Should the UK remove the prohibition of Catholics succeeding the crown?

Bog Butter

Given that nearly half of the population of NI, a state within the UK, are Catholics and that Roman Catholicism is set to become the dominant religion in Britain is it now time for the UK to remove its prohibition of Catholics succeeding the crown?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article1386939.ece

Karlusss

Seems unlikely given that the Queen of England is still technically head of the Church of England, right? The institution itself is ridiculously archaic, obviously, and a situation in which a Catholic monarch succeeded would lead to either the collapse or the reconstitution of the Church of England, some sort of passive or active rebellion amongst people like Presbyterians who would have a problem with declaring loyalty to a "papist"... etc.

It'd just open up a sack of crap unseen since the Tudors. And for no real gain.

Although removing the prohibition wouldn't actually make any difference to who actually succeeded, so why not.

sceptre

It's rather more complicated than simple discrimination. One could argue that the monarch and the church are inseparable. Certainly legally at the moment they are (apart from the ban on RC and marrying RC, there's section 3, which requires anyone who isn't Anglican and succeeds to the throne to become Anglican).

Amending the Act of Settlement would require the consent of fifteen of the other commonwealth realms under the provisions of the 1931 Statute of Westminster.

Some constitutional lawyers would argue that sovereignty would be lost in the event of an RC succession, the monarch in such an event theoretically owing ultimate duty to the pope rather than to the crown (Catholics don't take this seriously, other religions take this seriously about the Catholics). Most of the Scandinavian countries also constitutionally require their monarchs to be Lutheran, the Dutch require a protestant monarch and Belgium and Spain both effectively require a Roman Catholic so it's not as though the UK is the only country "guilty" of this practice.

Of course the theoretical constitutional crisis caused by a Roman Catholic becoming monarch would only arise in the event that the monarch actually was Roman Catholic. Merely removing the ban doesn't cause the theoretical crisis. Of course given that it's relatively unlikely that it would arise as an issue there shouldn't be a problem removing it in principle (even taking account of the 16 countries that would have to approve it) but given that it would be an empty gesture under such circumstances one could argue that there isn't much point bothering then.

Might be easier to abolish the monarchy and replace it with a directly elected president. If I had a vote, I'd vote for that. But of course, before the chorus chimes in with a humdrum of "monarchy is bad", that's not what the OP asked. Is it now time for the UK to remove the prohibition? Sure, whatever. But not just because there may some day be of them. Plus, sort out this "men succeed first" thing (the cognatic primogeniture) and bring in absolute primogeniture where first born wins, regardless of sex.

Like I said, personally I don't really care. Given that the monarchy (apart from its extremely important constitutional role[1]) is more of a thing for the tourists, for me the ban on Crown succession of or marriage to Roman Catholics is one of those cute things about the UK, like the Chelsea pensioners or still measuring distances in miles.


[1]No, I'm not being sarcastic. it actually is. Not that a directly-elected president couldn't do the exact same thing.

RedPlanet

They should amend it absolutely.
It's ridiculous and it's discriminatory.
Why should anybody care how "complex" it would be to right matters?
That's just a sop to those in the past whom desired to copperfasten the role of the Protestant religion to the state.
I'm sure there are lessons to be learned in undoing those knots.

Fratton Fred

There was a debate about this on the history forum a while back, although not as logically debated as here, it was portrayed more as another example of the English oppression of Catholics than a constitutional mess that it actually is.

It's not that long ago that a king had to abdicate rather than marry a divorcee, but a way has been found to accept that.

As most people tend to take the faith of their parents, the chances of an actual monarch being catholic is fairly slim unless that person converts to catholicism. Someone would only do that if they had a problem with the Amglican church, which would most likely throw up even bigger issues if the head of the church had issues with it.

As far as marrying a catholic goes, I would say 90% of people would happily give up catholicism to marry the one they loved, its mot like they would be converting to a different religion, just a different way of performing the same thing really. Kind of like moving from Bohs to Rovers rather Leinster maybe.

If and when it becomes a real issue, such as the unification of the two churches, then it will be addressed, until it needs to be, why open up a very smelly can of worms?

