Cousin of the Queen of the United Kingdom said abortion is worse than terrorism


He also described abortion as “the single most grievous moral deficit in contemporary life” and called for a “new abolition for Europe” in which abortion would be abolished like the slave trade.

He converted to Catholicism in 2001. In doing so, Nicholas forfeited his right to the succession to the British throne, as Catholics are barred by the Act of Settlement 1701.


I personally agree with him about his stance. He truly is an amazing person since he gave up what is treasured for Jesus and truth. May God be with him


He would have only been 40th in line though. Now if Prince William converted…


He’s a fairly junior member of the royal family, although he does bear a title and the Windsor surname. That being the case, he probably ought to be a bit more cautious than he is when it comes to weighing in on controversial topics.

To the best of my knowledge, by the way, there is no queen of England. Queen Elizabeth II is the queen of the United Kingdom. David Steel famously addressed her as “queen of Scots”, but, as far as I understand it, both the title “queen of England” and “queen of Scots” are obsolete.

He didn’t really give up very much. Had he not converted to Catholicism, he would be 40th in the line of succession, and he will undoubtedly be pushed further and further down the line of succession as members of the royal family now in their 20s and 30s begin to have children of their own.

Now that is an interesting question! Given that (a) William is very popular with the public and seems set to become a good monarch in the manner of his grandmother and (b) most people are not very interested in the monarch’s religious views, I suspect that if Prince William were determined to convert to Catholicism, Parliament would probably pass the necessary legislation to allow it. However, all concerned would probably wait until the present queen is dead before doing so.

1 Like

There is no such position as ‘Queen of England’. The position referred to in the OP is ‘Queen of the United Kingdom’ which includes countries other than England.

For the assistance of Americans: It’s a but like calling the POTUS the ‘President of Washington’.

I am not sure that ‘Catholic cousin-once-removed of the Queen opposed abortion 10 years ago and we think he still does’ ranks high as a news item.


yes but he must have been facing family and society pressures especially since his cousin is the head of the anglican church.


The Monarch’s title is Supreme Governor of the Church of England, per the 1559 Parliamentary Act of Supremacy. The Church of England is not the totality of Anglicanism.


I believe Lord Nicholas has also been supportive of the Ordinariate…which is great.

His mother, the Duchess of Kent, is also a convert to Catholicism. It is his father, the Duke of Kent, who is the Queen’s first cousin - he’s still Anglican.


Who knows what the queen makes of it all? If I had to guess, I’d say she probably doesn’t particularly mind as long as members of her family keep their religious beliefs private.

He is indeed an honorary vice-president of the Friends of the Ordinariate. As I understand it, the Ordinariate caused some bad feeling within the Church of England when it was announced. Giving a prominent role to a member of the royal family is possibly a little tactless.

“Cousin of Queen Elizabeth II said abortion is worse than terrorism” would have been more accurate. The title “Queen of England” doesn’t exist anymore and she’s a constitutional Queen in other places.

Antigua and Barbuda
The Bahamas
New Zealand
Papua New Guinea
Saint Christopher and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Solomon Islands
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Wow, the English Royal Family is crazy; in one hand, they have the grand master of local Freemasonry, and in the other, a Catholic convert who is helping other Anglicans to come back.

I think most of us will know of cousins whose opinions are not identical but who are not necessarily crazy.


One would hope so, but it would involve more than simply legislation by the UK Parliament. As we saw with the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which put women and men on equal terms in the succession, changing the rules like this involves the agreement of all 16 Commonwealth realms. In the case of Australia and (especially) Canada, it has the capacity to involve lengthy constitutional legal disputes, too.

1 Like

Do you think the monarchy being abolished is more likely though? I think if that were to happen, he would just abdicate and let Harry be regent for George. And after Elizabeth dies, the monarchy is going to be at a very fragile state and I don’t think they’ll want that to happen.

I don’t think he would retain much support if William converts. We’re talking about the press/royalists who gets angry at any perceived breaking of Royal tradition!

George would only need a regent if William abdicated before he was 18. And I don’t see the whole monarchy being abolished over one member converting.

Give it enough time, I think Britons will cease to care whether a monarch is Anglican, just as they have ceased caring about divorce or male precedemce over females.

They may then be content for a convert to resign their title of Supreme Governor of the C of E, rather than abdicating the throne.

1 Like

To be fair to the OP, she’s literally my queen, I live in one of the colonies, and we just call her “The Queen of England” too. It’s just a normal casual conversation way to refer to her, where I’m from. Interchangeable with just “The Queen” or “Her Majesty”.

I see that the OP has adjusted his post language though, so cheerio. :wink::tophat:


This is a super informative comment and I thank you for taking the time to share it.

At the same time I’m tickled that multiple commenters felt the need to correct the OP’s title for her majesty.

I mean, it’s fair enough. Truth’s truth, precision is grand.

But, and I mean this with no disrespect intended, and I don’t even know why it’s true, and imagine it’s some deep and pervasive cultural reason… as a colonial subject of her majesty, from perhaps one of the more casual colonies, I’m likely to forget this information tomorrow and keep mistakenly calling her the queen of England. :grimacing:

It just flows off the tongue! It must be in the zeitgeist. No disrespect intended to the lady whose corgis I feed with my taxes.

(Okay that was glib. Technically my taxes only go to the Royal family when they’re physically on our soil. So not the corgis most recently, but the grandson.)


I believe the question is:

Can this intervention help prolife work in the UK?

Or can it even create problems for the British prolife?

I can’t answer these questions: seeing Downton Abbey and The Crown certainly doesn’t make me an expert on British things, I barely understand my country :wink:

1 Like

Yes, the CofE as the established national church in England does represent part of the problem for a Catholic heir. Although I am coming round to the idea that the problem can be solved without disestablishing the CofE. I very much hope that wise heads at both Buckingham Palace and Lambeth Palace have been pondering the problems which would be caused by a non-Anglican heir – and a Catholic heir might be easier to accommodate than an atheist or Muslim heir, either of which is of course possible.

Yes there would need to be legislation amending the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights and the Coronation Oath Act, and these would not be easy to achieve (cue loud noises from Scotland and Northern Ireland). But that done, it would seem not impossible for the supreme governorship to be put in commission.

The coronation ceremony itself is likely to be changed to include some multi-faith material anyway, given the number of citizens of the UK who are not Anglican. So given the present degree of amity between CofE and RC, and given that Rome would be pleased to see a Catholic monarch, it would seem some compromise would be possible. Say the ceremony is still conducted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, except for the Eucharist, of which perhaps the Archbishop of Westminster would be the president.

All complicated stuff, but not, I now feel, impossible.


If asked, virtually nobody would have the slightest idea who he is.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit