Humanities desk
< June 6	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 8 >

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.

June 7

Vatican restrictions on Catholic students at English universities

In our article Henry Fitzalan-Howard, 15th Duke of Norfolk we read "In the 1890s Norfolk was instrumental in the campaign that convinced the Vatican authorities to relax its restrictions on Catholic students enrolling at the great English universities, culminating with the co-founding of St Edmunds College, Cambridge along with Baron Anatole von Hugel". What were the Vatican's restrictions on Catholic students? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It probably had to do with the fact that for a long time Oxford and Cambridge were intimately connected to the Church of England, and closed to even other types of Protestants (who went to Dissenting academies instead)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the article on St. Edmunds says it wasn't Vatican restrictions but British ones, as embodied in the laws such as the Test Acts which forbade non-Anglicans from public office and from being granted university degrees. But there's an odd discrepancy, in that the St. Edmunds article says the Test Acts were repealed in 1873, which fits the timeline of the founding of the college, but the Test Acts article says they were repealed in 1828, which doesn't. Further confusing things, the St. Edmund's website says the repeal was in 1871. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Corporation Act 1661, the Test Act 1673 and the Papists Act 1742 were repealed by the Sacramental Test Act 1828. The Test Act 1678 was repealed by the Catholic Relief Act 1829. 2A02:C7F:A42:AD00:493D:8AD5:E045:57A2 (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The Universities Tests Act 1871 was what allowed Roman Catholics, non-conformists and non-Christians to take up professorships, fellowships, studentships and other lay offices at the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Durham. It also forbade religious tests for any degree (other than a degree in divinity). The Oxford University Act 1854 abolished tests at Oxford for the degree of BA, but not for higher degrees, the Cambridge University Act 1856 abolished tests at Cambridge for all degrees in Arts, Law, Music and Medicine, but stated that the degree would not enable the holder to become a member of senate or hold "any Office … which has been heretofore always held by a Member of the United Church of England and Ireland" unless they made a declaration that they were "bona fide a Member of the Church of England", and the Dean and Chapter of Durham Cathedral (the governing body of Durham University at that time) changed the university's regulations in 1865 to remove religious tests on degrees (except in theology). So we have a selection of articles on the elimination of religious tests by the state and the Universities, what we do not have is any explanation of what the Vatican's restrictions were. DuncanHill (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] says that Catholics were restricted from Oxford and Cambridge by the Vatican between 1867 and 1895. 2A02:C7F:A42:AD00:493D:8AD5:E045:57A2 (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of St Edmund's says "Historically, St Edmund's was also the residential college of the university's first Catholic students in two hundred years - most of whom were studying for the Priesthood - after the lifting of the papal prohibition on attendance at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge in 1895 at the urging of a delegation to Pope Leo XIII led by Baron von Hügel". The source for that says "attended the audience in academic dress, a brave thing to do since technically Catholics were at that time forbidden by the pope from being members of the University. With the eventual support of Cardinal Vaughan and other leading Catholics, the ban was lifted. The lifting of the ban did not give Catholics carte blanche to attend Oxford and Cambridge. There was still concern as to the moral and religious climate of the universities and Catholic attendance was therefore only permitted given certain conditions. One of these conditions was effectively the establishment of a Catholic chaplaincy." But still, when did the Pope (and which Pope) ban Catholics from the Universities, and what what were the penalties? DuncanHill (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that it wasn't Anglicanism that was the perceived threat:

"However, the Catholic hierarchy, believing that it would be impossible for the students to attend Oxford and Cambridge without being corrupted by an increasing atmosphere of liberalism and scepticism, forbade Catholics to attend, and sought instead to found a Catholic university in London. This decision was met with public outcry from wealthy laity who wished for their sons to attend Oxbridge colleges. Following the death of Cardinal Manning, who had been implacably opposed to Catholics attending Oxford or Cambridge, a petition led by the Catholic Cambridge fellow Baron Anatole von Hügel was presented to the Bishops and the ban was lifted in 1896". About Fisher House.

We have an article, Catholic University College, Kensington, but it has no viewable references. Our article on Manning notes his close affinity with Pope Pius IX, but doesn't mention the ban or Manning's role in it. Alansplodge (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'...a similar ban was laid on the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. That interdict of 1864 was carried through mainly by the influence of Cardinal Manning in opposition to Newman whom, one regrets to say, he so persistently opposed and uncharitably suspected - of the vice of being a Liberal. His impression, surely mistaken, was that no Catholic really was interested in University education for its own sake: his own words were that what arose was merely the snobbish desire of certain Catholic parents to “get their sons into society and have a latch-key to Grosvenor Square"' (one of the poshest addresses in London). The author goes on to say that 'Catholics continued to attend the banned universities in increasing numbers', so the penalties, if any, must not have been severe. From Selected Essays of Sean O'Faolain (p. 245) edited by Brad Kent. Alansplodge (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the Catholic ban on attending Trinity College Dublin was not lifted until 1970. Alansplodge (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Alan, splendid work. I'm sure nobody nowadays would suspect Newman of the vice of being a Liberal! DuncanHill (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Longest combined reigns of two monarchs?

What are the longest combined reign of two monarchs where one of them immediately followed the other one? I am asking this question because Louis XIV of France and his great-grandson and successor Louis XV of France reigned for a combined total of 131 years (from 1643 to 1774, with Louis XIV being King for 72 years and Louis XV succeeding him and being King for 59 years).

Have any pair of monarchs where one succeeded the other one have a combined reign longer than that of Louis XIV and Louis XV or at least came close to overtaking the length of their combined reigns (131 years)? If so, which monarchs, and when? Futurist110 (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Math says that for any pair to beat that, the longer-reigning of the pair must have reigned for >66 years. If you check List of longest-reigning monarchs, there are only seven monarchs who have reigned that long. If you check each of those seven, no one else beats your example. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

nice!Gem fr (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are some more listed further down at List_of_longest-reigning_monarchs#Monarchs_whose_exact_dates_of_rule_are_unknown, though not many and some are disputed or dubious in some way. Matt Deres (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The longest British combo appears to be George II of Great Britain and George III of the United Kingdom who went on for 93 years between them. Alansplodge (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first US president on the other hand resigned cause he didn't like the idea of an executive lasting more than 8 years a lifetime. This became customary and the first guy who stood more than twice caused a constitutional amendment against that even though he died popular and wasn't becoming dictatorial or kingy and Britain did the same thing when it kept the same leader a long time to avoid having to change during a world war. As a result the american record of being elected 4 times and having your vice president run things 7.75 years more for a sum of 20 years can't happen again. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hum... I am not aware of any constitutional check to some Putin-Medvedev trick (19 1/2 year, and no end currently in sight). But since this involve a pair of grown men, the only way for them to beat a man+great-grandson combo involves wild increase in human lifespan. Gem fr (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." Or do you mean a guy gets so popular other people can keep getting elected on a platform of making the guy VPOTUS and then resigning? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See? you easily imagined a working trick. Putin is quite popular, and anyway you don't need to be that popular, just to have more ballots than any challenger... Gem fr (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]