Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.
What are the oldest large football, cricket and (non-horse) track venues in use? Say 25K+?edit
If an answer is not an "important team"'s home then what about honorable mentions for various levels of importance? But I look at old Premier League stadia and none of their stands look Victorian. Neither does Australia's cricket arena. So age based on how many years back do you have to go before it stopped resembling now, not necessarily what's in the infobox. Subjective, I know. Any form of football (rugby, soccer, Australian etc). And speaking of tracks, are classical stadia like the 1896 Olympic stadium still used regularly? If so, I still kindof want to know the post-Antiquity answer. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lords. The Pavilion Stand was built in 1889–90. HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Sydney Cricket Ground was first used in 1848 and the current Members Stand was built in 1878. HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK, Bramall Lane was the first to open in 1855, and our article notes that "It is the oldest major stadium in the world still to be hosting professional football matches". --TammyMoet (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But that article says the oldest current stand is from 1966. It's practically a late 20th century stadium now. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why are standing sections "a thing" in developed countries?edit
I don't think any North American sports, besides golf, have had standers since the early 20th century. A few cops, personnel (vendors, camerapeople..), persons walking to the bathroom and (probably at times) people that weren't supposed to be there (snuck in by security and whatnot) and of course cheering but that's it. Basketball arenas, of course, have no standing sections, despite their small capacities and game lasting a mere 2 hours. Even Ancient Greece and Rome had seats. Did they even have standers? Yet England's Premier League probably would still have standing sections if the recent Hillsborough disaster didn't happen. When did theaters and churches gain seats by the way? Cause I know at least some Medieval parishioners and Shakespearean theatergoers stood. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sitting vs standing is still a discussion point in some Eastern Orthodox religious traditions. Hack (talk) 07:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all unusual in major league baseball. I had a standing-only ticket at a major league game just a couple of years ago. Major and minor league teams with a sloped grassy area are often used for overflow crows. Prior to the 1950s in MLB, they used to string ropes inside the outfield walls and spectators could stand there (or sit on the grass). The rules book still allows for the situation. And I know the National Hockey League used to allow it. I don't know about now. But at the old Chicago Stadium, as recently as the 1970s at least, you would see an announced crowd of 16,666, which was the theoretical seating capacity. With SRO, you would see a rounded-off attendance of 18,000 or 20,000. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I forgot about the Little League World Series. I don't remember if they stood or sat on the grass most of the time. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The home page of the Melbourne Cricket Ground, regularly used for cricket and Australian football, tells us "The MCG has a total capacity of 100,024 (consisting of 95,000 seats and approximately 5000 standing room spaces)". HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Australia, venues hosting national league soccer - and rugby league to a lesser degree - have dedicated seating blocks where standing is condoned or tolerated. Most sports below national level don't particularly care if you sit or stand as long as you pay. Hack (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Football was a very working class sport, as well as extremely local. Standing 'stands' and terraces are a lot cheaper, and you can fit more people in. You could technically sit on the stands, and I have been to local sports grounds where they never really added seats that you might be thinking of: people just sit on the stands like benches. The Roman stadia could have worked exactly the same way: there's no way to tell, looking at them, whether people always sat in them, or whether at popular and exciting events peolle stood. I've also been to sports grounds that are so basic, there is nowhere to sit or stand except the ground.
I actually was not just thinking of chair style seats. Major colleges have seats but I wouldn't be surprised seeing benches below that level. I don't know about places like Texas, where they take their football so seriously they probably have 1080p scoreboards. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
+
It's not at all unusual in major league baseball. I had a standing-only ticket at a major league game just a couple of years ago. Major and minor league teams with a sloped grassy area are often used for overflow crows. Prior to the 1950s in MLB, they used to string ropes inside the outfield walls and spectators could stand there (or sit on the grass). The rules book still allows for the situation. And I know the National Hockey League used to allow it. I don't know about now. But at the old Chicago Stadium, as recently as the 1970s at least, you would see an announced crowd of 16,666, which was the theoretical seating capacity. With SRO, you would see a rounded-off attendance of 18,000 or 20,000. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the newer ballparks, such as San Francisco,[1] have sections specifically set up as standing-room-only. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 08:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
−
−
If you have thousands of locals showing up, buying cheap tickets to a sporting event that is not respected or aspirational the way American football or basketball are in America today (a sport that it is expected working class locals, and pretty much only working class locals, will attend), in a time before a lot of regulation, then people just stream in. The safety concerns are simply to separate the fans of the different teams. Once you're in the stands, and they're that crowded, you'd have to be an idiot to sit: you can't see, and you can't protect yourself. People casually accepted the dangers, and things like crowd surges that lifted you up and placed you down in another spot were considered part of the experience. But people casually accepted a lot of dangers in their lives, including their working lives, that we would not generally accept today.
