I think it’s already reached that stage. Membership in the CoE and Sunday attendance has seen such a precipitous decline that I can’t imagine many would have a committed opinion. I doubt many in the colonies would care either: the Australian Anglican Church has, as one diocesan synod member put it, ‘passed into glorious irrelevancy’.
Just to be clear, the duke of Kent, the grand master of the United Grand Lodge of England, is the father of Lord Nicholas Windsor. I guess they have all found a way of accepting their differences, as the duke’s wife is also a Catholic. Furthermore, although his eldest son and heir, earl of St Andrews, is an Anglican, he is married to a Catholic and two of their three children are also Catholics (Lady Amelia Windsor is for some reason an Anglican).
But would they put up a fight? The only part of the Commonwealth realms where the Protestant succession really matters is England, since the monarch is the supreme governor of the Church of England. I assume that a Catholic monarch would have no problem taking the Scottish oath on his accession, since the oath merely involves a promise to “maintain and preserve” the Church of Scotland. I would assume that the view taken in the rest of the Commonwealth would be that the monarch’s religion is a personal matter and shouldn’t have any bearing on the line of succession. Taking the hypothetical case of Prince William, I think he and his wife are very popular throughout the Commonwealth, so I imagine that the Commonwealth governments would be fairly keen to defer to his wishes. Nobody wants to go down in history as the person who robbed Prince William of the throne, broke up the Commonwealth, or brought down the monarchy.
True, but I think much of the press and public treatment of Harry and Meghan has been because a lot of people just don’t like Harry and Meghan (personally I have no problem with them). I think the press and the public have put Prince William and his family on a pedestal, and I suspect would be prepared to make allowances for them that they wouldn’t make for the rest of the royal family.
I can’t really see the monarchy being abolished any time soon. I agree that the transition when the present queen dies will have to be handled carefully. Prince Charles is clearly not very well suited to being monarch. I am thinking mostly of his tendency to weigh in on controversial topics in public, his lobbying of ministers, intervening in a major planning application in central London, and his support for an Anglican bishop who sexually abused boys and young men. And then one has the issue his committing adultery and all the embarrassment that that brought upon the monarchy. However, the institution has survived worse. I imagine that the queen is hoping that Prince William will be the one to restore the reputation of the monarchy when she and Prince Charles are both gone.
I would say that that is extremely unlikely. Being the great-grandson of George V doesn’t confer any influence in modern Britain.
Possibly. Members of the royal family aren’t supposed to get involved in controversial issues. Nicholas Windsor is not an important member of the royal family, but his father is a prince and conducts engagements on behalf of the queen. And this works both ways: members of the royal family should not be advocating in favour of abortion either.
He’s speaking for millions of innocent souls and for salvaging the conscience of his home continent. I don’t understand why you think he should be more careful about that, whatever title he may have. Mind explaining a bit more?
It would still be a problem.
Yep, I’m imagining what would happen if her converts tomorrow. If he does so tomorrow, the public will froth at the mouth when Harry and Meghan take over the duties. I think this scenario actually threatens the monarchy. Especially since I heard Andrew would be the next regent if Harry says no? (must fact check on this).
That’s true, but religion is becoming less popular these days. Being Anglican+never talking about religion seems comfortable than an earnest Catholic monarch/working royal imo. The royals now rarely talk about the Christian faith.
Much of the vitriol against the both of them stemmed from the fact that they were perceived to be breaking traditions though.
Well someone better tell that to Prince Phillip, Prince William and Prince Harry who are population control zealots and avid environmentalists.brown_bear:
Possibly. Members of the royal family aren’t supposed to get involved in controversial issues. Nicholas Windsor is not an important member of the royal family, but his father is a prince and conducts engagements on behalf of the queen. And this works both ways: members of the royal family should not be advocating in favour of abortion either.
Environmental issues aren’t that controversial though. Population control, sure. I think William suggested stopping at two while he had a third one on the way, and Harry has said to want only 2 kids (although I don’t recall any population control sentiment). Phillip is controversial in general, I’ll give you that.
If it truly isn’t a problem, then why the prohibition against Catholics?
There would have been a prohibition against everybody else except that, at the time, the idea that there were other alternatives would have been unbelievable.
That isn’t at all an accurate analogy. People from the UK in the vernacular call her ‘the Queen of England’ all the time.
Do we? Usually, she’s just “The Queen.”
I suppose it might matter where people live, I can’t say it’s something I’ve heard very often.
And the venue, possibly?
No one has an automatic rôle as regent if the monarch is under age. Regency is a matter for Parliament.