WERE
ANYTHING TO THE POINT.
Ordinary Catholics owe no more political allegiance to the pope than do
foreign recipients of honorary knighthoods to HM The Queen. Of course
they're polite and all.
When the word "Papist" was used to describe people thought to be under the
thumb of the pope, there may well have been some influence to be feared in
the British succession, coming as it was out of several bloody wars over
the matter. Nowadays ordinary treason laws ought to do the trick, and
Britons who feel guided by the Act of Settlement should thank their lucky
stars that the Pope doesn't roll out the red carpet to the Anglican
Communion in a flood of Christian Unity, because as I understand the
matter, Roman Catholics as baptized Christians are already welcome to join
in Communion in many of their churches, and a reciprocity would disqualify
almost the entire set of descendants of the Electress Sophia.
But, sure, watch out for bishops. Especially the ones who give you their
hand palm down when you go to shake hands.
Catholics aren't Papists anymore, if they ever were. In English usage.
Those guys they were worried about in the Bill of RIghts and the Act of
Settlement? There aren't any of them still around. They're dead.
However, this "controlled" stuff is interesting, because I haven't heard
crap like that in the U.S. of A. since 1960. Does the BCP still have that
kind of talk in it?
Richard Fontana
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 07:48:17 +0800 Robert Bannister <rob...@it.net.au> wrote:
> }
> } Roman Catholics are still, AFAIK, controlled by a foreign power in the Vatican
> } City and as such might not be considered by some to be suitable leaders of a
> } non-Italian country. Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists,
> } Hindus, etc, owe no allegiance to a centralised, foreign authority.
>
> That's been pretty well demolished by John F. Kennedy, if not Thomas
> Dewey.
Kennedy yes. Dewey was Catholic? I did not know that. He never
defeated Truman, but that was on account of his cheezy moustache. Al
Smith faced a lot of anti-Catholicism, but that might have also been
anti-Hibernicism and anti-Traditionalist-New-York-accentism.
> There's a little bit to what you say if we were talking about
> Roman Catholic bishops in positions of political authority in
> "non-Italian" countries, because arguably they do owe some religious
> allegiance (if not political) to a foreign prince. But the pope has
> disallowed even that by forbidding Roman Catholic clergy from holding
> political office. Britons might be quivering in their boots if they
> thought that the person who had large influence over the House of Commons
> (and hence the House of Lords, and hence the Sovereign) were to be
> discovered to be a Catholic or married to a Catholic, IF THERE WERE
> ANYTHING TO THE POINT.
What's the deal with Rob's "non-Italian" reference anyhow? Sure,
Vatican City is an independent sovereign "state" (though is it a
nation-state?) and, very loosely, a "country", and it's located on the
Italian peninsula, but is it not extremely misleading to suggest that the
Vatican is an "Italian country"? I'm not sure; the answer seems to be
dependent on the fact that there *was* a unification of Italy
(accomplished, let us remember, by a bunch of staunch
church-smashing anti-Catholics). I mean, I dunno. I was thinking of
Rockaway, which (today at least) straddles both Queens and Nassau
counties, but I guess it's not a very interesting parallel, or, in
fact, not a parallel at all.
Now it's been a while and a day since I studied Italian history but my
recollection is that up until several years after Mussolini
(= PStfl "Moozalini") got into office the Italian state had a
firm anti-Papal policy and had kept the Pope, once the ruler of the
not-insignificant Papal States, a "prisoner of the Vatican" since 1870.
The early Fascists were as anti-Catholic as the pre-Fascist rulers of the
united Italy. But in 1929 Mussolini reached that Concordat with the
Church which established the Vatican as a sovereign state once again
(though a whole lot smaller in area), and the Italian state
for the first time recognized the RCCh as the official established
state religion (except, unlike the British situation, Victor Emmanuel
III wasn't the head of the Church). This post-1929 policy did not end
with the fall of the Fascist State, and the RCCh continued to be the
single official state religion in Italy until 1984. I think the
situation now is that all sorts of religions can get official
recognition by the state, and several minority religions in Italy have
in fact accordingly reached their own concordats with the Italian state
(including Jews, Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, Jehovah's
Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, one particular Buddhist group, and
a number of others).
> Ordinary Catholics owe no more political allegiance to the pope than do
> foreign recipients of honorary knighthoods to HM The Queen. Of course
> they're polite and all.
You got that right.
> When the word "Papist" was used to describe people thought to be under the
> thumb of the pope, there may well have been some influence to be feared in
> the British succession, coming as it was out of several bloody wars over
> the matter. Nowadays ordinary treason laws ought to do the trick, and
> Britons who feel guided by the Act of Settlement should thank their lucky
> stars that the Pope doesn't roll out the red carpet to the Anglican
> Communion in a flood of Christian Unity, because as I understand the
> matter, Roman Catholics as baptized Christians are already welcome to join
> in Communion in many of their churches, and a reciprocity would disqualify
> almost the entire set of descendants of the Electress Sophia.
