The British Monarch Decides to Convert - What would happen?

[JRKH]

An article posted yesterday got me thinking about this.

Suppose the British Monarch decided that he/she could no longer remain outside the Church but must be in full communion with Rome and was prepared to renounce his/her position and authority as the supreme head of the church in England.

In the Olden days such a move would mean that the country would need to convert in toto, or go to war to overthow the monarch.

But how would England handle such a crisis today?

Any Speculation???

Peace
James

 

[Kaninchen]

An article posted yesterday got me thinking about this.

Suppose the British Monarch decided that he/she could no longer remain outside the Church but must be in full communion with Rome and was prepared to renounce his/her position and authority as the supreme head of the church in England.

In the Olden days such a move would mean that the country would need to convert in toto, or go to war to overthow the monarch.

But how would England handle such a crisis today?

Any Speculation???

Peace
James

It would depend on what you mean by ‘the country’. For a fair proportion of the population it would be a bit like a cliff-hanger ending to any episode of a major soap opera (the Royal Soap Opera, Coronation Street, East Enders, Hollyoaks, Neighbours, Home and Away . . . .) and the plot would just move on as it always does.

The Monarch ‘reigns’ but does not ‘rule’ - Kings have been executed or driven out to establish that fact. It would mean changes to the constitution of the Anglican Church and there’d probably be a lot of fuss in the newspapers that possibly cared (the Daily Telegraph, for instance) but, for the most part, it would just mean a different set of architectural ‘gems’ in the royal photo/video coverage.

As to Northern Ireland, a lot of protestant pastors/politicians would be very loud, but they tend to be anyway.

 

[JRKH]

It would depend on what you mean by ‘the country’. For a fair proportion of the population it would be a bit like a cliff-hanger ending to any episode of a major soap opera (the Royal Soap Opera, Coronation Street, East Enders, Hollyoaks, Neighbours, Home and Away . . . .) and the plot would just move on as it always does.

The Monarch ‘reigns’ but does not ‘rule’ - Kings have been executed or driven out to establish that fact. It would mean changes to the constitution of the Anglican Church and there’d probably be a lot of fuss in the newspapers that possibly cared (the Daily Telegraph, for instance) but, for the most part, it would just mean a different set of architectural ‘gems’ in the royal photo/video coverage.

As to Northern Ireland, a lot of protestant pastors/politicians would be very loud, but they tend to be anyway.

Yes, but isn’t the Parlament tied into all of this as well?
I mean, if the monarch were to convert, wouldn’t that mean that the parlament would need to review the laws that effect the church in England?

I plead complete ignorance on thse matters, but considering that one king last century had to abdicate so he could marry whom he chose, I would suspect there might be a bit of upheaval in the country should the “head of the Church” (by birth) convert.

Peace
James

 

[Moscati]

Wasn’t there a British king (who and when escapes me) who abdicated in order to join the Catholic Church? I seem to remember reading something about it in an anthology on prominent converts.

I think that’s what would have to happen. (Figure)headship of the Church of England would pass to whoever was next in line for the throne.

 

[Kaninchen]

Yes, but isn’t the Parlament tied into all of this as well?
I mean, if the monarch were to convert, wouldn’t that mean that the parlament would need to review the laws that effect the church in England?

I did say that there would have to be changes to the constitution of the Anglican Church (which would involve Parliament and ‘disestablishment’) but you used the term ‘the country’.

I plead complete ignorance on thse matters, but considering that one king last century had to abdicate so he could marry whom he chose, I would suspect there might be a bit of upheaval in the country should the “head of the Church” (by birth) convert.

Edward VIII was also a problem (politically dubious) and an opportunity arose - the ‘love story’ plays better, though.

Remember that you are talking about one of the least (if not the least) religiously-observant countries on the planet where the heir is already divorced - The Great Diana Story - and quite a few of the Soap Opera’s current cast are hardly paragons of virtue. There would be fuss but there’s fuss in all the real and manufactured celebrity industry - the whole ‘bread and circuses’ backdrop to our modern lives.

