Why are Roman Catholics prohibited from sitting on the English throne?

Question

It seems that the reason Prince Michael of Kent is banned from sitting on the throne is because he married a Roman Catholic wife. Why is that? What about members of the Royal Family of religion other than Protestant (e.g. Orthodox, Buddhist, Muslim or Jewish)? Would they similarly be prohibited?

Do you think that such a law is relevant in this day and age?

Will it make any difference if the monarch was protestant but his / her spouse was catholic?

Answer 1

First of all, the ban on Roman Catholics has nothing to do with Henry VIII and his six wives, even though he started the Church of England because the Pope wouldn't allow him to divorce Katherine of Aragon.

Try fast forwarding to the Act of Settlement in 1701, an act specifically meant to keep any Roman Catholic Stuarts away from the throne of England. When the last Stuart monarch, Queen Anne, had 13 pregnancies in 13 years, and not one child lived to ascend to the throne, Parliament had two choices: 1) To bring back James II (or a son by his second marriage); both of whom were Roman Catholics. 2) To turn to the nearest Protestant branch of the Stuarts--a very remote one, James I's granddaughter, Sophia, the widowed Electress of Hanover, and her son, the Elector George.

The Roman Catholic Stuarts' religious faith committed them to undoing the Glorious Revolution, re-establishing a despotic personal rule of the king rather than the rule of Parliament (even if it they only represented a small percentage of landowners), and not even the staunchest Tory could allow this to happen.

The English Constitution, which relies on tradition (and is obviously stretched to fit whatever situation necessary) at present prohibits those in line for succession from marrying a Roman Catholic, a Buddhist, Muslim, or a Jew--or for that matter a member of any "dissenting" Protestant denomination, such as the Society of Friends (Quakers), the Methodists, or Baptists. Naturally, any one of the above faiths could convert to the Church of England. After all, Prince Phillip was baptized as an infant into the Greek Orthodox faith. Before marrying Princess Elizabeth, he not only gave up his Greek citizenship but his allegiance to the Greek Orthodox church as well.

Of course, the law is not relevant to contemporary England since only about 10 percent of the population regularly attend church anyway--most of whom are Roman Catholics and dissenters. I don't suppose that unwritten constitution could adopt the very American idea of Separation of Church and State?

Answer 2

The rules prohibiting Roman Catholics or their spouses from being monarchs of Britain were made by the British Parliament. The rules are NOT made by public opinion, nor by a Best Answer on Yahoo! Answers.

Parliament does not have to defend the rules which it has made. There has been a debate on them, and a vote, and the result stands until whenever there is another debate and a different vote.

If any non-Protestant was near to inheriting the throne, it is very likely that Parliament would remove them from the succession by re-wording the rules, for consistency with the monarch's role as the Head of the Church of England.

As another answerer has said, and I completely agree, claiming that a Catholic should be allowed to be the British monarch is as silly as claiming that a non-Catholic should be allowed to be the Pope.

Answer 3

The Act of Settlement 1701 prohibits Catholics from inheriting the throne. It would be a problem if any non-Protestant (or other Christian other than Church of England) was to inherit the throne as the monarch is technically Head of the Church of England.

Although Muslims or Jews are not prohibited by the Act, I doubt they would be allowed to take the throne. The Monarch only reigns at the assent of Parliament (and in turn by the People).

Peter Philips (the Queen's eldest grandchild - the son of Princess Anne) is engaged to a Roman Catholic, if she does not convert and they marry he will forfeit his place in the line of sucession (he is currently 10th in line).

Answer 4

Because the Pope & Henry VIII had a plan to get rid of Henry VIII's wife not a divorce, but a Annulment. Catholics don't allow divorce. An annulment supposes there has been no marriage at all.

Henry paid the Pope and Papal Court millions in gold for their part in the dastardly scheme. Trouble was Queen Catherine, a good woman, was the auntie of the German Emperor and he objected to his aunt being used in this way.He was also the jailor of the pope. He being in a Gaol at Rome. The Pope turned down Henry's request, but wouldn't return Henry's bribes. Henry was the butt of Europe's jokes and didn't like it.
Then he found out through Cranmer, that the Pope didn't have the authority to do the job. According to the ancient canons of the Catholic Church, the Bishop of Rome has no authority to interfere in the See of another bishop.It was illegal.( It still is.) Rome knew this but kept it quiet because he was on a good thing, as they do say! He then had a red face, he'd got the money but had been in a constant trouble with catholic bishops over who held authority within the Church, Rome? Or the Bishops in Council as Holy Tradition spelled it out!
The Roman Bishop excommunicated the King of England, or so I understand it, but not the English Church.

