Could a Royal Monarch become a Catholic priest and keep their royal title?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Krisdun
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Krisdun said:
Certainly looks like Prince-Bishops do exist after all!
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, this is a Bishop who holds the title of prince, not a prince who holds the title of Bishop. If the Bishop were to be transferred to a different diocese, he would automatically lose his title of prince, which would automatically pass on to the Bishop who replaces him.
 
That’s true but it does show it is possible for clergy to have a royal title simultaneously
 
Not quite true. The Monarch cannot be Catholic. The Monarch is the head of the Church of England and is, additionally, technically a Presbyterian when in Scotland.
Other members of the Royal Family can indeed be practicing Catholics. The Duchess of Kent and her son Lord Nicholas Windsor come to mind… both practicing Catholics… though neither in line for the throne (though her husband / his father, the Duke of Kent, is not Catholic and is in line for the throne… distantly).
 
King is a specific title. Not all monarchs are kings. Some monarchs hold the title Prince or Grand Duke… Monaco and Luxembourg being examples. The Pope is, I believed, styled simply “Monarch of the Vatican City State.”
 
Yes those were pretty common in Holy Roman empire (more than fifty of them existed). Prince bishops technicaly ruled their own country with full autority of monarch. These states sometimes even minted their own coins.
 
I believe that’s not quite correct. In the UK they will lose their place in the line of succession but not their title. In the past a royal would also lose their succession line place if they married a catholic but that was done away with as part of the Succession to the Crown Act 2015 (which also did away with sexism in the order of ascendance to the throne…first born first served after William now).
An interesting fact: The Duchess of Kent became a catholic in 1994 with the approval of the Queen.
 
Yes and even today the Bishop of Urgell remains the Co-Prince of Andorra… though I suppose that makes the Bishop a diarch? Biarch? Not a monarch per se.
The Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Urgell are, I believe, the last two Prince-Bishops left in the world.
 
It was not so unusual that younger sons of royal families were ordained priests usually have some higher place in ecclesiastical hierarchy being bishops or cardinals. They kept their honorary titles (could be called prince, archduke or whatever title they had - for example Rudolph archduke of Austria and bishop of Olomouc) but could not inherit rule over country (or very very unlikely becouse some cousins uncles or other relatives were usualy nearby waiting for the throne)
 
It should be noted that every Cardinal is referred to as a Prince of the Church even today.
 
True and high clerical ranks were given seats in the highest assemblies including courts of justice
 
Catholics can hold royal titles in the UK, they just cannot succeed to the throne. Princess Michael of Kent holds a royal title, is addressed as ‘Your Royal Highness’ and is a Catholic. But her husband, Prince Michael, lost his place in the line of succession when he married her, but remains a Prince
 
Krisdun said:
Another point to mention is that the Pope has a lot of authority (pretty much what he decides is final and no one can challenge it) in that sense he has the power of a king.
Click to expand...
Historically, one could argue that the Pope was/is ABOVE a king.

Afterall, it was not uncommon for the Pope or his designee (a Cardinal and/or Archbishop) would crown Kings.
 
Came across an interesting story about John II Casimir who was both a Polish prince and cardinal at the same time. After travelling throughout Europe he returned to Poland, renounced his cardinilate and then became king of Poland.
 
Rosary_and_Chotki said:
In the UK at least Catholics are not allowed to hold royal titles becuase of the Monarch’s position as the Governor of the Church of England
Click to expand...
That is not correct. Catholics are permitted to hold royal titles, although a Catholic cannot actually become monarch. HRH The Duchess of Kent and HRH Princess Michael of Kent are both Catholics, as are more junior members of the family, Lord Downpatrick, Lady Marina Windsor, and Lord Nicholas Windsor, who are styled as the children/grandchildren of a duke.
BartholomewB said:
Vatican City State is a monarchy, but the monarch bears the title of Pope, not King.
Click to expand...
The pope reigns as monarch under the title Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City.
Krisdun said:
It should be noted that every Cardinal is referred to as a Prince of the Church even today.
Click to expand...
They are known as that, but the pope has sensibly warned against it. Pope Francis has made clear that he does not want cardinals to be regarded as princes, but as servants. The notion of princes of the Church made sense up until the end of the First World War, perhaps, when the Catholic Church was essentially a European enterprise, and most of Europe was ruled by monarchies. In those days, cardinals were accorded rank and precedence immediately after sovereign princes and crown princes and equal to princes of the blood royal. Now that the Church is a truly global institution, and there are very few Catholic monarchies left, the idea that cardinals are somehow royal is a bit ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
If they become Catholic they lose their place in the order of succession.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top