−
In the Shakespearean Globe theatre, the seats were for higher-paying, higher-ranking people, and the standing 'groundlings' paid the lowest ticket price. At a football game in the early to mid 20th century, the groundlings still stood. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a strong groundswell of opinion from football fans in England to return to standing, at least in some parts of the ground. Among the arguments I've heard are, it's cheaper, it's warmer, there's better atmosphere, "tradition", and finally when something exciting happens you stand up anyway and are then often threatened with eviction from the ground by stewards. There are probably other arguments that I can't recall. Currently, legislation makes this illegal, but there's lobbying going on, particularly around the invention of "safe standing", which has been successful in Germany. --Dweller (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Standing in theatres - or at least concert halls - is alive and well. See The Proms. As regards churches, our pew article says that their adoption coincided with the Protestant Reformation and the lengthy sermons which accompanied it. Before that, clerical gentlemen (who were the only ones provided with seats) could rest their bums on a misericord and still appear to be standing. Alansplodge (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting linguistic quirk in stadiums (in the UK at least) that the place you sit is called the stand, and the place you stand is called the terrace. There are still terraces at Rugby Union grounds. The stands are more expensive. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the oldest surviving contemporaneously dated artefact?edit
Does anyone know what is the oldest manuscript, monumental or architectural inscription, or other artefact, that incorporates the year (absolute chronology, not regnal or similar) in which (on the balance of probability) it was created? The oldest example of A.D. I know of in Arabic numerals is Henry VIII's astronomical clock at Hampton Court (1540); the oldest in Roman numerals is 'Sermo Lupi ad Anglos quando Dani maxime persecuti sunt eos quod fuit anno millesimo XIIII ab incarnatione Domini nostri Jesus Christi' Wulfstan_(died_1023) (if this is in fact Wulfstan's original manuscript and not a copy). I don't know of any earlier Anno Mundi, Ab Urbe Condita or Anno Hegirae dated artefacts.86.150.219.168 (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Erronious ref tags removed and URL converted to WikilinkColinFine (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Gregorian calendar was adopted in 1582 (not 1852), but it seems that he's much more concerned with A.D. year dating, which was first prominently used in a general context (outside of technical Easter calculations) by Bede in the 8th century A.D., and started slowly catching on after that... AnonMoos (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Colin, for correcting my newbie user error. Shantavira, by absolute chronology I mean it in the popularly accepted sense: today is a day in the year 2014 AD (or CE), 5774 AM, 1435 AH etc.
I still don't know the answer to this question that you asked me in the pub last night, Ric, but welcome to the Ref Desks! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195, aka Terry} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to be here, Terry, and thanks for the tip!
glyphs on a column, inscribed with a rather old date, in the Long Count system. I think several of us are still unclear on what types of date systems meet your criterion. Does Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar count as an "absolute chronology" to you? It's not regnal, but not one of the examples you give... but it was the common scheme for several different groups, and we could in principle use it today. For example, according to the Smithsonian, today is 13.0.1.5.14 [2]. Anyway, if you're interested in that sort of thing, a quick google for /artifact "date inscription"/ led me to this: [3], which is inscribed with a date corresponding to 156 AD. If it counts to you, it's older than your examples, but I suspect there might be older long count dates remaining on artifacts. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's also an image of a coin in our Ab urbe condita article that is dated to 1001 AUC, or 248 AD. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, SemanticMantis and Adam Bishop. These are indeed the droids I am looking for! I didn't mention the Mayan Long Count because I was being deliberately Eurocentric, but of course it's at least as valid as my examples. The coin fits all my criteria.
