Is Camilla a Catholic?

[Aurora810]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

It is indeed just Catholic. How we've ever got away with it under the EU I've no idea but it's probably best left as it is. Prince William can marry anyone in the Christian communion except a Catholic.

Wow that is really shocking to me! What on earth is so wrong about being Catholic? Hypothetic question: If William meets him a nice Catholic girl boom it's over and done with as for his succession rights, she can't convert or can she? That's what doesn't make sense. Philip was Greek Orthodox and still had to convert so it's not like they really accepted his denomination he still converted. So why wouldn't it be fine if someone just converted from Catholicism.

I apologize if me questions seem stupid I'm just trying to understand, what is so wrong with being a Catholic in the eyes of the British monarchy? After all, isn't Catholicism very popular all over Europe?

[BeatrixFan]

Well, you have to remember our history which generally involved alot of Catholic on Protestant bloodshed. Someone can convert from Catholicism and marry without the Royal losing their rights to the throne but it's rare.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Aurora810

Wow that is really shocking to me! What on earth is so wrong about being Catholic? Hypothetic question: If William meets him a nice Catholic girl boom it's over and done with as for his succession rights, she can't convert or can she? That's what doesn't make sense. Philip was Greek Orthodox and still had to convert so it's not like they really accepted his denomination he still converted. So why wouldn't it be fine if someone just converted from Catholicism.

I apologize if me questions seem stupid I'm just trying to understand, what is so wrong with being a Catholic in the eyes of the British monarchy? After all, isn't Catholicism very popular all over Europe?

It's because a law from the 1700s, a time when Britain was religiously divided between Catholics and Protestants and the Protestants ruled and passed this so called "Act of Settlement", declares that anyone in the line of succession, who marries a catholic, looses his rights to the throne. This law is still valid.

[Aurora810]

Oh I see! Thanks Beatrixfan and Jo of Palatine. That law dates back a long time! It is still somewhat surprising that this has stood for so long. As I have generally thought that the Catholic church was extremely popular all over Europe perhaps not so much in England though.

[BeatrixFan]

There's quite alot of Catholics in Britain but the law's just never been repealed, even though Catholic priests have conducted prayers for the Royal Family etc

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

I am not Catholic, but it is time to change isn't it? It all seems so silly.

I think it's way past time to change it. This sort of discrimination is indefensible in the 21st century.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Aurora810

Wow that is really shocking to me! What on earth is so wrong about being Catholic? Hypothetic question: If William meets him a nice Catholic girl boom it's over and done with as for his succession rights, she can't convert or can she?

Apparently she can convert, although I've seen it argued elsewhere that even being a Catholic at one point in the past would be enough to disaqualify a person. I hope that isn't the case, though; it would be taking prejudice way too far. It seems, from the precedent of the Duchess of Kent's conversion after her marriage, that marriage to a Protestant (Satanist, Rastafarian, whatever) who converts after marriage doesn't result in loss of place in the line of succession after the spouse has converted; the problem is only when the spouse is Catholic at the time of the wedding.

That's what doesn't make sense. Philip was Greek Orthodox and still had to convert so it's not like they really accepted his denomination he still converted. So why wouldn't it be fine if someone just converted from Catholicism.

He didn't have to convert, as far as I know; he just chose to. However, for me the nonsense in all this (although I know about the historical reasons, which might have made sense in the 17th century but certainly don't make sense now) is that a Catholic spouse isn't acceptable but a Greek Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Pagan, atheist, etc, spouse is just fine. Yet in reality I think spouses would be expected to convert to CofE (they'd certainly have to agree to have their children raised CofE); that being the case, this prohibition on Catholics is just ridiculous.

I apologize if me questions seem stupid I'm just trying to understand, what is so wrong with being a Catholic in the eyes of the British monarchy? After all, isn't Catholicism very popular all over Europe?

If you read about the role played by the Protestant-Catholic tensions from the reign of Henry VIII right through to the succession crisis which put the Hanoverians on the throne a couple of hundred years later, you'll get a better idea of the history behind this. It wasn't arbitrary at the time; it's just hundreds of years out of date.

[Aurora810]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

If you read about the role played by the Protestant-Catholic tensions from the reign of Henry VIII right through to the succession crisis which put the Hanoverians on the throne a couple of hundred years later, you'll get a better idea of the history behind this. It wasn't arbitrary at the time; it's just hundreds of years out of date.

Thanks very much Elspeth! After reading things on this thread and asking my questions I did go read up on some things that I could find at wikipedia. I see the issue but I agree this is way out of date. I'm surprised this is still the feeling in the British RF.

[Iluvbertie]

As the monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church of England, which is an Established Church with representatives sitting in the House of Lords, it would be unacceptable to many people to have the spouse of the Supreme Governor taking their religious instruction from the Head of another Church who is also a Head of State in his own right.

As the law only applies to ONE person at a time - namely the monarch - discrimination would be hard to prove.

The law was passed for valid reasons at the time and there are many who think those reasons are still valid.

