This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Catholic emancipation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 They dealt not with emancipation, nor with the laws that emancipation repealed, but the need for those laws in the first place.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)
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)
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)
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)
The Catholic Emancipation Act never applied to the Province of Quebec. In 1774, the British Parliament passed the Quebec Act that helped ensure the survival of the French language and French culture in the region and it did not hinder catholicism in Québec. The Act allowed Quebec to maintain the French civil law as its judicial system and sanctioned the freedom of religious choice, allowing the Roman Catholic Church to remain. Jcmurphy 18:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of that. But when Britain first took over from France in Quebec that wasn't a foregone conclusion, was it? The Quebec Act was a surprise to some — I've read one historian who argues that it was one of the causes of the U.S. Revolutionary War, as the mainly Protestant colonists were annoyed with Britain suddenly tolerating Catholicism in Quebec. I was wondering whether that might be relevant here. But probably it isn't. -- Jim Henry | Talk 18:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
It would be super if someone familiar with the subject could break up that giant first paragraph. superman 18:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
"...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.
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Catholic emancipation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
The Catholic Emancipation Act never applied to the Province of Quebec. In 1774, the British Parliament passed the Quebec Act that helped ensure the survival of the French language and French culture in the region and it did not hinder catholicism in Québec. The Act allowed Quebec to maintain the French civil law as its judicial system and sanctioned the freedom of religious choice, allowing the Roman Catholic Church to remain. Jcmurphy 18:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of that. But when Britain first took over from France in Quebec that wasn't a foregone conclusion, was it? The Quebec Act was a surprise to some — I've read one historian who argues that it was one of the causes of the U.S. Revolutionary War, as the mainly Protestant colonists were annoyed with Britain suddenly tolerating Catholicism in Quebec. I was wondering whether that might be relevant here. But probably it isn't. -- Jim Henry | Talk 18:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
It would be super if someone familiar with the subject could break up that giant first paragraph. superman 18:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
"...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.
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)
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)
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)