So to my follow-up question: what is the oldest artefact (using my criteria) that gives an Anno Mundi (Hebrew) date? Ricooper1799 (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The earliest dated inscription using the Muslim calendar is said to be from 24 AH (AD 644).[4]75.41.109.190 (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is known that Martin Luther's hagiographers and tour guides portrayed Luther as a fighter against a demon, even though the historical Martin Luther (based on what I read from A History of Lutheranism, written by Eric W. Gritsch) never did such a thing. Similarly, St. Epiphanius' hagiographers made St. Epiphanius fight with demons. In the (Christian) Bible, the canonical gospels portray Jesus as a fighter against demons, anointing the sick with oil. What was the significance of fighting with demons? What was a "demon"? What was the purpose of writing about demons? Did demons really exist in history, or did people just have a different interpretation of the world back then? 140.254.136.167 (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have a pretty detailed article on demons. I'm pretty sure that if they really existed in history, then they still exist now ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that demons have always existed. But that doesn't really disqualify the possibility that demons might have existed in the past but somehow cease to exist in the world today, or at least people generally don't say they are demon-possessed unless they are a member of a Pentecostal church. There are a lot of demon possessions there! 140.254.136.167 (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I concede your logical point. But I'm personally ruling out the destruction of all demons, e.g. The_DemonWars_Saga. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to re-read your Bible. I'm fairly sure that the occasions on which Jesus casts out demons, and the occasions on which he anoints the sick with oil, are completely separate from one another. St Dunstan is another religious figure who's shown physically confronting a demon - grabbing its nose with hot tongs from a forge. But I think for the most part these are simply hagiographic embellishments. 'Demons' are used to personify at least three different things in the world - namely, the human tendency for evil, the human vulnerability to turn from the path, and the human tendency to suffer mental illness. Casting out demons seems to have been some sort of attempt to treat mental illness, whereas when religious figures (as with Jesus fasting in the wilderness) confront demons that tempt them, they are shown as resisting the temptation to do evil or abandon the path of goodness. These ideas have become conflated in various ways, which can obscure what kind of victory it is that the religious figure is said to have had. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly certain that Mark 6:13 (NIV) says this: "They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them." I have no theological training whatsoever, so I have no idea how to interpret it other than "Hmmm... are they related?". I think the best way to interpret scripture is to ask a priest or rabbi. I've read somewhere that if a Jew wants to know what a particular passage means, then he/she consults a rabbi, and the rabbi would explain in the form of anecdotes from the Midrash. 140.254.227.101 (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I can only read in English and Spanish. I'm not fluent in other languages, so the best thing I can do is rely on an expert. 140.254.227.101 (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like that verse is trying to say that they cast out demons by anointing the sick - just that both actions were part of their ministry. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there ever were demons, then there still are. Consider today's case, of the kid who went into school and starting knifing people. Or the guy who opened fire at Fort Hood a few days ago. It's reasonable to think of these kinds of folks as being "possessed", in a way - in an allegorical sense, at least. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't be silly!" said one sailor to the other, munching on a wing, "We'll never run out of dodos. Clearly, there's always been dodos on this island, and there always will be." MChesterMC (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Why do Protestants view the Catholic church as the whore of Babylon, but not the Orthodox churches of Eastern Europe?edit
According to Whore of Babylon, Protestants view the Catholic church as the whore of Babylon. What do they say about the Orthodox churches? Do the Orthodox churches perceive the Catholic church as the "whore of Babylon" too? 140.254.227.100 (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of three differences that may be relevant:
1) The Catholic/Protestant schism is about three times more recent than the Eastern Orthodox schism.
2) It was also more violent, and some of that violence was repeated fairly recently, as in Northern Ireland.
