<p>This reasoning is hard for us Americans to understand, especially since there are no prohibitions against heirs to the throne marrying anyone of any other faith, other than Catholic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There has been a streak of anti-Catholicism in Britain and other protestant European nations historically due to bitterness arising from the Reformation conflicts hundreds of years ago…especially considering it was the Catholics who were the dominant religion back then backed up by Spain, a superpower in its time. </p>
<p>Spanish Armada, anyone?:</p>
<p>[Horrible</a> Histories Spanish Amada 1-5 - YouTube](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXtbrRyN9cI]Horrible”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXtbrRyN9cI)</p>
<p>Even the fact most royals raised in other religious faiths almost always converted to the faith of the reigning houses they married into* didn’t help with Catholics due to this longstanding suspicion/prejudice against Catholics. </p>
<p>*i.e. Prince Phillip (Greek Orthodox to Church of England) or Tsar Nicholas II’s wife Alexandra Feodorovna(German Lutheranism to Russian Orthodox)).</p>
<p>nottelling, the key point is that the Monarch must be Church of England as s/he is Supreme Governor of the CofE. So an heir raised a Catholic is an impossibility. The proposed change to the rule of succession would allow the heir to marry a Catholic but does not allow a Catholic (or any other faith) to assume the throne.</p>
<p>Re historical roots of anti-Catholicism, there was an interesting editorial on this in the Times today: " So why has this silly, discriminatory situation been allowed to persist into the genome era? Partly probably because it emerges from the heart of our great national foundation myth the island race. Britain, to an extent, and England almost completely, was properly born in the aftermath of the split from Rome. While Henry VIII had been plus catholique que le pape as a young king, his marital needs led him to break away and become head of his own Church. To sell this to a largely Catholic population over a couple of generations meant creating a major body of legend and myth. One of these was that we were somehow different from the priest-bound servitors of that supranational abomination, the Papacy.".</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is particularly hard because our country is founded on religious freedom, the reason our founding fathers left England in the first place. It’s hard for us to appreciate the long history of the Catholic church in Europe and the many ways it was tied to government. Even today, it is hard for us to understand the king being (what did you call him? governor?) of the Church of England. It’s just the opposite of what has evolved here in the US.</p>
<p>A bit off-thread, but as historians have noted, the Pilgrims and the progeny who became the founding fathers of American certainly believed in religious freedom; for Protestants. As men of their time, they were quite suspicious and in the main, intolerant of Catholics. There were exceptions, including the Catholic friendly colonies of Maryland and South Carolina.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Not just any old Protestant was okay. In the case of the Pilgrims they weren’t tolerant of anyone who didn’t hold to the same very strict version of Puritan theology that they followed. They banished Roger Williams from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for the crime of being a slightly different theological variety of Puritan. So he went out into the wilderness and founded his own separate colony, which is now called Rhode Island.</p>
<p>By time we get to the Founding Fathers they are somewhat more tolerant. They were happy to include the Catholic-friendly colonies of Maryland and South Carolina in the new nation they were creating. Back in Pilgrim times that would have been unthinkable. And there is George Washington’s famous letter extending welcome to the Jews to the US - a letter that is still revered in US Jewish circles to this day.</p>
<p>^ ^</p>
<p>I also recalled reading that Ben Franklin made it a point to publicly support the practice of different faiths…including contributing funds to the building of house of worship in Philly whether it was an Episcopal church, synagogue, or other denominations/faiths.</p>
<p>Well, since at least 1-2 of you enjoyed the history lesson, let me explain why IMO the partition doomed Ireland to generations of conflict. Now, admittedly this is simplified and I’m biased in favor of the Catholic view. </p>
<p>In 1918 there was an election. Although technically it wasn’t about Irish independence, it really was because the people elected reps who were for or against Irish independence. The Unionists won the vote in the majority -Protestant part of Northern Ireland. It was a relatively small area. BTW, these Protestants tended to be Presbyterians rather then Church of Ireland. Some were descended from common soldiers in Cromwell’s army who were paid in land–and who didn’t return to England when the royals came back to power. This group wanted to stay part of the UK. (This group also tended to be more rabidly after-Catholic than the Protestant gentry in the South.)</p>