 

[ChadS]

If the British Monarch would choose to convert to Catholicism there would be a huge scandal. The Monarch, by law, would be forced to resign and give up the throne. There have been examples in the past few years of various British royalty being forced to renounce their claim on the throne (even if it was a long shot that they’d ever reign) simply because they chose to marry a Catholic. Being Anglican is a requirement of law to being part of the royal family and having a claim to the throne.

Even if most British don’t attend church on a weekly basis their form of government is very much intertwined with the idea of being Anglican. The Test Acts remained in force in England up until the early 19th century that required anybody in the House of Commons or the House of Lords to take communion in the Anglican Church and at least say they believed in the faith as written in the Book of Common Prayer. The Catholic hierarchy was only reestablished in that country in the 1840s after being gone since the time of Queen Elizabeth.

When Tony Blair and his wife converted to Catholicism their minds were made up for several months before they actually did it. The reason he waited is he wanted to be out as Prime Minister so there wouldn’t be any scandal for him either being seen as too religious or for fear of some sort of Papal influence.

Anglicanism, even if not practiced, is still deeply ingrained culturally and for a monarch to convert and reign would be unheard of. So some laws would have to be changed, not to mention centuries of custom too.

ChadS

 

[Kaninchen]

If the British Monarch would choose to convert to Catholicism there would be a huge scandal. The Monarch, by law, would be forced to resign and give up the throne. There have been examples in the past few years of various British royalty being forced to renounce their claim on the throne (even if it was a long shot that they’d ever reign) simply because they chose to marry a Catholic. Being Anglican is a requirement of law to being part of the royal family and having a claim to the throne.

Even if most British don’t attend church on a weekly basis their form of government is very much intertwined with the idea of being Anglican. The Test Acts remained in force in England up until the early 19th century that required anybody in the House of Commons or the House of Lords to take communion in the Anglican Church and at least say they believed in the faith as written in the Book of Common Prayer. The Catholic hierarchy was only reestablished in that country in the 1840s after being gone since the time of Queen Elizabeth.

When Tony Blair and his wife converted to Catholicism their minds were made up for several months before they actually did it. The reason he waited is he wanted to be out as Prime Minister so there wouldn’t be any scandal for him either being seen as too religious or for fear of some sort of Papal influence.

Anglicanism, even if not practiced, is still deeply ingrained culturally and for a monarch to convert and reign would be unheard of. So some laws would have to be changed, not to mention centuries of custom too.

ChadS

What UK are you talking about? The only bit I recognized was where you said that Blair didn’t want to seem to be too religious - instant death for a British politician.

 

[Cetil]

This would likely require the monarch to abdicate. This is governed by the “Act of Settlement”
which states:
Section II of the Act of Settlement of 1701 provides that “all and every person and persons, who shall or may take or inherit the said Crown, …. and is, are or shall be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the See or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be subject to such incapacities, as in such case or cases are by the said recited act provided, enacted, and established.”

C.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

I believe there law is that the monarch would have to abdicate and a new one would be crowned.

It is illegal for the monarch to be a Catholic.

 

[Kaninchen]

This would likely require the monarch to abdicate. This is governed by the “Act of Settlement”
which states:
Section II of the Act of Settlement of 1701 provides that “all and every person and persons, who shall or may take or inherit the said Crown, …. and is, are or shall be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the See or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be subject to such incapacities, as in such case or cases are by the said recited act provided, enacted, and established.”

C.

Certainly played well in the 18th century.

The real question, now, would be the popularity of the individual concerned - if it were Charles (the curren heir) then, since he’s a bit of a liability, he could be dropped without much of a problem with public opinion. If it were William, who is very popular, it would be another matter.

 

[Kaninchen]

I believe there law is that the monarch would have to abdicate and a new one would be crowned.

One of the reasons why they tend to have an heir and a spare, of course.