3) Catholics and Protestants live near each other, while most Eastern Orthodox congregations are far from Protestant ones. StuRat (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict with StuRat] Bear in mind that this is very much a minority position today; the only churches that actively teach it are tiny groups such as this guy's adherents (something like three or four churches in North America; none on other continents), in addition to isolated individuals in other churches. A big part of the factor is seemingly the simple fact that early Protestants didn't have to deal with the Orthodox, and most of the historic Protestant confessions were written in contexts in which everyone was either Catholic, Protestant, or some miscellaneous heretical group; the Orthodox were far away and not particularly relevant. Unlike the Muslims, the Catholics said they were Christians, so the early Protestants said that they deceptively presented themselves as believers when they were really the enemy of Christ. As for practical implications, look at the "Eligibility" section of Line of succession to the British throne — spouses of Catholics are out of the line of succession, but spouses of Orthodox Christians aren't. Considering that the current monarch's spouse grew up Orthodox, the situation might have been rather awkward if Orthodox and spouses were also excluded. Finally, for another (yet smaller) example, my church rebaptises new members who were baptised in Catholic churches, but when we began sending missionaries to the Levant, it was decided that converts from Orthodoxy wouldn't be rebaptised. I haven't a clue why. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are also groups in Europe that take this position, particularly in Scotland. See, in particular, the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. (This is the church where a schism was precipitated simply because one of its leading members attended the funeral of a (Roman) catholic colleague.) RomanSpa (talk) 06:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the primary reason simply has to do with the plain reading of the Bible passages. The Orthodox churches just don't fit the text of Revelation; the 'whore' is explicitly said to be "the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth." (Rev. 17:18), which at the time could hardly be any city other than Rome. She is also seated on "seven mountains", v. 9 (see Seven hills of Rome). So the reason is just that a very strong case can be made that the "whore of Babylon" does indeed refer to Rome. Whether that means the Roman Empire or the Roman Church is of course debatable, but it's really far-fetched to apply it to the churches of the East, it just doesn't fit. - Lindert (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Constantinople was also built on seven hills, or seven things that could be called hills if they were really trying to stretch the analogy with Rome. But it had no dominion over the kings of the earth when Revelation was written... Adam Bishop (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And of course the Vatican is not built on seven hills, and also had no power over the kings of the Earth when Revelation was written. This sort of detail is almost irrelevant, since the real reason the "Whore of Babylon" types don't say much about the Orthodox is because they don't really know much about the Orthodox. If they include them at all, they either seem to assume the Orthodox agree with their own group (see Luther writing to the Orthodox) or that the Orthodox are just Romans in disguise. Since these same people think the Catholic Church is secretly the Roman Empire, disguising the old pagan Roman religion with fake Christianity to trick people into unwittingly worshipping old gods, nothing is too outlandish. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And of course the Vatican was not the center of the Roman Catholic Church for most of history. The main residence of the popes for about a thousand years was in fact the Lateran Palace, on the other side of Rome, so that's not saying much. Anyway, the text is talking about of a city, not a building or location within a city. About the political power of the Catholic Church, it's quite a reasonable interpretation from a Christian perspective that Revelation is predicting a situation in the future. And sure, many western Christians throughout history have been ignorant of the eastern churches, but I don't think the conspiracy theory in the last part of your comment has historically been a big view in Protestantism, whereas the interpretation of the "whore of Babylon" as the church of Rome has been for centuries. I'm not saying that their view is correct, just that it is not a very far-fetched interpretation. - Lindert (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the "Whore of Babylon" view of Catholicism is that conspiracy theory. That's the whole point of the claims: that the Catholic Church is really the same entitity as pagan Rome (as existed when the Book of Revelation was written), in disguise. That's why they will never never never use the phrase "Catholic Church" without the word "Roman" in front, no matter how many times they have used it in a conversation. If they have to drop a word from the phrase, it will be the word "Catholic". Not everyone who uses the phrase "Whore of Babylon" to refer to the Catholic Church will be aware that that is what they are claiming (they might just be saying phrases they heard, without thinking about what they are actually saying), but that has been the basic claim since Protestantism began to use the phrase in this way. It's not something you say to indicate that those Christians over there are well-meaning but have some points of theology a bit wrong: it's a claim that the Catholic Church is Rome as in the pagan Roman Empire. Awareness of the Orthodox, and their history, would tend to make this conspiracy more difficult to sustain. Conspiracies that include the Orthodox are rarer and more recent, because previously people just ignored them (not knowing much about them). Incidentally, Cities built on seven hills. Jerusalem and pagan Rome are the usual suspects, in terms of what people generally think the author intended. But that doesn't take account of supernatural prophetic elements, of course. