What if Prince William wanted to convert?

[GKC]

Really GCK?! I did not know it was possible for you to get yourself to purchase a paperback. Howsoever, it is just the kind of book you could easily write yourself, so I hope it primes your pump.

I suspect it also requires a modicum of creativity and talent, esp. to win the Booker Prize.

But yes, though I buy far fewer pbs than I did years ago, and I prefer 1st/1st hardbacks, I will, on occasion, buy a pb, mass market, or, as in this case, trade paperback. They are only occasionally collectible items (but sometimes) and their sturdiness leaves something to be desired, but if it’s all that I can find, so be it. If I can upgrade later, I do.

GKC

 

[Picky_Picky]

I think it is the secular atheism that is the biggest driver to change such things. The less the population cares about religion, the more likely laws and traditions based upon religious principles are likely to be overthrown.

Well, yes, I think that’s right. Many people of many religious traditions have said that the established church provides a space for faith at the heart of national life. Among those who have said so is the Queen, incidentally. Although, oddly, as a secular atheist, I value the present arrangement, too.

 

[GKC]

Well, yes, of course, but I am just thinking that, since Parliament made the Act, then Parliament can make a different Act, if they so desired, or am I wrong?

See Picky’s observations above. I would have left a good deal out of there, through ignorance. But I do think that if Parliament wanted to tackle the question, it could. Roots would have to be yanked up around the globe, I suppose.

So, stretching the concept of theoretically to its limits, theoretically, yes. Maybe.

GKC

 

[Picky_Picky]

See Picky’s observations above. I would have left a good deal out of there, through ignorance. But I do think that if Parliament wanted to tackle the question, it could. Roots would have to be yanked up around the globe, I suppose.

So, stretching the concept of theoretically to its limits, theoretically, yes. Maybe.

GKC

Absolutely. The points I raised were matters of practicality and advisability only. In constitutional theory the Queen in Parliament can do what the heck she/it/they want/wants, and who cares for the consequences?

 

[Picky_Picky]

Although I should certainly not have appeared to agree that it is a question of “one Act”. Many Acts. Among them the Act of Union, which we might do well to leave alone at present. And much else, Acts and otherwise.

 

[guanophore]

Secondly it is difficult to see how it could be done without disestablishing the CofE, which is something even non-Anglican leaders in Britain, including the Catholic hierarchy, would be very wary of.

It is true that I find the role of the monarchy in England a great mystery. But it seems to me that, if the headship of the Church can pass to a monarch overnight, then it can pass elsewhere.

I guess the biggest problem would be a matter of authority. Since there is not an authorative person or Body within the CoE, and it stands to reason that any Head would have less authority than the Monarch, one might anticipate the chaos that always results from a lack of leadership among headstrong human beings with strong religious values.

 

[Picky_Picky]

It is true that I find the role of the monarchy in England a great mystery. But it seems to me that, if the headship of the Church can pass to a monarch overnight, then it can pass elsewhere.

I guess the biggest problem would be a matter of authority. Since there is not an authorative person or Body within the CoE, and it stands to reason that any Head would have less authority than the Monarch, one might anticipate the chaos that always results from a lack of leadership among headstrong human beings with strong religious values.

I think it is intended to be a great mystery! Followers of these forums are no doubt well acquainted with the idea of valuable mystery. And not headship, please. H8 claimed headship, but E1 and her successors have claimed only supreme governorship (leaving the headship to Christ).

Authority, yes. But leadership in the CofE comes from the archbishops. My own view is that, among the practical difficulties I have outlined, the most problematic could well be the constitutional one. If England is not “an empire” as Cranmer put it, independent of the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Bishop, where is the wellspring of the constitution? And if that seems airy fairy (and I grant that it does) I think nonetheless it would bring profound difficulties.

For myself, I hope that some well-taught constitutionalists in the Civil Service spend their time pondering this, because it would be good to find a way to rid the monarchical succession of religious bias. I’m too ill-provided intellectually to see how it can sensibly be done.

 

[Peter_J]

Sure. If you assume that anything that obstructs the premise can be changed, then nihil obstat. Anything can be done. But if HRH were to leave the CoE, and nothing else transpires, than HRH cannot be the monarch, in due course.

GKC

But the point (to my mind anyhow) is that it wouldn’t require the disestablishment of the Church of England). Right? I.e. it could still be the state church.

 

[Peter_J]

P.S. I’m, of course, speaking hypothetically ^^ there. I anticipate no change that would permit a non-Anglican to be England’s monarch.

