LONDON — The U.K. government has proposed a new law that would allow members of the British royal family to marry Catholics without forfeiting their claim to the throne — but Prince Charles, the current heir to the throne, is reportedly unhappy with this idea.
The new law would also end the rule of primogeniture, with baby girls being given the same inheriting rights as boys.
The proposed changes mean that if the unborn child of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, is a girl, the baby will become third in line to the throne, after her grandfather, Prince Charles, and her father, Prince William. Previously, a firstborn royal-family daughter could have had her claims superseded by a younger brother.
Though the move promised by Prime Minister David Cameron’s government would affect several previous laws, the most obvious is the 1701 Act of Settlement. That legislation was passed to block the Catholic heirs of King James II ascending to the throne and prohibited the British head of state from being Catholic or any member of the royal family marrying a Catholic without forfeiting the right of succession.
Its impact was recently seen in 2008, when Peter Phillips, the oldest son of the Princess Royal, married Canadian-born Catholic Autumn Kelly. In order for him to remain 11th in line to the throne, she was required to convert from Catholicism to Anglicanism. Another famous example is that of the Queen’s cousin, Prince Michael of Kent, who gave up his claim to the throne to marry a Catholic.
The British government has said that it intends to introduce the Succession to the Crown Bill to the House of Commons at the earliest possible date.
However, Prince Charles has reportedly raised concerns about the proposed changes. Though he is apparently happy as regards the rights of a baby girl, he has worries about the rules regarding marriage to Catholics. Allegedly, his main concern is that any child born of such a marriage would be raised a Catholic. As it is not proposed to change the law to allow a Catholic monarch, this would mean such a child would have to stand aside from possible succession to the throne. Prince Charles’ concerns center around the relationship between the British state and the established church — the Church of England.
The Church of England has also voiced concerns that any child could be brought up Catholic, as is required under canon law.
‘Anti-Catholicism’ Continues
The proposed changes have been met with a lukewarm reception by U.K. Catholics.
Peter Kearney, director of the Scottish Catholic Media Office, pointed out to the Register that the proposed changes “will not allow anyone in the line of succession to be — or to become — a Catholic or to raise their children as Catholics, without them losing their right to succeed.”
Therefore, he suggested that “succession to the crown will remain an invidious and deplorable example of anti-Catholicism.”
Kearney said that it is important to note that “neither current statute nor the proposed new law require that the head of state, who is also supreme governor of the Church of England, to be a communicant member of the Church of England. By law, a Muslim, Buddhist, atheist or whatever could be head of state and supreme governor. Needless to say, this compounds the offense caused to Catholics.”
Francis Davis, political commentator and columnist for the U.K.’s Catholic Times, said that the move was an easy one for secular politicians looking to garner easy popularity.
“This decision reflects the modern mood and is, helpfully for ministers [of Parliament], cost-free,” he told the Register. “Its only practical consequence would be a constitutional crisis, were a future monarch to convert to Catholicism.”
However, he said that he did not believe such a scenario would happen in “our lifetimes.”
He also warned that Catholics should be careful at rejoicing too much, as “the same forces of modernization and the majority mood which are opening up the senior reaches of the royal family to women and to Catholics are also bringing us same-sex ‘marriage.’”
Catholic peer Lord David Alton also struck a cautious note. Speaking to the Register, he said that the issue “surfaces from time to time; and when the opportunity arises, it would be right to remove the impediment on Catholics being barred from the throne.”
More Important Issues?
However, Lord Alton questioned whether this should be the pressing concern for Catholics, when “far-worse injustices face countless numbers of people in Britain.”
He said that he was “far more concerned about attempts, for instance, to ban Christians from wearing a cross or forcing Catholic midwives to take part in abortions,” which have both been the subject of recent legal cases, one of which found British Airways guilty of discriminating against a Christian for not allowing her to wear a small cross around her neck.
He also added that, “in other parts of the world, Catholics face horrific discrimination and even loss of life for their faith. Issues like the succession to the British throne tend to generate a lot of heat but can distract our attention from the relentless persecution and discrimination being faced by Christians in countries like Nigeria, Syria and North Korea.”
Concluded Lord Alton, “Catholics should be wary of spending a lot of time or energy on this.”
James Kelly is a columnist for The Universe and a researcher at the University of London.
Jimmy Akin: VIDEO: Is the Rosary Just "Vain Repetitions"?
SDG: Sarandon calls pope "Nazi"; ADL calls for apology
Comments
Post a Comment
As I recall, the King (or Queen) is the head of the Anglican Church. It would be a rather awkard for a Catholic to be in the position of being the head of the Anglican Church.
