Talk:Catholic emancipation

message: I removed two well-written (but unsourced) paragraphs because I felt they were two-degrees removed from the topic of the page. They dealt not with emancipation, nor with the laws that emancipation repealed, but the need for those laws in the first place. Essentially it was an opinion piece that could have been titled: "Catholic Emancipation was not such a big deal because the Papacy had been a real threat in earlier times."  KevinCuddeback (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Far Off-Topic 

message: I removed "In addition, the Chancellor of the Exchequer still may not be a Catholic, although the Prime Minister may."  Is there any real evidence for this, such as a UK government document in the last 100 years?  --Henrygb 11:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that this may have been the Lord Chancellor, that any restriction was unclear, and that clarity was provided in 1974 so that there is no doubt that Roman Catholics may be Lord Chancellor though ecclesiastical functions in the Church of England may then be transferred to another minister. --Henrygb 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chancellor of the Exchequer 

message: Has there ever been one?  I came to this article to find out the answer, and to see what the history of Catholic cabinet ministers was.  If someone knows, I think it would be interesting.  —JerryFriedman 03:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck - I think it is a bit of a non-issue so people don't keep complete records. I am not aware of any Roman Catholic prime ministers, but George Robinson, 1st Marquess of Ripon seems to have been a Roman Catholic cabinet minister and son of a prime minister. Note that Neville Chamberlain was an Unitarian prime minister, which did not pose a problem.  --Henrygb 16:46, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speaking of Catholic prime ministers... 

message: Since this now covers Catholic emancipation in Newfoundland, should it cover similar issues in Quebec, Pennsylvania, New York and Maryland? --Jim Henry | Talk 16:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emancipation in the other colonies? 

message: It would be super if someone familiar with the subject could break up that giant first paragraph.  superman 18:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: First paragraph

message: "...though some received papal absolution to make false oaths in order to attain emancipation".
Is there some serious substantiated evidence for this? I can hardly believe it as 1) a false oath is seen as a serious sin in the Catholic Church and 2) if this were so, then recusants would not have had to be persecuted as recusants in the first place! I must say I can hardly believe it. It sounds more like a piece of anti-Catholic polemic. I took it out.
:The history is there.  Earlier Popes had removed the obligations of oaths of allegiance made to Holy Roman Emperors, other kings and in Regnans in Excelsis from Elizabeth I ("... the nobles, subjects and people of the said realm and all others who have in any way sworn oaths to her, to be forever absolved from such an oath and from any duty arising from lordship, fealty and obedience").  When in the period of Catholic emancipation, the UK oath still included from previous experience "And I do further swear, that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position, that Princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I do believe, and in conscience am resolved, that neither the Pope, nor any person whatsoever has power to absolve me of this Oath, or any part thereof; which I acknowledge by good and full authority to be lawfully ministered unto me, and do renounce all pardons and dispensations to the contrary" (though the more extreme language was to be toned down), the Papal Nuncio Thomas Maria Ghilini wrote to the Catholic Archbishops in Ireland saying "To your erudition it must be known that this doctrine, which is asserted to be detestable, is defended and maintained by most Catholic nations, and has often been followed in practice by the Apostolic See; ...  the oath in its whole extent is unlawful, so in its nature is invalid, null and of no effect, insomuch as it can by no means bind and oblige consciences." --Rumping (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is, as you are no doubt aware, from William Hales' 1819 An Essay on the Origin and Purity of the Primitive Church of the British Isles and Its Independence Upon the Church of Rome; the Church of Ireland Chancellor of Emly can hardly be viewed as a dispassionate source. Manannan67 (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: False oaths???

message: I came here hoping to find whether the convention is to write "Catholic Emancipation" or "Catholic emancipation" – without much luck, as the article title capitalises, but most mentions in the text don't. (The Catholic Emancipation Act is a different matter entirely, of course.) If it's usual not to capitalise, the article should be moved. GrindtXX (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation 

message: the opening paragraph is a little odd in implying that the papacy's recognition of the hanoverian dynasty was somehow an important catalyst of progressive emancipation thereafter. far more important was the stability of english rule in ireland; also pressure to recruit roman catholics into the army.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.76.0.215 (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: intro

message: This reference is pretty anachronistic, the phrase is seen until about 50 years after Catholic Emancipation. I think it needs to be edited or removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.43.235.160 (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Home Rule is Rome Rule