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To the OP. You may want to qualify the question with the word "some". As in "Some Protestants..." There are certainly many Protestants who get along well with Catholics, and see them as fellow Christians, and aren't particularly derisive of them. You will even find a lot of ecumenical cooperation between Protestants and Catholics in many endeavors on the local level. --Jayron32 22:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
140.254.227.100 -- As StuRat has alluded to, Protestant / Eastern Orthodox comity is partly kind of the religious version of the well-known phenomenon that there is often friction between adjacent nations, which leads to people in a country having a more positive view of countries removed by one than adjacent countries. So traditionally the Poles kind of hated both Germans and Russians but loved the French, the Scots had a more favorable view of France than the English did, Bulgarians had a more favorable view of Russians than most of Russia's neighbors did, etc. Also, neither mainstream Protestants nor Eastern Orthodox claim the authority to govern the other. As for the Whore of Babylon, that was a sideshow of flamboyant rhetoric, but never the real issue... AnonMoos (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this explains why Americans are so fond of Belize and Greenland. --Trovatore (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]
To the OP: I don't disagree much with anything anyone has said, and the answers are all reasonable and constructive, but they seem somewhat speculative. So is my contribution, but I defend it on the basis of personal experience, plus that it seems to me no more speculative than anything above. Firstly, the conflict in Northern Ireland is sectarian more than religious, so I don't agree with StuRat's reference to this. Indeed, one implacably anti-Catholic evangelical Protestant said exactly the same to me, that Nothern Ireland's situation is basically about politics. You can also look for more in Anti-Catholicism in the United States, which is not directly related, but which does acknowledge the existence of a theological thread, harking back to the Reformation, and a separate, secular one related to politics. Secondly, although there may be few churches teaching the Whore of Babylon thing, there are many individual evangelical Christians who have either this view, or essentially something very anti-Catholic. A common view seems to be that Catholics aren't Christians, apparently because they believe unbelievers can get into heaven, among other things. On the anti-Christ issue, one evangelical Christian told me the Pope is "an" anti-Christ, which she said according to the Bible was simply a person who was the antithesis of Christ. Such views are common, although as far as I can tell, wholly unofficial. Finally, in reply to Lindert, the "plain reading of the Bible passages" can only accomplish so much as an explanation, since many things have been read into the Bible. In other words, even if the Orthodox Church couldn't be the Whore of Babylon, it could get some other moniker. One has to agree with the point made by several people above that geographic separation is important, but that would make it mostly a historical process. The thing missing for me is an established form of the prejudice that is also taken from history. The "Whore of Babylon" thing counts, but it is one thing among many. Anti-Catholicism seems to be a modern prejudice that gets stirred up very easily in Evangelicals, at least in my experience IBE (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The thread immediately above this one makes me wonder about former Catholics. Imagine that you grow up Catholic, convert in adulthood to some other Christian faith or some other religion entirely, and marry an heir to the British throne. Does this marriage disqualify your spouse from inheriting the throne if everyone ahead of him/her dies? I'm not clear whether the law is meant to refer only to current Catholics or to current-and-former Catholics. Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See the recent case of Autumn Phillips, who married Peter Phillips, grandson of the Queen: Prior to the marriage, Autumn converted from Roman Catholicism to Anglicanism; had she remained Catholic after her marriage, her husband would have lost his place in the line of succession to the throne, per the provisions of the Act of Settlement 1701. This scenario drew attention to the Act of Settlement's bar on Catholics ascending to the throne, and prompted calls in both Canada and the United Kingdom for the respective prime ministers to address the issue.
