Photosales
niJobfinder
niCarfinder
Home Delivery
Propertynews
Royal ban on Catholics may be reformed
Friday, 27 March 2009
Gordon Brown today insisted he was determined to remove "discrimination" after it emerged the Government had opened talks with Buckingham Palace over laws preventing heirs to the throne from marrying Roman Catholics.
The Prime Minister stressed there were no "easy answers" to changing the 1701 Act of Settlement.
But, in a round of broadcast interviews during his pre-G20 travels, he indicated he would be raising the issue with other Commonwealth leaders when they gather in November.
"This is a very complex issue that has been a matter of controversy and discussion for decades, indeed over centuries," Mr Brown said.
"What we must do is protect the position of the monarchy and the position of the Queen as head of the established church, the Church of England.
"But there are clear issues about the exclusion of people from the rights of succession, and there are clearly issues that have got to be dealt with not just in Britain but right across the Commonwealth.
"This is not an easy set of answers, but I think in the 21st century people do expect discrimination to be removed and they do expect us to be looking at these issues."
Ministers have already signalled a willingness to address the issue, which will be raised in the Commons today when MPs debate legislation introduced by a Liberal Democrat MP to end the "uniquely discriminatory" rules.
Evan Harris has cross-party support for his proposals but looks unlikely to win ministerial support at this stage as the Government grapples with what it said would be a "complex undertaking".
The Act states that heirs to the throne lose their right to be the sovereign if they marry a Catholic or convert - forcing royal brides over the years to leave the faith to protect their husband's birthright.
Autumn Kelly, the wife of Peter Phillips, the Queen's grandson, did just this before their wedding last year so that he remained 11th in line to the throne.
His claim could be made stronger still if action to end the practice of male heirs taking precedence was made retrospective as his mother, the Princess Royal, would leapfrog her two younger brothers.
She would become fourth in line, behind Prince Harry, instead of coming after the Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex and their children.
Dr Harris's Royal Marriages and Succession to the Crown (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill is co-sponsored by Catholic parliamentarians such as Tory MP Edward Leigh, Labour's Andrew Mackinlay and John Grogan and fellow Liberal Democrat John Pugh.
He said: "This Bill will remove the uniquely discriminatory rule which currently exists - that an individual in the line of succession to the throne can have a civil partnership with a Catholic, can marry a Muslim or atheist, but cannot marry a Catholic.
"It will also end the outdated rule which allows a woman in the line of succession to the throne to be automatically superseded by a younger male sibling.
"If our current monarch had a younger brother, we would never have had a Queen Elizabeth II."
Asked if it would back the backbench legislation, a Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said: "The Government has always stood firmly against discrimination in all its forms, including against Roman Catholics, and we will continue to do so.
"To bring about changes to the law on succession would be a complex undertaking involving amendment or repeal of a number of items of related legislation, as well as requiring the consent of legislatures of member nations of the Commonwealth.
"We are examining this complex area although there are no immediate plans to legislate."
A Downing Street spokeswoman said: "This is a complex issue. While there is no question of changing the constitutional role of the Monarch or of changing the role of the Church of England as the established church, people expect the Government to look at issues of discrimination.
"The laws concerning marriage to Catholics and the primacy of male members of the Royal family should change, but that can only happen with the agreement of the Palace and of all the Commonwealth countries of which HM The Queen is the head of state.
"We are keen to open a process of dialogue with them which can lead to changes in this legislation, but that cannot happen overnight, which is why we cannot support this Private Members Bill."
Dr Harris welcomed the findings of an opinion poll which found overwhelming public support for removing the discrimination against Catholics and female royals.
The survey, by ICM for the BBC, showed 89% of voters backed giving female heirs equal succession rights and 81% believed heirs who married Catholics should still be able to take to the throne.
Despite continued support for the monarchy by more than three quarters of the public for the monarchy, almost one in five (18%) said they would prefer to see Britain become a republic when the present Queen dies.
The Lib Dem MP said: "Very few political ideas, let alone constitutional changes, have two-thirds support yet ending discrimination against Catholics in royal marriages and against women in the succession both have over 80% support.
"Even more people believe that the monarchy should be fair than believe that there should be a monarchy at all so the Government and the Conservative Party should support this bill and end these historic injustices as soon as possible."
ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1,005 adults across the country by telephone between March 20-22 and the results were weighted to reflect the population.
- Text Size
Comments
39 Comments
I was brought up a member of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church in Ireland, and my Great-Great-Great Grandmama was Lady Penston of Tara, and her cat, "Silky Willow" was sired by "Sir Royal Puff", the royal tomcat, which was Queen Victoria’s favourite... Would I now be in line for the throne, also now that I have elevated myself to being a fundamentalist Atheist, is there any hope for me, or are they barred too?
Posted by Tony | 29.03.09, 17:04 GMT
Group:
Some very sad and 'intolerant' comments here that are directed against Catherine, simply for expressing her opinion, which I happen to share. The British Monarch swears an oath to uphold and defend the Faith, with the implication that this is the Protestant Faith. It would be hypocritical for a non-Protestant to swear such an oath of allegiance. Unless some of you are advocating that we get rid of this oath too. Any other centurires old traditions that you want to change while your at it?
Sean-
Posted by Sean | 28.03.09, 07:10 GMT
I fully agree with both Colin and Catherine in that a head of a Protestant church CANNOT be a catholic and Stephen, Colin IS correct in saying that being unequally yoked DOES refer to catholic and protestant, UNLESS the catholic becomes a full member of the protestant church and bring up their children in the protestant faith. The realLiam, if you don't want the monarch on your currency then move across the border to live with your other republican cohorts.
Posted by Stuart | 27.03.09, 22:49 GMT
Why have such a law as that today. In the USA, most Catholics are Cafeteria Catholics. We pick and choose for we do not agree with everything yet some claim they do until you ask them questions where their ancers are not according to the church teachings in a lot of cases. In the USA, you never ask a person of their religion in general and they be foolish to tell someone unless very close. A newspaper in the USA whould never tell a person religion for it no ones bussiness. P.S. In the USA, people will sue over many things too. I hope Will finds the right lady of his choice in his good time. My daughter went to St. Andrews with him all four years.
Posted by phl | 27.03.09, 22:32 GMT
"open minded" nails the issue. The monarch and his her descendents are currently head of the established church. Hence, it would be odd if they didn't subscribe to that religion.
Seems that most of th remainder of the posts involve the hard of thinking involved in a bit of points scoring. plus ca change ...
My turn. "ger", love your exclamation marks and really subtle humour. Makes you look all learned. So it does.
Posted by proud to be hetero | 27.03.09, 21:19 GMT
Let's get rid of all forms of discrimination, whether relevant or not, and have a Roman Catholic as head of the Church of England and a Protestant woman as Pope, too. All in favour?
Posted by alwyn | 27.03.09, 21:01 GMT
I fully agree with Catherine, as head of the state Church the King/Queen must always be Protestant.
This doesnt only happen in the UK, Beligum requires a Roman Catholic PM, Norways Royal family must also be Protestants, Italy may have some law on Roman Catholics also?
Posted by Warren Murphy | 27.03.09, 19:12 GMT
I'm Protestant - Great Britain is a Protestant Country - the Monarch must be Proestant - One Country, One People, One Law, One King, One God - How can anyone take His Hoiness and the Roman Catholic Church seriously - I can't, afterall he's an old man who claims to be God's vicar on this earth; I THINK NOT!!! If we did have a Roman Catholic Monarch, would his Holiness send a Paple Legate???? Would the Inquisition be brought forth???? Would the Roman Catholic Church become Established???? - These are the very real and present reasons why we fought each other, not only on this Island, but throughout Great Britain, Europe and the World for several hundred years to get to where we are now in terms of God, Religion, State, Monarch, People, Parliament and Rights. I do not want anyone who has any loyalty to any foreign power on the throne, in the Royal Family, as Prime Minister, in the Cabnet etc etc and a Roman Catholic Monarch would be on a string to Vatican!!!!
