Is the banning of Catholics from the British royal succession just bigoted?

Question

Since the Glorious Revolution of 1688 no Catholic can be king or soveriegn of Great Britain/UK ,marry a Catholic or stay in the line of succession.
Isn't it time to end this scandalous insult?

My...Not only is anti Catholicism a well -rooted Brit attitude but they are snooty about it too! Well ,praise the Lord and pass the 1662 BCP!

Answer 1

Yes it's time to end it now, they are bigots.

Answer 2

The way it's currently written, yes. The law bans anyone who is Catholic, even if they convert to the COE. It does not make the same ban on any other denomination or religion. While it makes sense that the monarch much be Anglican, because of her role as head of the Church of England, it is bigoted to single out Catholics.

Answer 3

It's more politically expedient to an era that has long since passed by. The British are renowned for their treachery if it serves the titled classes purpose; even at the expense of their very own institutions and rightful Monarchs, and any student of history should be well versed in this despicable trait of profit over duty that the nobility of England has so profoundly embodied. Truly repulsive specimens of humanity, how wonderful for the people of Britain if they were to collectively go extinct.

Answer 4

the King or Queen of England whomever is in charge is the head of the Church of England

England has had nothing to do with the Catholic church since the 15 or 1600's since the Pope wouldnt give the King a divorce

Answer 5

It is not bigoted in the least.Laws are kept in England just because there is no good reason to repeal them.By law all London taxis must keep a bale of hay in the cab to feed the horse,horses haven't been used for a long time but the law is still there.Anyway,the British do not need some interfering pope meddling in their affairs.The catholic church has caused and is continuing to cause,so much misery around the world.No thanks,we don't need someone hiding behind papal infallibility dictating to us.

Answer 6

No. Understand your history; Henry VIII was refused divorce from Catherine of Aragon, many years his senior and barren to boot; he had no chance for a much needed male heir; he opposed the church and the Pope and married Anne Boleyn. This caused the Great Schism, an earthquake in the church that still reverberates today.
The Catholic religion, today as then, is much too rigid and unyielding to be entrusted with a role in the Royal succession.

Answer 7

Well, other reasons might be (1) that whereas there is no chance of the Monarch being overruled by the ArchBishop of Canturbury they're not so sure about the Pope. And (2) The likes of Bloody Mary and James ll are not fondly remembered by the protestant majority.

Answer 8

To whom much is given, much is required. When born into a life of privelege, there is also a high price to pay. One of those prices is that the law of the land gets a say in who you can and cannot marry. At least, if you chose to marry outside the faith, you lose your place in succession. Perhaps it is an insult to the other religions, but that is what the laws say.

Answer 9

I love how "old world" England has remained in a sense. I'm from England and find it sad how the world is ruled by the accusations of being a bigot or racist or fascist when they are not. People are so sensitive and always victimize themselves today.

Answer 10

no, Catholics take their religion too seriously. Look at what happened with King Baudouin of Belgium in 1990 - he almost provoked a constitutional crisis (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5037/is_199004/ai_n18316284) It has to be limited to a religion that does not get in the way of governing a state.