Kate and Wills: "gender equality" and lifiting Catholic ban

It’s good to look at old rules with an open mind and make them new and better:

Kate and William’s Daughter To Be Queen?**

By Simon Perry
Thursday October 13, 2011 07:00 AM EDT

The Duchess and Duke of Cambridge

With The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge already in the loop, plans are afoot by Prime Minister David Cameron’s government to change existing rules so that if the couple have a baby girl, she can one day claim the crown and be queen.

As current law stands, if William and Kate’s first child is a daughter but their second is a son, the boy would inherit the throne.

Cameron is hoping to **change this and other ancient rules **in order to bring the monarchy up to date. He has already written the governments in the Commonwealth of countries with Queen Elizabeth, 85, as their monarch. The rule change would have to be ratified by all of them.

We espouse gender equality in all other aspects of life, and it is an anomaly that in the rules relating to the highest public officer we continue to enshrine male superiority,” Cameron wrote.

He also proposes lifting the ban on anyone marrying a Catholic succeeding to the throne, and is reportedly suggesting that only the first six in line to the throne need to get permission from the reigning monarch to wed.

The Palace had no formal comment.


Other than the British monarchy, is there a way that this article pertains to other issues on this discussion forum?

Currently the British monarch must be Protestant. I believe the rule is that they’re allowed to date Catholics, but not allowed to marry them. So it is relevant to the forum. :slight_smile:

Aside from that, I thought they changed that “boys only” rule ages ago. I’m amazed that it’s still there given the track record that ruling queens have had re: making England prosperous, not to mention that it would SUCK for the girl, being told: “Yeah, you’re the eldest, but your brother’s penis is what really matters to us, not your competence.”

The monarch is supposed to be head of the Church of England. How could they be Catholic at the same time?

Yes…lifting the Catholic ban, of course!
This is a Catholic forum, right? So current news and laws and changes pertaining to Catholics would be of interest to Catholics, right?
Is why we have a “news” thread.

But amazingly…I see people post stuff here about how to find a good recipe or “funny” moments that happen in their day with their dogs or at their job…that pertain to nothing…and I do wonder, why are they posting this here? I guess some people consider this forum as their friends/family.

Totally. And having taken vigorous part in the discussion thread on this site re girl altar servers, I bet those girls being told they can’t be servers feel the same way!

This is what I was referring to: Your bolded, enlarged comment: Is there an application of that comment to matters other than the British monarchy? (A point you were trying to make beyond the content of the story?) Because your comment was a general one.

The monarch’s spouse can be Catholic. Assuming the rules are changed, Kate and William’s child must be Protestant, but their spouse doesn’t have to be. The king and queen together aren’t the head of the Church of England, it’s the one with royal blood who gets the spot.

So to sum up (pretend there’s a vertical line between Wills and Kate):

Wills ----- Kate

    Child (Head of CoE, King/Queen)  ---- spouse (Prince-Consort or Queen)

Note, I believe Prince-Consort is the usual title for the male spouse of a ruling queen, since King usually implies greater status than Queen.

I was never an altar server, but I was allowed to bring up the Gifts a few times, I was thrilled that I was able to participate in other ways besides just being in the pews all the time. Apart from those times, I found Mass boring. It saddens me that some would seek to limit girls’ participation in the Mass because boys might be “intimidated” and not want to serve. As for the argument that it’s “training for the priesthood”, um, girls become nuns, don’t they? Maybe one of those girls would have felt a calling to join a convent if they were allowed to serve?

So a faithful Catholic is going to get married in the C of E and agree to have their children raised outside their faith?

Basically that’s what would happen, I think.

However, no one’s saying that the monarch MUST marry a Catholic, only that they should be able to. The rule was basically implemented in the first place to keep “the Papists” from taking over the country. Even if it never comes to pass, I still think it should be removed. Scratch that, the rule should be changed to say: “The monarch doesn’t have to marry a Protestant,” thus leaving it open for other religions that might be more amenable to having a spouse that doesn’t practice their religion.

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