Important note: Autumn Phillips was born on exactly the same day as my elder son. You needed to know that. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 22:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm fairly certain it only covers practicing Catholics. After all, faith is a matter of choice, not genetics. I don't believe any ruling monarch in the UK since the Glorious Revolution actually meets your criteria (it is, after all, a limited sample size) but I don't believe the law cares where your parents took you to church, but what you currently believe. --Jayron32 22:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is quite incorrect, Jayron. The law is not concerned with the internal mental states of people. "Practising Catholic" could not be defined in any legally meaningful way, as merely turning up for Mass every Sunday while harbouring thoughts of murdering your wife when you got home is somewhat hard to judge. What if someone missed for a month - would they be temporarily "non-practising"? No, the only thing that can have any legal meaning is: (a) have you ever been baptised as a Catholic and is there any documentary evidence of this? If so, (b) have you ever renounced your Catholic association by professing another faith, and is there any documentary evidence of this? -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 23:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The law requires a person to be Protestant (that is, not Catholic or Orthodox). It doesn't require that a person has never been Catholic. That's the point: A person is not disqualified because they were Catholic at any point since they were born; especially since Catholicism is not something you are born with. (after EC with you where you added a clarifying statement): That's my exact point, and now that you've added extra bits to your statement, it's clear you agree with me 100%: A person who has renounced their former Catholic faith would not be disqualified. Again, my entire point is that Catholicism is a choice, not a genetic condition. A person who chooses not to be Catholic anymore would not be disqualified. --Jayron32 23:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does require that a person has never been Catholic. Specifically, once a person is Catholic, the Acts of Succession consider them dead for the purposes of succession to the throne, with inheritance bypassing them entirely. This specifically includes those who "have ever been" Catholic. The law for marrying a former Catholic was different, with the spouse being able to convert and so not cost their partner a position in the line of succession, but for inheriting the throne yourself you absolutely need to have never been Catholic ever at any point in your life. In practice, as I say below, this only seems to include Confirmation. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we do agree. For an adult, Catholicism is indeed a choice. But for tiny babies, which is generally where the association starts, it's not. They're baptised, and that and only that, as far as the law is concerned, is what makes them a Catholic for these purposes. A person who was brought up "as a Catholic", in a Catholic household, but who for whatever reason was never actually baptised, is not a Catholic in the eyes of the law, or indeed, in the eyes of the Catholic Church. I agree with you nobody is ever "born a Catholic"; it all starts at the baptismal font, not a second earlier. A person who is raised as a Catholic is free to renounce their faith whenever they like, but what form that renunciation takes may make a huge difference. A person such as me, who was raised as a Catholic but who abandoned it many years ago, and who has long since ceased all association with the church and its doings, and long since ceased to acknowledge membership of said church when asked his religion, would still be considered a Catholic if it came to marrying a UK Royal in the line of succession (are there any available cute princes?). I am, if you like, a passive ex-Catholic. Autumn Phillips is an active ex-Catholic in that she went the extra step of formally converting to Anglicanism and formally renouncing all other faiths. Before then, who knows how deeply she believed the Catholic doctrine or how often she attended Mass or whatever else? Whether she was the most devout Catholic in history or a Catholic in name only is completely immaterial to the legal issue raised by the OP. That is a red herring here. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 00:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "formally converting to Anglicanism and formally renouncing all other faiths" That is exactly what I am saying. I have never said, once, even one time, that a person who is a lapsed Catholic is eligible for marriage into the Royal Family. What I said was that a former Catholic, who had renounced it, is. That is all. You have still not disagreed with me at all. --Jayron32 01:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you certainly seemed to imply it with "I don't believe the law cares where your parents took you to church, but what you currently believe". That is exactly wrong. It has nothing to do with what you believe now or have ever believed, or whether you're devout or lapsed or anywhere in between. It has everything to do with whether or not you were ever baptised into the Church, because that and only that makes one a Catholic. That is the start and end of the matter. It is merely membership of the RC Church that is repugnant to the succession laws, not anything else. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 05:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not disagreeing with you at all, so I don't know why you keep anticipating that I will... --Jayron32 11:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So do you agree that your statement that I bolded above was incorrect? -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 11:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on your perspective on what believe means. See 85.255.232.192's discussion on the legal difference between baptism and confirmation, for example. --Jayron32 12:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. So, what you mean by any statement you make depends on my perspective. Yes, all very enlightening. Thanks, Mr Weasel. :) -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 21:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I really mean is this argument bores me... --Jayron32 01:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While from a Catholic point of view, you are correct that you are Catholic from the moment of Baptism (and, from that point of view, never stop being Catholic); from a royal point of view, you appear to only be rendered Catholic at the point of Confirmation, in practice. Over the years, The children of the Earl of St Andrews have been added to the line of succession, bypassing their father, and then knocked off once they were Confirmed. Or consider the children of Lord Nicholas Windsor, who converted to Catholicism and married in the Vatican. His children were indisputably Baptised as Catholics, and even acknowledged to have been Baptised as Catholics in an early day motion in Parliament, and yet they appear not to be considered Catholics by the royals, because there they are at numbers 40 and 41: [5]. This is presumably due to the Anglican view of Confirmation as being a "declaration of faith" once someone is old enough to make it themselves, in contrast to the Baptismal vows made on their behalf when they were an infant, which suggests they are concerned with some interior beliefs rather than something ontological. 85.255.232.192 (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Perth Agreement means that parallel legislation has been introduced in all 16 Commonwealth Realms with the exception of Australia, where any change to the federal constitution would need a referendum, so they are proceeding with legislation in each individual state. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. If the Act passes in the member states but not in Australia federally, what is the law in the Northern Territory? —Tamfang (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, the reason the monarch has to be Anglican is that the monarch is the head of the Anglican Church, and it wouldn't do to have a Catholic running the Anglican Church. But has there been any discussion about the monarch relinquishing that role of "Anglican Pope", so to speak, and assigning the role to someone else? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you're talking about something somewhat seperate from the above discussion. It's true the the monarch has to "join in communion with the Church of England" and will be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. But the above discussion primarily relates to the fact that until the law change, someone who's married to a Catholic is permanently removed from the order of succession, which is a related but seperate issue. (Similarly someone who was ever a Catholic is removed.) Note that there's no such restriction on anyone else, whether atheist, Muslim, Wiccan or Scientologist; although whether such a person could "join in communion with the Church of England" may seem unlikely. (Either way I think it's clear that under current practice, such a person would either need to covert or give up the throne. OTOH somone marrying someone which such beliefs is clearly still in the other of succession but until the law change, not anyone marrying a Catholic. Whether such a person could succeed and remain monarch while their spouse remains whatever, I don't know. But it may be possible, particularly if the spouses beliefs aren't seen as by sufficient percentage of the public as getting in the way of the monarch's religious roles and the children's upbringing in the Church of England.) Anyway as for an answer to your question Act of Settlement 1701 has a fair amount of discussion relating to possible changes of the religious issues. Nil Einne (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the law has already changed except in South Australia and Western Australia, although even under the new arrangements, the monarch will still have to be an Anglican. To answer Bugs's last query, the idea that the Queen should not be the head of the Established Church is called Disestablishmentarianism, but is on a bit of a back burner at the moment, as I understand it - the few disadvantages of the system (such as the ability of MPs to tinker with the church's decisions) have been nullified if not removed in recent decades. Alansplodge (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really, Australian states have their own law of succession? So in principle the next sovereign of Australia might not be sovereign of one or more of the states? --Trovatore (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The final paragraph of the section on Australia (p. 18) seems to have predicted the process which is currently ongoing. Alansplodge (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And back in 1975, the government of Joh Bjelke-Petersen tried to have the Queen declared "Queen of Queensland", as a title separate and independent from "Queen of Australia". The High Court ruled such a move invalid. See here. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 21:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionally, Catholics are supposed to pledge to raise their children Catholic even if they happen to marry a non-Catholic. Prohibiting potential future monarchs from marrying a Catholic would basically pre-empt that situation from possibly arising. Obviously, relations between the British monarch and the Vatican have improved a bit since the days of Henry VIII. But it would still be a conflict of interest if the head of the Anglican Church was a practicing Catholic. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3501/3734373544_859c1e7a5b_z.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:La_Mojarra_Inscription_and_Long_Count_date.jpg){kind=link}
