Edward, Bournemouth, Dorset, asks to be corrected if he is wrong when he states that if a non-Catholic marries a Catholic: "the couple are required to promise that any children born are brought up as Catholics."
Edward, you are wrong!
The Catholic partner is required to promise to do his/her best to ensure that any children are brought up as Catholics. However, there could clearly be exceptional circumstances in which this would simply not be possible.
The case of the first offspring of an heir to the UK throne with a REAL chance (which is not the case here) of becoming the monarch, and hence head of the Church of England, would clearly be, as things stand at present, such an exceptional circumstance.

Hugh McLoughlin, Bellshill, North Lanarkshire, Scotland

Please can someone help me one point. Correct me if I am wrong, but If a non-Catholic marries a Catholic, if the marriage is to be blessed by the Church, then the the couple are required to promise that any children born are brought up as Catholics. If the heir to the throne marries a Catholic will the Church authorities expect this to be carried through. If so all future Monarchs will be Catholic in perpituity.

Is this necessarily a bad thing?

Is this what is the Catholic Church are aiming for?

If not can they can they clear up a widely held assumption?

Edward, Bournemouth, Dorset

He is indeed her Grandson. He is the son of the Queen's daughter Anne, Princess Royal. The Queen's sister's son is Viscount Linley.

Heather Blunn, London,

Just a month ago the Times reported on a new document issued by the Vatican which said, "It is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to [Protestant communities], given that they do not accept the theological notion of the Church in the Catholic sense and that they lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church."

Likewise, it added that Protestant churches, "because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood", had not "preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery".

I wonder how the Vatican would feel if a Catholic became head of the Church of England, a church that it fundementally refuses to recognise as being a genuine Church and having that person being ordained a Deacon of the Church of England as part of their coronation rite (as required)?

The Act of Settlement should be repealled the moment the Vatican recognises the Church of England as a true (sister) Church.

philip wren, Liverpool,

It's a disgrace how Catholics are discriminated against in this so called democratic country. They're the most discriminated in this country, more so than muslims.

Martin Fisher, Birmingham,

Well, Mr. Warrington, why doesn;'t the Church of Rome allow Anglicans to take communion (Witness Tony Blair)??Is that "friendly?"

Willard Tice, New York City, NY USA

"Grandson?? I don't know much about the royal family, but I think this is the Queen's nephew. Her sister's son.

Richard, Woy Woy, Australia"

Spike Milligan isn't dead! He has just changed his name and lives on in Woy Woy..

Richard, Sydney, Australia

The Catholic issue pops up because English do not see themselves as being like anyone else in the world. Even religion has to be dominated by being English and the monarch. Of course the monrach being head of the Church of England is gainst Magna Carta, the coronation oath and makes the church a lapdog of the state. No wogs, frogs or wops allowed. We are English and Catholics..well wasnt St Augustine a Catholic. Wasn't the Cetic Church part of the Catholic Church. We dare then to exclude Catholics from being a monarch or marrying a monarch. The shameful division and withering or christianity . The untold suffering and destruction of Catholicism, Cromwell , the mutation of the Church of England unsure of everything but sure about hating Catholics whose churches it occupies. No the Act of Succession is a fraud. No one should accept it. I'd rather hang at Tyburn.

Christopher, Hobart, Australia

"Within living memory their church has constantly used political power in Roman Catholic countries to the detriment of this country. "

The above comment made by Mr. Hardy is a foolish and erroneous statement which could only be made through ignorance of historical facts.

As for the word "papist," it is insulting as Catholics do not "worship" the Holy Father, but He whose vicar by right, he is. And ONLY He do we worship!

Silly Mr. Hardy!! Just another silly bitter man trying to spread foolhardy and false commentaries about the Roman Catholic church.

Gabriel Espinosa, Monticello, USA/New York

Paul Owen - you are absolutely right; I couldn't agree with you more.

Brendan, Cavan, Ireland

Grandson?? I don't know much about the royal family, but I think this is the Queen's nephew. Her sister's son.

Richard, Woy Woy, Australia

It's time for England to get rid of that abomination--the national church, the church as department of state--and grant religious freedom of conscience to ALL her subjects (royal or not). Let freedom ring!

Elizabeth Cole, Pikeville, Kentucky USA

I am already appalled at some of the uneducated and naive opinions of certain members of the Royal Family - I would dread to think what more we would have to put up with if they also became a mouthpiece of the backward Roman Catholic church too

David, London, UK

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of British history knows full well why Roman Catholics are barred from the throne- our past under monarchs under papal influence was less than happy. Within living memory their church has constantly used political power in Roman Catholic countries to the detriment of this country.
And why is the word papist offensive? Presbyterians, Episcopalians or Congregationalists do not object to referring to their denominations by the word that describes their church polity. The use of the phrase The Catholic Church to refer to the Church of Rome is insulting to every other church that uses the word Catholic in their creeds.

V.Revd Thomas Hardy, Oxford,

Well done, "V. Revd." Hardy - you're keeping that very un-Christian flame of sectarian hatred alive. Do you think that your prejudice is in good keeping with the teachings of Christ? I feel sorry for your parishioners if you preach that kind of prejudice to them every Sunday - then again being Church of England you probably have very few parishioners left in any case.

The Act of Settlement is a sectarian law that goes back to the beginning of the Hanoverian monarchy when a random German Protestant was chosen above about 50 British and European Catholics who were closer in line to the throne in order to preserve Protestantism as the state religion. The current British monarch is heir to that random Hanoverian cousin and knows that the throne is only hers because of her ancestor's choice of religion. That fact, coupled with the likes of Revd Hardy above, means the sectarian Act of Settlement is likely to remain law for some time to come.

MB, Edinburgh,

Would it cause a constitutional crisis if the person concerned were, or wished to marry, an atheist? Or an anti-monarchist? A mormon, a scientologist, a pastafarian? Or an islamic fundamentalist? I have to stop here ... my mind is boggling.

alan, cologne,

Of course it is ridiculous that one should be barred from a position because of one's faith. But then the monarchy is a ridiculous institution.

To talk of Peter Phillips' birthrights to the throne nicely illustrates it. This is a 21st century democracy and we are seriously debating not only whether someone should be prevented from being eligible for the top job because of the faith of his new wife but that his qualification for it should be who his mother is. How can our politicians seriously talk about this being a meritocracy while this situation persists?

If Brown really wanted fairness and constitutional reform he would be launching a debate about the position of our head of state and how that person is chosen and appointed. But of course politicians don't want to do that because an elected head of state would, like an elected House of Lords, demand real powers and might force them to be more accountable.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, UK

As a Catholic married to an Anglican, I find it ridiculous and against everything the Bible teaches us that one type of Christian should be so hostile towards another type of Christian. Surely we can all co-exist without having to fall out over what are mainly quite minor differences. If the churches showed a little more unity perhaps we could find ourselves in a position where more people went to church and maybe our religion wouldn't be dying out the way it quite clearly is in this country.

James, Warrington, Cheshire