Fratton Fred

RedPlanet wrote: »

They should amend it absolutely.
It's ridiculous and it's discriminatory.
Why should anybody care how "complex" it would be to right matters?
That's just a sop to those in the past whom desired to copperfasten the role of the Protestant religion to the state.
I'm sure there are lessons to be learned in undoing those knots.

The religion is christianity and the Monarch is the head of the Church of England, part of the Anglican Church.

Please at least get your terminology right before you start judging people by your own standards.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about 97% of schools in ireland being run by the Catholic Church? that is a far bigger "Sop" and throw back and copperfastening of Church to State.

asdasd

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about 97% of schools in ireland being run by the Catholic Church? that is a far bigger "Sop" and throw back and copperfastening of Church to State.

No, its not. historically the Catholic schools were private and fee paying, and built by the church. So the buildings are owned by the church. When free schooling is introduced the State pays for the Salaries of the teachers ( except religious, I think) but does not build it's own buildings, so they are now nominally Catholic. None of this is an example of Catholic hegemony ( in fact the fact the Catholic church had to set up its own schools was a response to Protestant hegemony)

so what? I was taught evolution in a Catholic school, they are smaller academically minded schools with little, or no, religious involvement; but they work and what we dont want are the utter failed English model - its stupid factory comprehensives.

mike65

Just to side track for the OPs theme

"Catholicism to become the dominant religion?"

There is a big dfference between numbers of people turning up to church and an ethos being dominant, esp as many new Catholics are Poles who may or may not stick around.

In a country where the agnostic/atheist are overwhelmingly the majority its all a bit irrelevant anyway.

Fratton Fred

asdasd wrote: »

No, its not. historically the Catholic schools were private and fee paying, and built by the church. So the buildings are owned by the church. When free schooling is introduced the State pays for the Salaries of the teachers ( except religious, I think) but does not build it's own buildings, so they are now nominally Catholic. None of this is an example of Catholic hegemony ( in fact the fact the Catholic church had to set up its own schools was a response to Protestant hegemony)

so what? I was taught evolution in a Catholic school, they are smaller academically minded schools with little, or no, religious involvement; but they work and what we dont want are the utter failed English model - its stupid factory comprehensives.

Yes, but you are a catholic. ever tried getting a non Catholic child into a school? the choice is very very limited and in Dublin last year there were a large number of children who missed the start of school because they were not accepted in their local catholic school.

This affect every child in the country, the Monarch's spouse affects one person (potentially) every generation.

There are far more important issues, as Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor agrees, than the rligious orientation of the British monarch.

gurramok

A Protestant came become a head of state here, big difference Fratton!

Fratton Fred

gurramok wrote: »

A Protestant came become a head of state here, big difference Fratton!

Big deal, I'd be happier with an all inclusive education system personally. The head of state in both countries is a waste of money imho.

Next time you're planning on marrying an heir to the British throne, let me know and I'll lobby for a change in the constitution in your behalf.

ejmaztec

Anyway, if Prince Charles ever gets his mother's job, he'll have some off the wall whacko tree-hugging religion replacing the C of E, which is probably why the Queen will live to be about 200.

It would simplify things were the Archbishop of Canterbury to be made the head honcho, then the sovereign could do what he or she pleases.

P. Breathnach

I'd go for an extension of the prohibition: add in all other faiths, agnostics, atheists, and free thinkers.

There is some point in having a Head of State, mainly for protocol purposes. There seems no point in having the job filled by heridity.

Fratton Fred

ejmaztec wrote: »

Anyway, if Prince Charles ever gets his mother's job, he'll have some off the wall whacko tree-hugging religion replacing the C of E, which is probably why the Queen will live to be about 200.

It would simplify things were the Archbishop of Canterbury to be made the head honcho, then the sovereign could do what he or she pleases.

I think Prince Charles has already dais he sees the monarch's role as the defender of Faith, not defender of the Faith.

I'm pretty confident there will be some changes over the coming years, probably when the current incumbant snuffs it, but teh change will come from within more than by public pressure.

ejmaztec

pwd wrote: »

Yup the English monarch is the head of the Church of England so the idea of a Catholic one is simply absurd. You might as well say it's discriminatory that the Pope has to be a Catholic.