It was not till the Pope issued his Bull against Elizabeth that the Church was excommunicated following the Canons of the ,'Robber Council in Trent ,' 1570. However, the pope in a foolish gesture more or less issued a fatwha against Eliza and called for her to be dethroned and virtually gave the Crown to who could take it! i.e. The Emperor of Germany and / or The King of Spain. He nearly brought about a Civil War between the Trentists aided by the followers of Rome and the Church in England. In 1605, the Roman supported an endevoured to blow up the English Establishment in the Gunpowder Plot. It is as well to remember the Bishop of Rome was a virtual King of Northern Italy at the Reformation and had troops of his own and cash enough to make himself a constant threat especially when allied to Germany and the Spaniards. This enmity was kept up for about 50 years inspite of the English Monarchy's attempt to make friends,

Answer 5

For Prince Michael of Kent to sit on throne he would have to be C of E, and he is in no way in line, there are Charles, William, Harry, and other male heirs long before then, this is to do with Henry V111 seceding from the Catholic Church because he couldn't get a divorce from Catherine of Aragon so he could marry Anne Boleyn. So he declared himself head of the Church of England. This is our tradition and will not change unless the Monarchy is abolished and that is not likely to happen for the foreseeable future.

Answer 6

This stems from the reign of Henry VIII, when he passed an Act severing the Church of England from the Roman Catholic church and established the English monarch as the head of the Church of England.

Succession to the English throne is by male preference primogeniture (boys take preference over girls and oldest boy takes preference over younger brothers), but those who are not legitimate descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover and those who have ever been Roman Catholics, or who have married Roman Catholics, are disbarred from succeeding to the Crown.

Relevant or not, it is a part of British history and culture and should be respected as such.

Answer 7

As the british monarch is head of the church of england having a person of annother religion on the throne would be equivalent to having a non catholic pope

Answer 8

The ruling monarch in the UK is also the head of the church of England, therefore you can not have a Catholic (muslim, jew, pagenist etc) in that posotion.

Henry VIII, wanted a divorce which the the Pope would not grant, so he rid the country of the Catholic church (which was too powerful anyway) and made C of E the religion for the UK.

Answer 9

The Monarch of England must be a Protestant by law. The Monarch is head of the Church of England.

Our Heritage from our English Puritan Ancestors. ... He is persuaded to attempt to make a Protestant monarch follow him, contrary to his father's will that ...
http://www.members.aol.com/ntgen/hrtg/engl.html

JSTOR: Studies in the Making of the English Protestant Tradition ...Studies in the Making of the English Protestant Tradition (Mainly in the ... that con- spiracy by which a lustful monarch and preda- tory gentry combined to ...
http://www.links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-4189(194904)29%3A2%3C148%3ASITMOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M

HRH Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, has let it be known that he wishes to be titled "Defender of the Faiths" [plural] when he becomes King. He is skating on very thin ice because the English may not accept him as their king unless and until he renounces all other faiths.

The above paragraph may seem harsh in the modern world but we must remember all the termoil and war which happened here in England, especially the English Civil War of the 16th century and it's outcome and the settlement between Parliament [the Commons] and the newly restored monarch HM King Charles II of fond late memory, who while a Protestant [CofE] himself, was married to a catholic Queen with whom he had no children.

GlobaLex - A Guide to the UK Legal System The major encyclopaedia is Halsbury's Laws of England. ..... Northern Ireland was created in 1922 from the six protestant-dominated counties of the Irish ...
http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/United_Kingdom.htm

Answer 10

Because Henry the 8th was a randy, ignorant old syphliitic cesspot who wanted a son so badly he kept having sex with anything that walked, and the Pope forbade him to marry again because his wife was still alive. So, he declared himself head of the "Church of England" and married anyone he wanted; if they gave birth to a daughter, he had them beheaded.

Sadly, the English people put up with this hypocricy and even today Catholics are persecuted in Scotland and parts of England and Wales. Religious freedom has always been something the English and Scots have despised. Hence, the separation clause in the United States Constitution.