Hear Ye, Hear Ye: Royal Heirs May Wed Catholics

[quilisma]

Not being nearly as well versed in history as many of the posters on this thread, I venture to ask a few “dumb” but honest questions…

If I understand correctly, the titles of the British (or, really, any other) monarch can be added to or subtracted from as time and generations go by. Before Henry VIII, could the title “Defender of the Faith” legitimately be handed down to one’s heirs, or was it only validly held by the individual upon whom it had been originally conferred? The reason I ask is, wasn’t the title originally bestowed on Henry by the Pope because of his book refuting the errors of Martin Luther, even though I’ve read that it was really ghostwritten by Sir (later Saint) Thomas More?

Along the same lines, Queen Victoria added the title “Empress of India” during her lifetime, but at some point (I’m not sure exactly where) her successors appear to have abandoned that particular title. I don’t think Elizabeth II is currently styled Empress of India among her many titles?

And if individual titles of the monarch can be added to or subtracted from, what would necessarily preclude Elizabeth and/or a Catholic successor of hers from dropping the title “Head of the Church of England”? After all, Henry VIII took that one on himself when he rejected the authority of Rome (though, somewhat disingenuously it would seem, not repudiating the “Defender of the Faith” title the Pope had given him). I don’t think any of Henry’s predecessors, even Henry II who had so many clashes with Becket over the rights of the Church vis-a-vis the power of the State, ever went that far. (I could be wrong, though – please correct me if so.) Edward the Confessor would probably have been horrified had anyone suggested such presumption to him.

Lastly, wasn’t it customary in former times (up until Henry VIII stopped doing it) for monarchs to appeal to the Holy See, long before there were Parliaments, for arbitration when they could not settle their disputes among themselves? And didn’t Napoleon try to ape the ancient precedent of Charlemagne (who acknowledged the Pope as perhaps the only earthly authority with precedence over himself) when he sought to be crowned emperor by the Pope?

I guess what I’m really asking is, if the long standing of tradition presents difficulties to the idea of admitting a Catholic into the Royal Family as a full member with rights of succession, isn’t there a much longer-standing tradition, by hundreds and hundreds of years, that “Roma locuta, causa finita est”?

 

[Nine_Two]

If I understand correctly, the titles of the British (or, really, any other) monarch can be added to or subtracted from as time and generations go by. Before Henry VIII, could the title “Defender of the Faith” legitimately be handed down to one’s heirs, or was it only validly held by the individual upon whom it had been originally conferred? The reason I ask is, wasn’t the title originally bestowed on Henry by the Pope because of his book refuting the errors of Martin Luther, even though I’ve read that it was really ghostwritten by Sir (later Saint) Thomas More?

While the pope gave Henry VIII that title, I believe it was Elizabeth who later took it and made it a hereditary title in reference to the CoE. I could be wrong on this.

Along the same lines, Queen Victoria added the title “Empress of India” during her lifetime, but at some point (I’m not sure exactly where) her successors appear to have abandoned that particular title. I don’t think Elizabeth II is currently styled Empress of India among her many titles?

The title was abandoned at the same time the british left India. I used to have a penny from 1946 which had an inscription proclaiming the king to be Emperor of India.

And if individual titles of the monarch can be added to or subtracted from, what would necessarily preclude Elizabeth and/or a Catholic successor of hers from dropping the title “Head of the Church of England”? After all, Henry VIII took that one on himself when he rejected the authority of Rome (though, somewhat disingenuously it would seem, not repudiating the “Defender of the Faith” title the Pope had given him). I don’t think any of Henry’s predecessors, even Henry II who had so many clashes with Becket over the rights of the Church vis-a-vis the power of the State, ever went that far. (I could be wrong, though – please correct me if so.) Edward the Confessor would probably have been horrified had anyone suggested such presumption to him.

Adding or subtracting a title requires an act of parliament. Disestablishing the CoE would certainly require an act of parliament. It has been tried before.

Lastly, wasn’t it customary in former times (up until Henry VIII stopped doing it) for monarchs to appeal to the Holy See, long before there were Parliaments, for arbitration when they could not settle their disputes among themselves? And didn’t Napoleon try to ape the ancient precedent of Charlemagne (who acknowledged the Pope as perhaps the only earthly authority with precedence over himself) when he sought to be crowned emperor by the Pope?

Not really. When monarchs had disputes among themselves they usually fought it out. Additionally Parliament only deals with the laws within the realm, something the Church has never been invited to interfere with.
By the way, Napoleon didn’t try to have himself crowned by the pope, he invited the pope to his coronation, and then crowned himself.

I guess what I’m really asking is, if the long standing of tradition presents difficulties to the idea of admitting a Catholic into the Royal Family as a full member with rights of succession, isn’t there a much longer-standing tradition, by hundreds and hundreds of years, that “Roma locuta, causa finita est”?

Nope.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Not being nearly as well versed in history as many of the posters on this thread, I venture to ask a few “dumb” but honest questions…

If I understand correctly, the titles of the British (or, really, any other) monarch can be added to or subtracted from as time and generations go by. Before Henry VIII, could the title “Defender of the Faith” legitimately be handed down to one’s heirs, or was it only validly held by the individual upon whom it had been originally conferred? The reason I ask is, wasn’t the title originally bestowed on Henry by the Pope because of his book refuting the errors of Martin Luther, even though I’ve read that it was really ghostwritten by Sir (later Saint) Thomas More?

The British monarchs have used the title Defender of the Faith since the time of Elizabeth I.

Along the same lines, Queen Victoria added the title “Empress of India” during her lifetime, but at some point (I’m not sure exactly where) her successors appear to have abandoned that particular title. I don’t think Elizabeth II is currently styled Empress of India among her many titles?

This title was lost when what was then India became the two independent states of India and Pakistan.

And if individual titles of the monarch can be added to or subtracted from, what would necessarily preclude Elizabeth and/or a Catholic successor of hers from dropping the title “Head of the Church of England”? After all, Henry VIII took that one on himself when he rejected the authority of Rome (though, somewhat disingenuously it would seem, not repudiating the “Defender of the Faith” title the Pope had given him). I don’t think any of Henry’s predecessors, even Henry II who had so many clashes with Becket over the rights of the Church vis-a-vis the power of the State, ever went that far. (I could be wrong, though – please correct me if so.) Edward the Confessor would probably have been horrified had anyone suggested such presumption to him.

The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England not the Head. The Church of England says that Christ is the Head of the Church. The Queen cannot change her titles arbitrarily. They can only be change by Act of Parliament (statutory law). The current Queen’s titles are laid down in the Royal Titles Act 1953.