Exactly.
Discriminatory perhaps, but that discrimination applies to the very few people in the line of succession not to the society as a whole. Even barring Catholics from the succession does not impact on the Catholic marriage partner marrying a member of the BRF as they themselves are not dynasts, it only impacts on their non-Catholic marriage partner who is still free to marry who they wish if they are willing to give up their right to the succession. The proposed changes will still require Protestant succession, Catholics will still not be able to be the monarch.
True of course, but it still reflects, no? I mean, I've read it so many times at this forum that royals should be an "example" for their people. Such old-fashioned rules aren't exemplary, IMHO. I don't think everything has to be over-modern, political correct etc. to be exemplary, but these two things are simply too medieval for my taste.
As to the topic regarding Catholics: I've never said I want a Catholic King or Queen for England. It's clear that the monarch of England can only be Protestant and that's fine. I'd just say that IF a member of the BRF can marry a Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim or whatever and WON'T lose the place in the line of succession, then he/she shouldn't lose this place for marrying a Catholic either. I know the "rule" comes from a time where marrying Muslims or Hindus was out of question anyway, but... In this day and age such a rule is
definitely discriminatory. Monarchy is much about traditions and I have nothing against the fact that members of the BRF should stay Anglican to be in the line of succession, and that they should raise their children, if they want to have them in the line of succesion, Anglican, but my oh my, let them marry Catholics without fearing this "punishment". It simply leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
My problem is still that if you take the view that 'A preference for male children and the exclusion from the line of succession because a member of the family marries a Catholic' is discriminatory and out of step with today's society etc, you then open a can of worms regarding whether the whole idea of a monarchy is 'discriminatory and out-of-step' with the idea that the UK is striving to be a Meritocracy...and thus that a monarchy has NO place in today's society, based on inherited position and accident of birth etc etc........
Only my thoughts,
Alex
I'm optimistic here (one could probably call it naive, too
). Other monarchies, like Sweden or Norway, have overcome this issue successfully as well, so why should it damage the fundament of the British monarchy? Sure, England isn't Norway or Sweden (and I LOVE the British way of life, btw
), but I can only think that most people would appreciate such changes. It won't be the last change for the British monarchy IMO anyway.