Queen Elizabeth II is 85 years old. The law in the UK prohibits her
from being a Roman Catholic or being married to one. It also requires
her to be in 'communion' with the Church of England--the legal
rights and privileges of which she swore to uphold as part of her
coronation oath. Her present style and title declare her to be
'Defender of the Faith'--likely a reference to the faith
expressed by the Church of England (or, possibly, the protestant faith
in general). On her accession to the throne in 1952, she was required to
declare that she was a 'faithful protestant'. She also gave an
oath to maintain the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Prince Charles,
the heir to the throne, is 63 years old. Should he be subject to the
same restrictions, especially when he has declared he would prefer to be
'Defender of Faith' only and given his sympathy with the
removal of the prohibition against Roman Catholics?
This article sets out the legal basis for these restrictions and
their repeal--as well as the removal of the unequal right of females to
succeed to the throne. Changes to the law will not only involve England.
Pursuant to the Statute of Westminster 1931, the assent of the
Australian Parliament is required as well as of 14 other Commonwealth
countries which still have Elizabeth II as their sovereign. At a recent
Commonwealth conference in Australia it was agreed to remove the
prohibition on the sovereign being married to a Roman Catholic as well
as the unequal right of females to succeed to the throne. However, this
still leaves in place legislation prohibiting the sovereign from being a
Roman Catholic--as well as the obligations to defend the Church of
England and to maintain the Church of Scotland. This article asserts
that these provisions are out of sync with modern times and that they
should also be repealed.
Comments and reviews
What are comments? Add a commentNo user comments or reviews for this work
Show comments and reviews from Amazon users