Posted by Harry Hopkins | 27.03.09, 18:46 GMT
Sean, interesting that you read that RCs make up the majority of the Uk population. The National Statistics Agency put the numbers as follows:
Protestant Population in the UK = 36,893,807
Catholic Population in the UK = 4,121,004
The monarch can't be Catholic because he/she would be head of the Church of England. How could a Catholic, taking religious instruction from the Vatican, lead the Anglican Church? Also the Pope is an absolute Monarch and always a male Catholic. The UK & Commonwealth should only change the laws concerning Succession when the Catholic Church changes it's rules and implement an equal opportunities policy concerning it's own Papal succession.
Posted by RS | 27.03.09, 17:40 GMT
What a laugh Catherine, keep taking your medication! BTW Are you related to Henry VIII by any chance?
Posted by Julie | 27.03.09, 15:51 GMT
If it comes to being the Head of a Church I'd prefer the Queen over the Pope. At least the Queen is sensible enough to understand sex education and the benefits of it. If everyone listened to the Pope we'd all still have families with 10-15 children in them and no money to feed them. But then again we can still pray for better times ahead. Another thing is at least we know and can watch the next Head of the Church and State grow up unlike the current Pope who we know nearly nothing about. And just think we can have a young person becoming the King/queen and head of state instead of some geriatric thats totally out of touch with the world around him.
Posted by Michael Falkes | 27.03.09, 15:45 GMT
i can honestly say i never had any interest in politics ( maybe one of the few in n ireland) but one things for sure any rule or law that prevents people holding a certain station in life be it because of their religion or sex must be hundreds of years old and should be changed,,,,,can you imagine people of german decent not allowed on the throng in england ,,the present royal family would not be in buckingham palace ,,the name windsor was only installed hundred years the royal is of german decent
Posted by hg | 27.03.09, 15:33 GMT
The United Kingdom, allegedly a first world nation, should not be wasting its time with a law enacted in 1701! It is because of things like this that people like Catherine still exist.
No wonder N. Ireland is still having growing pains!
Posted by Edward | 27.03.09, 15:29 GMT
Ger, thats brilliant you're totally right which is the funny and worrying thing.
Posted by Michael | 27.03.09, 15:02 GMT
Catherine, are you for real? Get a life!!
Posted by robin | 27.03.09, 14:08 GMT
How funny is it to hear the DUP object to this!!!
Jeffrey Donaldson now has his turn to make a fool out of himself and his party.
The DUP deny evolution and climate change, argue the earth is only a few thousand years old and have complained bitterly about The Simpsons, Dido and a winning film at Cannes. If they weren't such rabid homophobes it would almost be laughable.
And this is only in the last few months!!
Keep tuned for more from the crazy gang...
Posted by ger | 27.03.09, 13:50 GMT
Liam, comparing a genetically determined characteristic like skin colour to a learned belief such as religion is bizarre in the extreme and adds no weight to the argument for change. The key to any decision will be redefining the monarchs role within the church.
Posted by Open minded | 27.03.09, 13:42 GMT
all very interesting...the actually reason for the rule was that a catholics primary alliance is to the pope and the vatican, therefore could have jeopardised the states position many years ago, it was nothing to do with religeous prejudice etc. All that aside, it is now out dated and not needed so i say get rid of it. As for collin, the unequally yoked comment was slightly foolish. Naturally that comment is going to get all the sectarian/prejudice/anti god/biogots out in force. It isnt about RC and Prod since when the bible was written neither existed and it simply referred to saved or un saved. if an RC considers themselves saved and so does the prod then its fine. incidently though if you dont follow god, you are neither RC or Protestant so it shouldnt concern you remotly.
Posted by marty | 27.03.09, 12:58 GMT
Did I not read a few years ago that Catholocism was now the largest religion in the UK?
So Catherine your arguement should mean that the Queen has to go to mass!!
Posted by Sean | 27.03.09, 12:51 GMT
Catherine reminds me of some of Ulster's staunchest Protestants whose slogan around 1920 was "A Protestant parliament for a Protestant people -thus Ireland was partitioned. On the other hand, perhaps the British, especially the English, have the inherent right to ensure that their monarch always be a W.A.S.P. (White Anglo-Anglo Saxon Protestant), a long as the majority prefers it.
Posted by Seán MacCurtain | 27.03.09, 12:45 GMT
39 Comments