L
Londoner
Guest
I have a question that I’ve been thinking over for some time and wonder what others think about it. It has to do with the legitimacy of the British monarch. I’ll emphasise that I don’t mean this to be a debate about monarchical forms of government in general, nor about Protestantism in general. The British monarchy is a unique case, as I shall explain.
The British monarch is the only monarch in Europe who takes office in a religious ceremony involving anointing and crowning. In the British coronation ceremony the anointing is considered to be the most sacred moment of the whole ceremony. Indeed, when Elizabeth II’s coronation was shown on television the anointing was the only part of the ceremony that was not shown, as it was considered uniquely holy. Elizabeth II is therefore the only Christian monarch who has been “anointed, blessed, and consecrated” as Queen over the peoples whom God has given her to rule and govern.
The ceremony is well over 1,000 years old and was once common to a number of Catholic monarchies in Europe (including, of course, the countries that now make up the United Kingdom). The ceremony has been performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury or, on rare occasions, another senior archbishop or bishop, since medieval times.
What I am wondering is, given that the Archbishop of Canterbury is not a validly consecrated bishop, and given that he does not hold his position by virtue of the authority of the Pope, is he able validly to anoint and crown the British monarch? The successor of St Augustine and chief pastor of the Catholic Church in England and Wales is the metropolitan archbishop of Westminster, and he, surely, alone has the authority to anoint, bless, and consecrate the monarch. Are we, as Catholics, able to accept the legitimacy of Queen Elizabeth II, given that her anointing and crowning were performed by a Protestant minister who had no valid episcopal ordination and no legitimate authority from the Holy Father? Indeed, William I had to be crowned by the Archbishop of York, Ealdred, as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Stigand, was the appointee of an antipope and excommunicated (hence validly consecrated a bishop, but not validly invested with the pallium). Surely the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury must be even less capable of performing a coronation than Archbishop Stigand would have been.
The British monarch is the only monarch in Europe who takes office in a religious ceremony involving anointing and crowning. In the British coronation ceremony the anointing is considered to be the most sacred moment of the whole ceremony. Indeed, when Elizabeth II’s coronation was shown on television the anointing was the only part of the ceremony that was not shown, as it was considered uniquely holy. Elizabeth II is therefore the only Christian monarch who has been “anointed, blessed, and consecrated” as Queen over the peoples whom God has given her to rule and govern.
The ceremony is well over 1,000 years old and was once common to a number of Catholic monarchies in Europe (including, of course, the countries that now make up the United Kingdom). The ceremony has been performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury or, on rare occasions, another senior archbishop or bishop, since medieval times.
What I am wondering is, given that the Archbishop of Canterbury is not a validly consecrated bishop, and given that he does not hold his position by virtue of the authority of the Pope, is he able validly to anoint and crown the British monarch? The successor of St Augustine and chief pastor of the Catholic Church in England and Wales is the metropolitan archbishop of Westminster, and he, surely, alone has the authority to anoint, bless, and consecrate the monarch. Are we, as Catholics, able to accept the legitimacy of Queen Elizabeth II, given that her anointing and crowning were performed by a Protestant minister who had no valid episcopal ordination and no legitimate authority from the Holy Father? Indeed, William I had to be crowned by the Archbishop of York, Ealdred, as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Stigand, was the appointee of an antipope and excommunicated (hence validly consecrated a bishop, but not validly invested with the pallium). Surely the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury must be even less capable of performing a coronation than Archbishop Stigand would have been.
Last edited:
