Charles and the Pope
Author
Discussion

Lois

Original Poster:

14,706 posts

281 months

Monday 4th April 2005
quotequote all
OK now I'm really confused. As I knew it the Royal family is Church of England, in which case why has Old Luggs cut his holiday short for the Pope?

obiwonkeyblokey

5,400 posts

269 months

Monday 4th April 2005
quotequote all
Because the Pope is a head of State ( Vatican City ) The smallest country in the world ( I think - although I may have been reading too much Dan Brown)

billb

3,198 posts

294 months

Monday 4th April 2005
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]


he cant be that bothered as the funeral might be the same day as his wedding!

miniman

30,000 posts

291 months

Monday 4th April 2005
quotequote all
I would imagine it's a simple protocol thing - royals are expected to participate in anything of this nature. Also, think of the flack he would get if he did nothing at all...

lazyitus

19,931 posts

295 months

Monday 4th April 2005
quotequote all
obiwonkeyblokey said:
I think - although I may have been reading too much Dan Brown


He's brilliant isn't he? Those mind tricks are fascinating.

lazyitus

19,931 posts

295 months

Monday 4th April 2005
quotequote all
Wedding has now been postponed until Saturday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4409507.stm

shirepro

11,838 posts

264 months

Monday 4th April 2005
quotequote all
Charles would go to the opening of a packet of crisps .

nonegreen

7,803 posts

299 months

Tuesday 5th April 2005
quotequote all
We are not a Papist country we have not been for a long time. Henry 8 decreed that if the Pope came here he would be beheaded. How many concenssions to English law do these papists want? Our parasite lugs is cow towing to some crackpot fancy religious crap. Our prime minister who was elected by a tiny minority is calling the tune for the head of state. Time to separate church and state and get rid of the monarch to make way for a president.

Rob_F

4,153 posts

293 months

Tuesday 5th April 2005
quotequote all
Say what you really mean Nonegreen.

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

284 months

Tuesday 5th April 2005
quotequote all
nonegreen said:
get rid of the monarch to make way for a president.



And what contingency plans do have, come the inauguration of President Kenny, the Living Stone.....?

nonegreen

7,803 posts

299 months

Tuesday 5th April 2005
quotequote all
mybrainhurts said:

nonegreen said:
get rid of the monarch to make way for a president.




And what contingency plans do have, come the inauguration of President Kenny, the Living Stone.....?


Like all nations with an elected head of state and 2 elected houses we would set them against each other. If we had elected police chiefs too then we could vote speed cameras out and silly bumps too. You only have to put up with a green Moron for 4 years, Charlie Windsor is there for good and he is every bit as big a tosser as Livingstone, perhaps even more so.

Eric Mc

125,606 posts

294 months

Tuesday 5th April 2005
quotequote all
Name any papist countries - apart from THe Vatican, of course.

nonegreen

7,803 posts

299 months

Tuesday 5th April 2005
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Name any papist countries - apart from THe Vatican, of course.


Brazil, large parts of Africa, some countries in Europe are still catholic strongholds. Anywhere where there is poverty really because religion thrives on it.

Eric Mc

125,606 posts

294 months

Tuesday 5th April 2005
quotequote all
Just because large elements of the population are Catholic doesn't make a country "papist". I would suggest that a papist country is one where outside influence by Rome has a significant effect on the drafting of legislation or influences the democratic process in a that country.

I would suggest that, in this day and age, there are very few countries where this might apply. Certainly, being Irish, I know very well the influence Rome had on that country but even Ireland has distanced itself quite a bit from the hand of Rome. I'm not saying Rome doesn't try to influence Catholic populations (it would be remiss in its duties and obligations as a church if it didn't) but increasingly its influence is diminished.

planetdave

9,922 posts

282 months

Tuesday 5th April 2005
quotequote all
I have a Polish friend.

Apparently they are 'shut' at the mo.

Does that count?

nonegreen

7,803 posts

299 months

Tuesday 5th April 2005
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Just because large elements of the population are Catholic doesn't make a country "papist". I would suggest that a papist country is one where outside influence by Rome has a significant effect on the drafting of legislation or influences the democratic process in a that country.

I would suggest that, in this day and age, there are very few countries where this might apply. Certainly, being Irish, I know very well the influence Rome had on that country but even Ireland has distanced itself quite a bit from the hand of Rome. I'm not saying Rome doesn't try to influence Catholic populations (it would be remiss in its duties and obligations as a church if it didn't) but increasingly its influence is diminished.


Agreed and with that in mind why the hell is this dead vicar having any effect on our country? Shifting this registry office doo from Friday to Saturday is gonna cost plenty. Are we gonna levy the catholic church? If we as a definately non catholic country are being affected in this way then the mass hysteria that surrounds the popes death indicates that catholicism is still big and powerful especially in the poverty stricken countries.

planetdave

9,922 posts

282 months

Tuesday 5th April 2005
quotequote all
Or it's a quiet news week and the prospect of some fancy robes action tickles the telly people?

Eric Mc

125,606 posts

294 months

Tuesday 5th April 2005
quotequote all
Charles was obliged to go as it is the funeral of a Head of State. In addition, there are 5 million Catholics resident in the UK, the largest religious grouping apart from the Anglican churches (much higher than Muslims as well) so there could be political fall out if it was ignored. I actually think Charles would have wanted to go anyway and it is just bad luck that it coincided with the wedding. Finally, Camilla is a Catholic and might even have persuaded him that it was the right thing to do..

nonegreen

7,803 posts

299 months

Tuesday 5th April 2005
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Charles was obliged to go as it is the funeral of a Head of State. In addition, there are 5 million Catholics resident in the UK, the largest religious grouping apart from the Anglican churches (much higher than Muslims as well) so there could be political fall out if it was ignored. I actually think Charles would have wanted to go anyway and it is just bad luck that it coincided with the wedding. Finally, Camilla is a Catholic and might even have persuaded him that it was the right thing to do..



I thought Camilla married a catholic and so was a convert? If she is a catholic she cannot be queen, ever, or are we having religious tollerance foisted on us now by closet left footers like Blair? 80% of the country are not religious, Athiest or agnostic. A far larger number of people stated their religion as Jedi and yet all of this is dismissed and the Prince of Wales hot foots it to a funeral. I personally find that offensive. Did the Pope show up at Diana's funeral? Perhaps its time the non religious crowd started forming political parties with a view to ousting this shower. I dont want anyone running anything if they have an imaginary freind its bollox.

Eric Mc

125,606 posts

294 months

Tuesday 5th April 2005
quotequote all
Diana wasn't a head of state.

Why should the Pope turn up at her funeral anyway? Although, for all I know, one of his reps may very well have been there.