Cuio regio, not ours

Father de Souza says, more or less, that during all the time (1688 till today, IIRC) that it was illegal for the king or queen to be Catholic, or married to a Catholic -- well, no Catholic would've wanted to be in those positions anyway, so there. 

I would have preferred that the prohibition against marrying Catholics remain. Not as a relic of prejudicial attitudes that have now greatly diminished, but as a reminder that at the heart of the British constitutional settlement lies a matter of greatest consequence . . . The Crown in Parliament speaks, and the church kneels.

In fact, he thinks (with more charity than I can muster) that under the old rules, Britain was actually doing us a favour:

The fact that Catholics were formally barred from this arrangement was an implicit acknowledgment of their dissent from that settlement. 

"This arrangement" -- which I believe is called regalism -- is the problem, not the off chance of some Catholic getting entangled in it.

But of course I'm not biased by being Irish. Or having spent a quarter century married to a non-Catholic whose faith in secularism has suffered much more than my faith in God.