Why in the 21st Century is it still wrong for a member of the British Royalty to marry a Catholic?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070803/en_afp/britainroyalsreligioncanada

It's not as though any of them are shining examples of piety in their own religion. After all, Prince Charles was messing with Camilla for years while he was still married,and there are any number of scandals within the family. I would think marrying a Catholic would be the least of their worries....

Answer 1

Monarchys are always terrified of change.

Answer 2

Better question would be Why in the 21st century is there still such a thing as British Royalty?

Answer 3

It is that they are the head of the Church of England and don't wish it to return to being Catholic, while supposedly a Protestant would not object to its continued independence.  Mary the First attempted to move England back to the Catholic Church by repealing the Act of Supremacy of 1534.  The Treason Act of 1534 also makes it treason to disavow the English (now UK) Monarch's supremacy in religions matters and recognized a foreign religous leader.   Since Elizabeth I, most British monarchs have not been so strick.

Answer 4

It isn't WRONG --anyone can marry whomever they please.  But if you are in line to inherit the throne, no matter how far down the line you might be, you have to give up your place in line and renounce your right to inherit, if you marry a Catholic. English law specifies that no reigning monarch be Catholic or can marry a Catholic, because one of the strictures for marrying into the Catholic faith is to agree for children to be raised Catholic, which is impossible for royals -- better to just avoid the issue entirely.  English history is full of wars that have a healthy dose of religion mixed in with the political battles, such as Henry VIII, through the Settlement Act of 1701, and even to decades of the religious overtones in the Irish Question.  There was always the fear that a Catholic monarch would be subject to undue influence from the Catholic Church, especially in times past when the office of Pope was an extremely active political one.  Heck, people were even nervous about John F. Kennedy being Catholic in 1960, less than 50 years ago, afraid that he would be subject to "undue influence" by the Catholic church.  

It's not such a huge sacrifice, anyway.  The chance of anyone other than William or Henry inheriting are negligible, so it's not as if they are actually "giving up" anything.  It makes it a bit tricky for William, but I suspect any young woman willing to take on William and all of the circus surrounding him would probably be willing to convert from Catholicism, if it were an issue.

BTW, England isn't the only one with religious restrictions on their royalty.  Denmark, Sweden and Norway have clauses that their reigning monachs be Lutheran.  Spain has to be Catholic, as well as Belgium.  It's simply a way that was created to protect and stabilize a country's culture.

Answer 5

It's a constitutional issue NOT a church issue.

Answer 6

Religions have been the cause of many wars.

It's a matter of pride.

To be an adulterer is more acceptable than to be a Catholic.

Answer 7

who Say's... i dated prince harry and i am Catholic... notice the word DATED.. LOL

Answer 8

You wanna know why? Because they're stupid, that's why!  Who cares if they marry a catholic or if they become Catholic?  Before it was because the kinds and queens were absolute and if they wanted their people to become Catholic, every had to become Catholic. That can't happen now. Monarchs don't have that much power now. So if Charles were to become Catholic and King, so what? I doubt the British masses would join him in becoming Catholic and I doubt he'd force anyone to follow him. And as far as not being the Head of the Church of England, well, they can always make a law that says that if any British ruling monarch becomes Catholic, then the Bishop of canterbury would become head of the church of England until another protestant monarch comes to power.

Answer 9

That is what British law says, but if a member wanted to marry a Catholic, I don't think it would be enforced. The Queen has pretty much relaxed the restrictions on the Royal Family.

Answer 10

I'd worry about important things if I were you.

Answer 11

2 answers - one: idon't know, people get stuck on things, and two: the British royalty is and has been very protective of their positions - rightly so, because they are expected by people. There are many people who look up to them for inspiration and as examples as to how to be and where to go in life, as well - they look to them for assistance as well, and they ( the british royalty) have a place in society where they fit - they are not flying solo, they have to fit in with other nations and royaties, and peoples, etc.  And so also, because they mostly deal with the people in Great Britian, most of the people in Great Britian belong to a particular church, so that is what they ascribe to - otherwise it would be a bad example and would lead others to having a rebelioius nature, which is unchurch-like in any church :) But, in further hine sight i think it is correct to say that i don't think people would really care.

Answer 12

Because the law says so.

Answer 13

It's not "wrong" at all for Royalty to marry a Roman Catholic.

But, under current legislation, it's a choice between that and keeping their place in the line of succession.

Parliament makes these rules, and Parliament can change them. If Parliament allowed a Protestant monarch to have a Roman Catholic consort, the Church of England might accept that, but it would never accept a Roman Catholic monarch as the Head of the Church, so it would alter its own status to something independent of the State, like the Eastern Orthodox churches.