Lord Alton would have us rate injustices and concern ourselves with more important ones - who is to decide? You, sir?
Prince Charles’ comments might be respected if he were a sincere Protestant and concerned that the Church of England should remain Protestant.
But he isn’t. He is a syncretist and thinks the British sovereign should be “protector of faith”, rather than “protector of the (Christian) faith”.
The suspicion is that he doesn’t like Catholics because,well, they actually believe in things and present a real alternative.
Sigh. Not a good look in a future monarch.
Guess the institution is growing old… I would think it more appropriate that the Head of State be a moral upright person who is legally and sacramentally married to their spouse and not living in Morganatic Sin with their erst-while lover. Oh, bonnie Prince Charlie, you have a lot to answer for. Best you follow Parliament and renounce your succession. Your grand Uncle Edward had to abdicate… go for it… and get a Job! You don’t have the right to object to the place of a Catholic when you have illegally take to wife the still married, though divorced Camilla Parker-Bowles. I am ashamed to think that you may become the Head of our State in my life-time. I have been loyal to our Head of State, your dear Mother, but how can we offer allegiance to a man who lives outside the law of Parliament and God’s design! Stay Schtumm, old Boy , you have no grounds to offer opinion.
Before Henry VIII created the Church of England, wasn’t he Roman Catholic?
The spirit of ‘Good Queen Bess’ seems to still haunt the halls of Buckingham palace. Where are the Thomas Mores of today?
Wise words from Lord Alton. He is absolutely right. There are more important things for Catholics worldwide to fight for and defend then then an impediment to the inheritance of the crown of England.
What do we really expect from a house that took a stance against all things truly Catholic but kept the illusion of Catholicism? Anglicans could easily be called the very first “cafeteria Catholics”.
To the question of Catholicism in England, the words of St. Edmund Campion, S.J. will always ring true:
“In condemning us, you condemn all your ancestors, all the ancient bishops and kings, all that was once the glory of England.”
“England — cheerfully to carry the cross you shall lay upon us, and never to despair your recovery, while we have a man left to enjoy your Tyburn, or to be racked with your torments, or consumed with your prisons. The expense is reckoned, the enterprise is begun; it is of God, it cannot be withstood. So the faith was planted: so it must be restored.”
“- If these my offers be refused and my endeavours can take no place, and I having run thousands of miles to do you good, shall be rewarded with rigour, — I have no more to say, but to recommend your case and mine to Almighty God…”
Thanks D. Paggie! Now that was a man and a saint!
Here is a good example of how the unity of church and state presents problems…the royal family isn’t free to be the royal family and be Catholic. Having a monarch (or president, or prime minister, etc.) be the head of any church is a bad idea and a house of cards waiting to fall.
“U.K. Catholics are lukewarm about proposed legislative changes that would allow royal-family members to marry Catholics but also maintain the existing ban on a Catholic monarch.”
—-
## That is because any such changes are highly undesirable. They would have no effect on almost all Catholics in the UK - any change would be symbolic, therefore not necessary. It would endanger the establishment of the Church of England (causing further legal trouble for the sake of a minority that barely even exists, since almost none, if not none, of the six million or so Catholics in the UK are ever going to be affected by it.) It is a ridiculous & pointless idea, and there is no justification for so major a constitutional change. It’s a crude & stupid & laughably transparent attempt to angle for votes, made by a Deputy Prime Minister who is a laughing-stock. This Catholic is not “lukewarm”, but unalterably & absolutely & implacably opposed to this idea. There is nothing whatsoever to be said for this piece of irresponsible foolery.
“Here is a good example of how the unity of church and state presents problems…the royal family isn’t free to be the royal family and be Catholic.”
—
## The UK has for 450 years been a Protestant country, so a Protestant monarch, two Protestant established Churches, & a constitution that favours Protestantism make excellent sense. There are no problems except for those in the minds of those who insist on opposing “the Protestant religion by law established”, which the Queen undertook at her Coronation to to defend. The present arrangement is not Protestant enough - and is far milder to non-Protestants than Catholic countries have been to Protestants. Catholics in the UK have no just cause to complain of anything in the British constitution.
Since Henry VIII Catholics and Protestants have been at odds with each other. As I see it the only choice would be that the monarch is removed from head of the Church of England with the stance that there is separation of church and state like we’re “supposed” to have. Let the British clerics be head of their respective faiths, and let the monarch be head of the country. Period.
I support the female being next in line to the throne, regardless. God rest Mary, Queen of Scots.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.