Now that's what I'm talkin' 'bout.
> But, sure, watch out for bishops. Especially the ones who give you their
> hand palm down when you go to shake hands.
>
> Catholics aren't Papists anymore, if they ever were. In English usage.
>
> Those guys they were worried about in the Bill of RIghts and the Act of
> Settlement? There aren't any of them still around. They're dead.
>
> However, this "controlled" stuff is interesting, because I haven't heard
> crap like that in the U.S. of A. since 1960. Does the BCP still have that
> kind of talk in it?
That's 'cause you've lived on the East Coast all that time, except for
that SITA. I heard that sort of thing as late as the Early
Post-Gulf-War Era -- from Canadians and Upper Midwesterners, if
that's relevant, but they may not have been representative. Who was
the last serious Catholic contender for the US Presidency? John F.
Kennedy, I guess. Bill Clinton went to Georgetown, though.
Alan Jones
"R J Valentine" <r...@smart.net> wrote in message
news:ubn7og5...@corp.supernews.com...
[...]
> Those guys they were worried about in the Bill of Rights and the Act of
> Settlement? There aren't any of them still around. They're dead.
Those guys may be dead, but the Acts are still alive and will kick if
prodded. The texts can be found www.worldfreeinternet.net/parliament/ . Try
the Act of Settlement 1701, in which "popish", "papist" and "Church of Rome"
clearly have the same connotation. The Coronation Oath Act 1689 has a
curious final clause stating that the Oath (to maintain "the Protestant
reformed religion established by law") must be administered to all future
Kings and Queens "any law, statute, or usage to the contrary
notwithstanding". I thought that no Parliament could bind its successor, but
perhaps this wording means any *existing* law etc.
> However, this "controlled" stuff is interesting, because I haven't heard
> crap like that in the U.S. of A. since 1960. Does the BCP still have that
> kind of talk in it?
The BCP remains unchanged and valid ["The Bishop of Rome hath no
jurisdiction within this Realm of England"], but it isn't any longer the
standard prayer book of the Church of England, having been supplanted for
everyday use by "Common Worship". CW doesn't so far include the Thirty-Nine
Articles or any equivalent, but it's less a book than an "ongoing project".
It includes all kinds of permitted variants, and bits are still appearing,
such as the wedding and funeral services, in little books of their own. The
priest and parochial church council of each parish are invited to use the
internet texts to compile a service book of their own devising, by
assembling sections of what is described as "materials" for worship.
Alan Jones
Alan Jones
"Don Aitken" <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:3cb982cb...@news.freeuk.net...[...]
> >George IV is said to have married a Catholic (without permission)
> >and later became king.
>
> He could do so because a marriage ceremony contrary to the terms of
> the Royal Marriages Act is absolutely null and void, so he was not
> married to a Catholic; he was not married at all. If he had been, he
> would have committed bigamy when he married Caroline of Brunswick.
The Pope ruled otherwise, saying that the earlier marriage was valid, though
conducted by a Protestant minister, and that Maria Fitzherbert not only
could but should return to live with George as his wife. She did so for nine
years after George separated from Caroline, but finally broke off all
contact when courtiers made her position impossible by belittling and
insulting her. George was weak enough to let her go rather than defy the
Court, but awarded her a very handsome pension for the rest of what proved
to be a long life. George always wore a locket containing a miniature
portrait of Maria, and it was buried with him.
Alan Jones
Pat Durkin
"Robert Bannister" <rob...@it.net.au> wrote in message
news:3CBB66C1...@it.net.au...
> R J Valentine wrote:
>
> > I'll go you one better. I say that Papists as envisioned under the Bill
> > of Rights or the Act of Settlement don't even exist any more. No such
> > animal. To claim that Roman Catholics today are Papists is pure
bigotry.
> >
> > NOW we're talking English usage.
>
> I am thoroughly confused about what you mean by 'Papist'. Bigotry, I can
> understand, but what else does the word mean apart from RC?
>
> Mirriam Webster:
To repeat what R. J. said
"Oy!"
> Main Entry: pa·pist
> Pronunciation: 'pA-pist
> Function: noun
> Usage: often capitalized
> Etymology: Middle French or New Latin; Middle
French papiste,
> from pape pope; New Latin papista, from Late
Latin papa pope
> Date: 1534
> usually disparaging : ROMAN CATHOLIC
> - papist adjective, usually disparaging
>
> Roman Catholics are still, AFAIK, controlled by a foreign power in the
Vatican
> City and as such might not be considered by some to be suitable leaders of
a
> non-Italian country. Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Muslims, Jews,
Buddhists,
> Hindus, etc, owe no allegiance to a centralised, foreign authority.
In discussing the role of the Pope in the worldly affairs of the American
Catholic, I learned in my Christian Doctrine classes that the Pope is
respected as a head of state (the Vatican), but need not be obeyed by
Americans Catholics unless they are in that State or unless he speaks on
matters of faith and morals, and then, only if he speaks with authority, _ex
cathedra_. Opposition to or violations of these papal decisions are
personal decisions and willingness to sin.