It is obligatory in RC schools that religion is taught for half an hour a day.

I went to a Protestant primary school in a nice area in Dublin Southside. There was a Catholic school down the road. The Catholic school was openly hostile towards our school. As I understand it, they took an issue with Catholics going to the Protestant school. Being young children who weren't being fed this sort of crap, we didn't know what it was about really.
On one occasion a woman who I'm fairly sure was a teacher in the RC school came to the wall of our school with some pupils and they stood at the entrance and threw stuff at us and acted generally unpleasant. [Nothing hit us or came close to hitting us it was a gesture rather than actual attempt to cause harm]. I think this was meant as some sort of protest. I'm sure this sort of stuff would encourage more parents to avoid sending their kids to the Catholic school.
As I said, this was in a good area. I hope it was an isolated case though, and is not symptomatic of typical dogma in RC schools. I've heard of destructive indoctrination in other RC schools too however.
Anyway, while the schools are funded by the Catholic Church in any form they are going to have some say in what goes on in them. With the economy the way it is, that is unlikely to change any time soon.

That must have been National Religious Tolerance Day.

One of my relatives, who was brought up as an RC, decided that he didn't want his kids attending any religion lessons at the local RC school. There was no problem with the school over his request, and his kids just left the room before the spouting started.

gurramok

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Big deal, I'd be happier with an all inclusive education system personally. The head of state in both countries is a waste of money imho.

Next time you're planning on marrying an heir to the British throne, let me know and I'll lobby for a change in the constitution in your behalf.

Will you lobby on behalf of an English Catholic or Muslim in the same scenario?

Fratton Fred

gurramok wrote: »

Will you lobby on behalf of an English Catholic or Muslim in the same scenario?

A Muslim can marry a potential Monarch no problem, its only catholics that are banned.

If I could be bothered to lobby, then sure i would. In fact the situation nearly arose recently when a Canadian Catholic, Autumn Kelly married Princess Anne's son, Peter who is 6th in line to the throne. Peter had offered to give up his to the throne, but she preferred the glitzy Windsor castle wedding to her faith so gave up catholicism.

Strangely enough, the law only prevents future monarchs marrying catholics, if they decide to convert back to catholicism once married it is perfectly fine.

getz

Karlusss wrote: »

Seems unlikely given that the Queen of England is still technically head of the Church of England, right? The institution itself is ridiculously archaic, obviously, and a situation in which a Catholic monarch succeeded would lead to either the collapse or the reconstitution of the Church of England, some sort of passive or active rebellion amongst people like Presbyterians who would have a problem with declaring loyalty to a "papist"... etc.

It'd just open up a sack of crap unseen since the Tudors. And for no real gain.

Although removing the prohibition wouldn't actually make any difference to who actually succeeded, so why not.

before long this may no longer be a problem -the anglican church has been for some time in talks with the church of rome about coming back under the one banner-there is still a few sticking points -like mass and femail priests so far its still dead lock, but time are changing so who knows?

asdasd

It is obligatory in RC schools that religion is taught for half an hour a day.

I doubt it. I had about half an hour, once or twice a week. mostly that was like an ethics class ( the teachers were never religious because we had no religious working in the school).

You have anecdotal evidence of hostility between shools. That always goes on, schools are rivals.

blinding

malman wrote: »

Given that nearly half of the population of NI, a state within the UK, are Catholics and that Roman Catholicism is set to become the dominant religion in Britain is it now time for the UK to remove its prohibition of Catholics succeeding the crown?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article1386939.ece

So long as the head of state is also the head of the Anglican church then it would be expected that that head of state woul be Protestant.
Whether that is a fair way for a country to arrange its Head of state in this day and age is a good question.
My own opinion is that there should be a separation of head of state and any one particular religion.

What is down right offensive to catholics is that there is a specific law that a catholic is expressly unsuitable to be the spouse of the head of state. How much more discriminatory than that can you be, basically it says anybody but you because of your religion.

How any country that wants to call itself a modern democracy with an inclusive and egalitarian approach to its citizens can continue to have such a discriminatory law defies belief.

Were there such a law that discriminates so specifically against any other religion it would surely be removed immediately.