<p>Northern Ireland was granted an “opt out.” That meant if its reps in the Irish parliament wanted to opt out of the Irish Free state, they could. </p>
<p>A commission was set up to determine the boundaries of Northern Ireland. Most people thought that the areas that had voted for the Unionist parties would constitute Northern Ireland. (The part that voted for Sinn Fein would be Southern Ireland.) One problem was that this area was more industrialized than most of Ireland. </p>
<p>What everyone could figure out was that the small part of Northern Ireland that wanted to remain in the UK couldn’t feed itself. Now, historically, there were provinces in Ireland. The northern most province was Ulster, which had nine counties. In Ulster as a whole, Catholics were the majority, so making Ulster=Northern Ireland would mean the pro-independence faction would win. But if only the parts that wanted to remain part of the UK became Northern Ireland, they couldn’t feed themselves. </p>
<p>So, essentially, the government’s boundary commission drew an area around the pro-Union part of Northern Ireland and made that area as large as it could and still end up with a Unionist/Protestant majority. In doing so, it took in 3 counties that were fervently pro-independence and Catholic. In two other counties, the southern half or so was also pro-independence/ Catholic.</p>
<p>The best analogy I can think of is this: Imagine a negotiated end to the US Civil War. After the cease fire, the peace treaty says that there will be a Confederacy. But when the Union draws the map, Virginia and North Carolina are part of the North. </p>
<p>There were lots of people in Ireland who opposed the very idea of partition. But there were probably more people who thought that putting Catholic areas of Ireland that had voted overwhelmingly for Sinn Fein into a “Northern Ireland” was absolutely outrageous. But that’s what the Brits did. They took six out of the nine counties of Ulster, including 3 that were fervently Sinn Fein (but as agrarian areas had lower populations) and the southern parts of two other counties which were majority Protestant, but geographically separated by religion. In this "Northern Ireland "area as a whole, the Unionists were the majority, but it was basically a Protestant/Unionist center surrounded by a Catholic circle. (The resulting map makes absolutely no sense. Donegal is up there by itself, barely touching the rest of the Republic with a long border with Northern Ireland. )</p>
<p>Politics in the North divided by religion and the Catholics were doomed to lose every election. As soon as the Irish Free State came into being, the Unionist majority opted out of the Republic, taking the Catholic areas that had been stuffed into “Northern Ireland” with them. Ireland was plunged into Civil War over whether to accept the partition. </p>
<p>BTW, a surprising # of Americans don’t realize that, although many Irishmen served in the British armed forces during WWII, Ireland was officially neutral. The Germans did not bomb it. For its neutrality, Churchill denounced Ireland as “a nation of cowards.” de Valera’s response to Churchill was, for many years, assigned reading to Irish school children. In his response, de Valera asks Churchill about a “hypothetical” England in which Germany insisted on retaining six counties–a reference to the partition. If anyone is interested, he’s an excerpt [Eamon</a> de Valera’s Response to Winston Churchill - RT Archives](<a href=“http://www.rte.ie/archives/exhibitions/681-history-of-rte/684-rte-1940s/289798-eamon-de-valeras-response-to-winston-churchill/]Eamon”>RTÉ Archives | Politics | Eamon de Valera's Response to Winston Churchill)</p>
<p>Of course, since Ireland was neutral, it didn’t qualify for the Marshall Plan, which is one reason it lagged behind the rest of Western Europe economically in the period right after WWII.</p>
<p>Just came across this today on my local PBS website - it’s a quiz to see which DA character you are most like! (I’m Daisy - figures…)</p>
<p>[Which</a> Downton Abbey Job is Right For You? | Quizzes | Masterpiece | PBS](<a href=“http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/quizzes/personality-quiz/which-downton-abbey-job-is-right-for-you/]Which”>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/quizzes/personality-quiz/which-downton-abbey-job-is-right-for-you/)</p>
<p>I’m Isobel Crawley. Darn, I wanted to be Violet or at least someone with a title. Sigh.</p>
<p>Yikes! I’m Sarah O’Brien! Oh, so misunderstood!</p>
<p>Isobel. I really thought I’d be Cora.</p>
<p>Oh dear, I am Daisy. I wanted to be Violet. Sigh.</p>
<p>Another Isobel. H and I just discovered the show last month.</p>
<p>Isobel. I guess that’s right, I can relate to her. Her heart’s in the right place, even if she is a bit pushy.</p>
<p>I took a “which sister are you?” quiz and ended up with Edith. I knew it. (sigh) I can relate to her, too.</p>
<p>Another Isobel. That’s not so bad. I like her character!!</p>
<p>Another Isobel here. I am okay with that!</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong, I like the character of Isobel, but it’s so not me. I’m much too superficial to be her.</p>
<p>tonight is so sad.</p>
<p>Winners! Screen Actors Guild Awards.</p>