These discussions took place during my highschool years, the early 1950s.
Statements involving political borders, loyalty, patriotism, and the like
need not be obeyed. I believe there was some discussion back in the '50's
about automatic excommunication for membership in the Communist Party, but I
don't think any official papal decree performed that declaration. I am
unfamiliar with the current status of sin in issues of abortion, female
priests and other controversies.
Outside the Soviet Union and China, it was my impression that the largest
and most active Communist Party was in Italy.
Don Aitken
wrote:
[snip]
>In discussing the role of the Pope in the worldly affairs of the American
>Catholic, I learned in my Christian Doctrine classes that the Pope is
>respected as a head of state (the Vatican), but need not be obeyed by
>Americans Catholics unless they are in that State or unless he speaks on
>matters of faith and morals, and then, only if he speaks with authority, _ex
>cathedra_. Opposition to or violations of these papal decisions are
>personal decisions and willingness to sin.
>
>These discussions took place during my highschool years, the early 1950s.
>
>Statements involving political borders, loyalty, patriotism, and the like
>need not be obeyed.
That is all very well, but we were discussing the Act of Settlement,
which arose as a response to specific events in British history. To
take just one, in the 1570s the Pope not only excommunicated
Elizabeth I, which I would concede he was entitled to do, but
purported to depose her from her throne and absolve all her subjects
from their obligation of obedience to her. The main reason for the
persecution of English Catholics for many years after this was that
they refused, as the Church required them to do, to take an oath that
they did not believe that the Pope had the power to do this. Both the
Church and its opponents have long memories, and what was taught in
American Catholic schools in the mid-20th century is not necessarily
the whole story.
--
Don Aitken
Pat Durkin
Sorry, Don. I was replying to Bannister, whose statements and attribution
you snipped. He was referring to the 20th Century, or maybe even the 21st.
I don't mean to deny history, nor even its effect on current practice. By
the way, when you say the "Church and its opponents", I admit to a bit of
confusion. I must deduce which Church from context(the English one as
established by Henry, or the Roman one as established by prior use and
custom, if you don't credit the Peter story).
Even in today's newspapers, journalists hurl that term around without
defining it. Sometimes they really mean the Christian churches
(denominations) leaders. My upbringing was to assume the "Roman" Catholic
Church guided by the Holy Father, etc. I only learned in my 20's how
similar the prayers in the Book of Common Prayer are to those of the Church
of my childhood. Don't know when I heard Anglicans and Episcopalians
referred to as Catholics in a context that confused me no end.
Don Aitken
wrote:
>
[snip]
>> That is all very well, but we were discussing the Act of Settlement,
>> which arose as a response to specific events in British history. To
>> take just one, in the 1570s the Pope not only excommunicated
>> Elizabeth I, which I would concede he was entitled to do, but
>> purported to depose her from her throne and absolve all her subjects
>> from their obligation of obedience to her. The main reason for the
>> persecution of English Catholics for many years after this was that
>> they refused, as the Church required them to do, to take an oath that
>> they did not believe that the Pope had the power to do this. Both the
>> Church and its opponents have long memories, and what was taught in
>> American Catholic schools in the mid-20th century is not necessarily
>> the whole story.
>
>Sorry, Don. I was replying to Bannister, whose statements and attribution
>you snipped. He was referring to the 20th Century, or maybe even the 21st.
>
>I don't mean to deny history, nor even its effect on current practice. By
>the way, when you say the "Church and its opponents", I admit to a bit of
>confusion. I must deduce which Church from context(the English one as
>established by Henry, or the Roman one as established by prior use and
>custom, if you don't credit the Peter story).
>
Well, lets get down to the usage point here. The fact that both Roman
Catholics and Anglicans are in the habit of calling their own
denomination "the Church" does make things confusing, but I think that
when I refer to "English Catholics" and "the Pope" in the same
sentence it is reasonable to expect "the Church" to be understood as
meaning the Roman Catholic Church, and to carry the same meaning in
the following sentence. However, I agree with Fowler, who I have
quoted on this point before, that use of the term "Catholic" when one
means "Roman Catholic" is undesirable. It was prompted entirely by an
excessive urge towards brevity.
--
Don Aitken
R J Valentine
...
} Kennedy yes. Dewey was Catholic? I did not know that. He never
} defeated Truman, but that was on account of his cheezy moustache. Al
} Smith faced a lot of anti-Catholicism, but that might have also been
} anti-Hibernicism and anti-Traditionalist-New-York-accentism.
Al Smith, _that's_ the guy! I was wrong. I'm sorry.
Richard Fontana
Hey, it were an honourable mistake. I think you could have got away
with it, if it hadn't been for a meddling kid like me. I shouldn't
have told.
It's good to know, though, that we have the most accurate facts
possible.
Charles Riggs
<rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>It's good to know, though, that we have the most accurate facts
>possible.
Yes indeed. I so prefer them to inaccurate facts.
--
Charles Riggs