It is illegal for the monarch to be a Catholic.

Do you really think that the population, in general, care?

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

One of the reasons why they tend to have an heir and a spare, of course.

Do you really think that the population, in general, care?

The population in general hate Catholicism so yes.

 

[Kaninchen]

The population in general hate Catholicism so yes.

Really? Don’t know about where you live but I know a few Catholics and I’m not aware that they think they are hated.

Where are all these Catholic-haters hanging out?

 

[Cetil]

England has a long history of anti-Catholicism. As to how such a situation might be handled it would be a matter for Parliament to wrestle with but existing law is very clear. I think it’s hard to say what British public opinion is without looking at some surveys if any have been done. PM Gordon Brown is making an effort to change the laws now which may have everything to do with the fact the Prince Charles is already a secret communicant in the Orthodox faith. He is a regular visitor to the monastery of Mount Athos and this is fueling speculation.

See: guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/may/12/monarchy.helenasmith

C.

 

[chevalier]

Probably abdication, though now that someone says William, well, maybe William would be spared and there’d be complete disestablishment.

 

[aicirt]

The population in general hate Catholicism so yes.

I know Brits, and they’ve never indicated any prejudice toward my religion. And I know Catholic Brits who don’t seem to think they’re hated. A hundred years ago may have been a different story.

 

[Zooey]

I believe there law is that the monarch would have to abdicate and a new one would be crowned.

It is illegal for the monarch to be a Catholic.

That is my understanding of the law in Great Britain.
As far as any attraction to Mt Athos, I would tend to think that it is most likely a matter of artistic interest. Charles is deeply interested in art & architecture, & I should imagine that there are more than a few ancient & beautiful pieces of religious art there. (Certainly, the Eastern Orthodox have exceptional art in their possession).

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

I know Brits, and they’ve never indicated any prejudice toward my religion. And I know Catholic Brits who don’t seem to think they’re hated. A hundred years ago may have been a different story.

Then you have been lucky.

 

[JRKH]

One of the reasons why they tend to have an heir and a spare, of course.

Do you really think that the population, in general, care?

As Thomas More said to Parliment in “A Man for All Seasons”
“The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law.”

Regardless of what the English people think, there are apparently laws on the books that would give persons in certain quarters the means to force parliment to act regardless of general public opinion - or lack thereof.
And believe me - these people would indeed act.

Peace
James

 

[Ocarm]

Regardless of what the English people think,

That should be ‘British’ people, actually. For better or worse, the monarch is titular head of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as it should be called (but isn’t very often).

there are apparently laws on the books that would give persons in certain quarters

Um, who would these people be?

the means to force parliment to act

I think parliament probably would act, but only to rush through a law that permitted a monarch to be Roman Catholic. Provision would have to be made for the headship of the Anglican Church, and that would mean either the role passing to another royal, or the disestablishment of the church, neither of which would cause any real consequences to anyone.

regardless of general public opinion - or lack thereof.

Parliament only ever does things because of public opinion - after all, its made up of politicians and fellow travellers (and a few hereditary peers of waning significance). That’s why they’d rapidly pass a new law, because public opinion would be (overwhelmingly) that religion isn’t a relevant issue when it pertains to who gets to wave imperiously at us at film premieres and other events for the tourists.

And believe me - these people would indeed act.

They might try (it would help if I knew who they were so as to be able to comment in greater depth ) but the nation and its politicians wouldn’t care enough to listen to them.

To the posters who spoke regarding the hatred of Catholics in the UK: I don’t experience this, and as a religious who wears a habit I think I’d be a fairly good target if people were looking for one.

There is some contempt for religion generally, sure; and perhaps the high profile abuse cases have made the church more of a target than usual in recent years; but the virulent hatred of Catholics that is sometimes found in non-Catholic countries is the province of only a small minority here. There are similar small minorities who exhibit prejudices based on race and other issues, but typically the UK doesn’t do hatred very well. It takes more energy than we’re willing to put into anything.