It is not surprising that some catholics feel rejected and alienated from some of the institutions of the British establishment.

ejmaztec

blinding wrote: »

So long as the head of state is also the head of the Anglican church then it would be expected that that head of state woul be Protestant.
Whether that is a fair way for a country to arrange its Head of state in this day and age is a good question.
My own opinion is that there should be a separation of head of state and any one particular religion.

What is down right offensive to catholics is that there is a specific law that a catholic is expressly unsuitable to be the spouse of the head of state. How much more discriminatory than that can you be, basically it says anybody but you because of your religion.

How any country that wants to call itself a modern democracy with an inclusive and egalitarian approach to its citizens can continue to have such a discriminatory law defies belief.

Were there such a law that discriminates so specifically against any other religion it would surely be removed immediately.

It is not surprising that some catholics feel rejected and alienated from some of the institutions of the British establishment.

I never felt alienated, and never met any other UK Catholics who gave a damn either.

asdasd

I never felt alienated, and never met any other UK Catholics who gave a damn either.

I imagine most people dont care. That said, were the prohibition against Jews, either it wouldnt be there by now; or there would be a lot more fuss made.

getz

blinding wrote: »

So long as the head of state is also the head of the Anglican church then it would be expected that that head of state woul be Protestant.
Whether that is a fair way for a country to arrange its Head of state in this day and age is a good question.
My own opinion is that there should be a separation of head of state and any one particular religion.

What is down right offensive to catholics is that there is a specific law that a catholic is expressly unsuitable to be the spouse of the head of state. How much more discriminatory than that can you be, basically it says anybody but you because of your religion.

How any country that wants to call itself a modern democracy with an inclusive and egalitarian approach to its citizens can continue to have such a discriminatory law defies belief.

Were there such a law that discriminates so specifically against any other religion it would surely be removed immediately.

It is not surprising that some catholics feel rejected and alienated from some of the institutions of the British establishment.

look in your own back yard - some catholic schools in the republic ban soccer in schools because its look on as protestant

Fratton Fred

asdasd wrote: »

I imagine most people dont care. That said, were the prohibition against Jews, either it wouldnt be there by now; or there would be a lot more fuss made.

Maybe, who knows.

i wonder what the general consensus is in the Netherlands, Spain or Belgium?

ejmaztec

asdasd wrote: »

I imagine most people dont care. That said, were the prohibition against Jews, either it wouldnt be there by now; or there would be a lot more fuss made.

There would be rioting and screams of "poor me" up every high street in the land.

asdasd

look in your own back yard - some catholic schools in the republic ban soccer in schools because its look on as protestant

I played soccer in gym class at my catholic school, and rugby too. Inter school team sports were gaelic alright.

Some Protestant schools only play rugby.

4arc

sure why stop there, why not let a jew or muslim be king or queen.

if your gonna write a pointless thread about political correctness gone wrong then include all religions!

and while your at it why not let any person be entitled to be head of the catholic church!

asdasd

sure why stop there, why not let a jew or muslim be king or queen.

they can be.

if your gonna write a pointless thread about political correctness gone wrong then include all religions!

Political Correctness? See point one.

and while your at it why not let any person be entitled to be head of the catholic church!

The head of State is not the same as the head of the church, now is it.

Fratton Fred

asdasd wrote: »

The head of State is not the same as the head of the church, now is it.

In England it is, yes.

its not actually that long ago that English Men were legally required to practice the long bow every day, or that more than two Welshmen in the Market Square in Chester was considered an invasion and they could be repelled with whatever force was required.

There are loads of old laws that will eventually be repealed as and when required.

getz

Fratton Fred wrote: »

In England it is, yes.

its not actually that long ago that English Men were legally required to practice the long bow every day, or that more than two Welshmen in the Market Square in Chester was considered an invasion and they could be repelled with whatever force was required.

There are loads of old laws that will eventually be repealed as and when required.

/
isnt the isles of man still legally at war with russia ?

Fratton Fred

getz wrote: »

/
isnt the isles of man still legally at war with russia ?

I'm not sure, but I know the Isles of Scilly have ended their war with the Dutch. I believe that was the worlds longest running war at over 350 years