[wbenson]

I don't think there will be any changes made unless there is pressure to (i.e. a Catholic spouse of someone much closer to the throne). I can't imagine the government wanting to open it up without pressure to get it done and closed quickly, as it would open up too much conversation about royal prerogatives, etc., that the government of the day may not want to open up.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Aurora810

I'm surprised this is still the feeling in the British RF.

We have no idea of the feeling within the Royal Family.
The Act of Settlement is a law passed by the Parliament and can only be changed by the Parliament. The Act can't be repealed in its entirety without being replaced by something else as it provides the legal basis for succession to the throne as determined by the Parliament.

[izumi]

Thank you for replies. I am getting to understand the reason for this law. It has a really long and sad history..

[Iluvbertie]

I am in the process of writing a series of articles on the various Acts of Supremacy under the Tudors and the consequent religious problems of the Stuart period including the Act of Settlement, the Test Acts and the Catholic Emancipation Act for the articles section of this forum.

At the moment the entire thing is in the vicinity of about 30000 words and still in the full planning stage I will need a bit more time to get the finished version up - my plan is to do a 600 - 700 word article on the major points with a shorter link if necessary.

I will do a short overview for anyone who wants to get the basics first but work has to take priority at the moment as my three Year 12 classes only have three weeks of school left this year before doing their final exams starting in the middle of October. Our HSC exams are similar to the A-levels that we hear about in relation to the royals particularly as Mr Boston (?) who is the Head of something to do with English schools was the Head of the Department of Education here in New South Wales and oversaw the HSC for a number of years.

[Duchess]

one big issue with changing the law is that in order for a catholic to marry a non catholic (if they were going to do things by the book so to speak) would need to get a dispensation from the church. The following are 2 of the 3 requirements (the first one stating simply that the catholic be allowed to practice their religion) by the Roman Catholic church to grant a dispensation and is taken from the website Fisheaters.com:

that all the offspring are to be brought up Catholic; and
that the Catholic party promise to do all that is possible to convert the non-Catholic.

these 2 alone would cause huge problems because 1) the heir to the throne would have to be raised Catholic and 2) the current monarch would be under pressure to convert to Catholicism.

Perhaps these are the reasons that the law has never, and likely will never, be changed.

[marian]

I belive that Camila "was" catholic because she was married with Andrew Parker Bowles as catholics. But Charles, as heir the british throne, should abdicated if he wanted married with her. So, I think that this is a great secret of State: the goverment and the royalty have this as a secret, a very important secret.

[BeatrixFan]

Camilla was not a catholic. Never has been, never will be. One can marry without converting.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by marian

I belive that Camila "was" catholic because she was married with Andrew Parker Bowles as catholics. But Charles, as heir the british throne, should abdicated if he wanted married with her. So, I think that this is a great secret of State: the goverment and the royalty have this as a secret, a very important secret.

There is no substance to this claim.

Camilla was raised as a CofE and continued to follow her religion throughout her married life with Andrew. She has been a regular communicant in her local C of E church for many years according to the local minister.

It is certainly not necessary for a non-Catholic married to a Catholic to convert (my brother certainly hasn't converted and would never consent to that). Prince Michael of Kent hasn't converted and has raised his children as C of E so the arguement that children have to be raised Catholic doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

The fact that the spouse has to try to convert the non-Catholic is a very real problem as the monarch is the Supreme Governor of the C of E.

Personally I don't see any need to remove this Act as the Act only applies to the monarch at the time that they become Monarch.

[COUNTESS]

Originally Posted by chrissy57

There is no substance to this claim.

Camilla was raised as a CofE and continued to follow her religion throughout her married life with Andrew. She has been a regular communicant in her local C of E church for many years according to the local minister.

It is certainly not necessary for a non-Catholic married to a Catholic to convert (my brother certainly hasn't converted and would never consent to that). Prince Michael of Kent hasn't converted and has raised his children as C of E so the arguement that children have to be raised Catholic doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

The fact that the spouse has to try to convert the non-Catholic is a very real problem as the monarch is the Supreme Governor of the C of E.

Personally I don't see any need to remove this Act as the Act only applies to the monarch at the time that they become Monarch.

Camilla is not a secret Catholic. She is CoE. Which, by the way, is Catholic to some extent, just not Roman Catholic. The Liturgy is the same, obstensively. The reason people are speaking out against the Act, is that in this day and age, to have this, even tiny form of discrimination, looks at best silly, at worst ugly. Basically, you can marry a Druid, but not a Catholic. Just in case anyone flips, I have nothing against Druids.

[BeatrixFan]

Well, the Church of England isn't Catholic in any sense because the fundamental belief of Catholicism is transubstantiation which isn't accepted as a doctrine of the Anglican church - if it was, the Church of England wouldn't exist. Though the liturgy is similar, there are fundamental differences that make the two Churches world apart but the main one is the Eucharist. The Catholic ban makes sense for as long as the monarch remains the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, when that's no longer the case then the Act of Settlement can be revised.

[COUNTESS]

You are qutite correct on the acceptance of transubstantiation. And you are also right about the monarch being the governor of the church leaves them little room to accept a Catholic spouse.