Comments on: Judaism vs. Anglicanism

By: marilynbraun

marilynbraun — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:29:44 +0000

In this day and age of political correctness, I do think the Act is discriminatory. I'm sure that there was a reason for it (I don't recall what though) but it isn't applicable now. It's interesting that William can marry anyone else but a Catholic. However I'm guessing that there would be a major uproar over him choosing say a Muslim or even marrying outside of his race. While people are making a big deal of it there would be an uncurrent of racism – unspoken but there. Then the whole Catholic thing would look quite harmless to people and the powers that be, now wouldn't it? ;)

By: MandysRoyalty

MandysRoyalty — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:22:16 +0000

Peter and Autumn are a good example. A lot of people expressed disappointment that she converted to the Anglican faith, and stated she shouldn't have done it just to please the royals.

The Kushners are not royalty and neither are the Trumps, but as highly visible people, their blatant exclusion of anyone who isn't Jewish seems to run along the same lines as the Royal preference for non-Catholics and the Anglican faith. If people are so concerned, why aren't they complaining about the Kushners, too? If it's not right for royalty to discriminate, why not hold everyone to the same standard? Or, can we just consider this a private family matter that really doesn't affect anyone?

By: marilynbraun

marilynbraun — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:29:44 +0000

As high profile they may be I think in the case of the Trumps/Kushner families that it would be regarded as more of a private thing. What they do with their lives doesn't make headlines like the royal family. I would dare say that outside of New York society that their reach is limited, unless of course The Donald gets married again or some tragedy/scandal befalls one of them (Marla Maples anyone?) If it weren't for The Apprentice I don't think anyone would really pay much attention. I know that Ivanka was in Vanity Fair and Hello! Canada but I don't think the conversion compares to the Act of Settlement.

In this day and age of political correctness, I do think the Act is discriminatory. I'm sure that there was a reason for it (I don't recall what though) but it isn't applicable now. It's interesting that William can marry anyone else but a Catholic. However I'm guessing that there would be a major uproar over him choosing say a Muslim or even marrying outside of his race. Then the whole Catholic thing would look quite harmless to people and the powers that be, now wouldn't it? ;)

By: MandysRoyalty

MandysRoyalty — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:22:16 +0000

Peter and Autumn are a good example. A lot of people expressed disappointment that she converted to the Anglican faith and thought that she shouldn't have done it just to please the royals.

The Kushners are not royalty and neither are the Trumps, but as highly visible people, they're blatant exclusion of anyone who isn't Jewish seems to run along the same lines as the Royal preference for non-Catholics and the Anglican faith. If people are so concerned, why aren't they complaining about the Kushners, too? If it's not right for royalty to discriminate, why not hold everyone to the same standard? Or, can we just consider this a private family matter that really doesn't affect anyone?

By: marilynbraun

marilynbraun — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 03:12:59 +0000

I'm not sure that people give the Act of Settlement much thought until it comes into question. The most recent example being Catholic Autumn Kelly marrying Peter Philips. She converted just in time for Peter to keep his academic place in line but otherwise people proabably don't consider it. Just like male primogeniture, it doesn't become an issue until a royal baby is born. If that child is a boy then leave things as they are, if it's a girl then “hurry up and change the law!!!”.. ;)