FAIL Britannia

[derspiess]

To hell with tradition, eh?  Might as well scrap the whole monarchy thing while you're at it

If they end up with a Catholic on the throne, that's it-- I'm shopping around for another mother country.  Yeah, I went there.

[Drakken]

If they end up with a Catholic on the throne, that's it-- I'm shopping around for another mother country.  Yeah, I went there.

Won't happen, Royals are still forbidden to be or convert to Catholicism.

[Valmy]

To hell with tradition, eh?  Might as well scrap the whole monarchy thing while you're at it

If they end up with a Catholic on the throne, that's it-- I'm shopping around for another mother country.  Yeah, I went there.

Step away from the ledge Protty boy.  The monarch can only marry a Catholic if he/she wants.  The kids and the monarch must be Anglicans.

[dps]

To hell with tradition, eh?  Might as well scrap the whole monarchy thing while you're at it

If they end up with a Catholic on the throne, that's it-- I'm shopping around for another mother country.  Yeah, I went there.

Reading comprehension FAIL!

[derspiess]

To hell with tradition, eh?  Might as well scrap the whole monarchy thing while you're at it

If they end up with a Catholic on the throne, that's it-- I'm shopping around for another mother country.  Yeah, I went there.

Reading comprehension FAIL!

I read it.  What I'm saying is the new law could eventually lead to a Catholic on the throne. 

The Act of Settlement was passed for a reason, people!!

[The Minsky Moment]

Sensible move, really - overall the Queens have done better than the Kings.  Why not reinforce success?

[Valmy]

Sensible move, really - overall the Queens have done better than the Kings.  Why not reinforce success?

Well of the monarchs who actually had any power I guess it is whether you like Elizabeth vs. the field.

[crazy canuck]

Having a Jewish monarch would be great, it would annoy so many people who richly deserve to be annoyed 

He or she could have a great Biblical name, too. King David the First. That would set the ultra-religious off in an apocalyptic frenzy. 

Alas, it is not to be, unless the regs are changed some more ...

Its funny how eveyrone quickly agreed that in this modern age it is unthinkable to restrict the gender of the monarch and who they might marry but it is perfectly fine to ensure the monarch themselves have the proper religion.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't see why it should be limited to monarchs who had power, particularly since the argument is over what the rules should be for future monarchs without power.  Just because the monarchs lack formal political power doesn't mean there still aren't good and bad ones.  For example, QE2 has been pretty good; Edward VIII, not good.  Victoria - good; George IV, not so good.

[Valmy]

I don't see why it should be limited to monarchs who had power, particularly since the argument is over what the rules should be for future monarchs without power.  Just because the monarchs lack formal political power doesn't mean there still aren't good and bad ones.  For example, QE2 has been pretty good; Edward VIII, not good.  Victoria - good; George IV, not so good.

I thought George V and George VI really stepped up in their nation's biggest moments of peril.  But you cannot really give them credit for it anymore than you can give QE2 or Victoria credit for how Britain has done under their ceremonial leadership.

Edward VII wasn't too shabby as a figure head either but I am naturally biased towards him because he put his limited influence behind the Entente.

[grumbler]

You may have missed the bit about Catholics being allowed back into the Royal Family.

The issue on which the jacobites differed from their opponents wasn't whether the royalty could have catholic family members.  It was over the succession to the throne, not whether some Catholic would be a Royal Highness as the Duchess of Windsor.  In fact, Princess Michael of Kent is both catholic and titled Her Royal Highness, so she is a member of the royal family as a catholic.  No Jacobin issue there.

[Eddie Teach]

Sensible move, really - overall the Queens have done better than the Kings.  Why not reinforce success?

Well of the monarchs who actually had any power I guess it is whether you like Elizabeth vs. the field.

There's also Mary.

[Razgovory]

I don't see why it should be limited to monarchs who had power, particularly since the argument is over what the rules should be for future monarchs without power.  Just because the monarchs lack formal political power doesn't mean there still aren't good and bad ones.  For example, QE2 has been pretty good; Edward VIII, not good.  Victoria - good; George IV, not so good.

I thought George V and George VI really stepped up in their nation's biggest moments of peril.  But you cannot really give them credit for it anymore than you can give QE2 or Victoria credit for how Britain has done under their ceremonial leadership.

Edward VII wasn't too shabby as a figure head either but I am naturally biased towards him because he put his limited influence behind the Entente.

Well the Kings had subtle power, the ability to shift public opinion and spread goodwill.  Ed 6 proved a master of this touring France.  It's a shame he was not able to convince his morbidly suspicious nephew that Britain wasn't plating against Germany.

[The Minsky Moment]

Ed 6 proved a master of this touring France. 

Did he ever even leave the British isles?

[KRonn]

Well, it's about time! There have been some pretty impressive Queens of England, Elizabeth, Victoria, so I'm just surprised that this has taken so long!

Queen Victoria even has a computer game named after her!