 

[Picky_Picky]

P.S. I’m, of course, speaking hypothetically ^^ there. I anticipate no change that would permit a non-Anglican to be England’s monarch.

I find it very difficult to see how the thing could be brought about successfully without disestablishment; I find it very difficult to see how the thing could be brought about without a soup to nuts rewriting of the whole basis of the constitution. I may very well be wrong – if an unwritten constitution has an advantage, it is that it can be rewritten (if you see what I mean) comparatively easily. But this goes back to the basics: the crown’s authority over the land. I am hoping someone will come up with an easy solution: I don’t see one. But I suspect somewhere in the Cabinet Office, somewhere in the Palace, and somewhere at Lambeth, some folk are working on it – at least, I hope so. As you say, a solution is not to be anticipated by tomorrow.

 

[rfournier103]

…he could not succeed to the throne (the line of succession would run from his father to his son).

I was always under the impression that if an heir to the throne became Catholic; he, and his descendants would be removed from the line of succession… Making Prince Harry next in line…?

 

[ltwin]

But the point (to my mind anyhow) is that it wouldn’t require the disestablishment of the Church of England). Right? I.e. it could still be the state church.

Besides the complete nonsense of having a religious establishment for a nation in which the personification of the establishment is not a member? How about having a state church for a state whose head of state is not a member?

Let us not forget that because of the Church of England’s position as an established church it is a part of the state. It is a nationalized church, and its canon law is part of the law of the United Kingdom. We all know the monarch’s role in both political and ecclesiastical governance is completely ceremonial, but even so, I have to wonder if the CofE will really think the benefits of establishment are worth having their church presided over by the “King in Parliament under God” when half of that equation is a Catholic.

How can having a Catholic monarch for a nation that has the “Protestant Reformed religion as by law established” ever make legal sense? How can a Catholic monarch give Royal Assent to laws passed by the General Synod of the Church of England and approved by the UK Parliament?

 

[7_Sorrows]

Besides the complete nonsense of having a religious establishment for a nation in which the personification of the establishment is not a member? How about having a state church for a state whose head of state is not a member?

Let us not forget that because of the Church of England’s position as an established church it is a part of the state. It is a nationalized church, and its canon law is part of the law of the United Kingdom. We all know the monarch’s role in both political and ecclesiastical governance is completely ceremonial, but even so, I have to wonder if the CofE will really think the benefits of establishment are worth having their church presided over by the “King in Parliament under God” when half of that equation is a Catholic.

How can having a Catholic monarch for a nation that has the “Protestant Reformed religion as by law established” ever make legal sense? How can a Catholic monarch give Royal Assent to laws passed by the General Synod of the Church of England and approved by the UK Parliament?

With God all things are possible!

 

[7_Sorrows]

Besides the complete nonsense of having a religious establishment for a nation in which the personification of the establishment is not a member? How about having a state church for a state whose head of state is not a member?

Let us not forget that because of the Church of England’s position as an established church it is a part of the state. It is a nationalized church, and its canon law is part of the law of the United Kingdom. We all know the monarch’s role in both political and ecclesiastical governance is completely ceremonial, but even so, I have to wonder if the CofE will really think the benefits of establishment are worth having their church presided over by the “King in Parliament under God” when half of that equation is a Catholic.

How can having a Catholic monarch for a nation that has the “Protestant Reformed religion as by law established” ever make legal sense? How can a Catholic monarch give Royal Assent to laws passed by the General Synod of the Church of England and approved by the UK Parliament?

With God all things are possible!

 

[Picky_Picky]

I was always under the impression that if an heir to the throne became Catholic; he, and his descendants would be removed from the line of succession… Making Prince Harry next in line…?

I think not. Mary II and Anne, for instance.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Wiki quotes the constitutional expert Professor Vernon Bogdanor confirming that descendants of those debarred by conversion or marriage are not themselves excluded.

 

[GKC]

Wiki quotes the constitutional expert Professor Vernon Bogdanor confirming that descendants of those debarred by conversion or marriage are not themselves excluded.

This is what I thought. But not being, or having access to, such an expert, I hoped for someone to confirm it. Thanks to you and the Prof.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

Besides the complete nonsense of having a religious establishment for a nation in which the personification of the establishment is not a member? How about having a state church for a state whose head of state is not a member?

Let us not forget that because of the Church of England’s position as an established church it is a part of the state. It is a nationalized church, and its canon law is part of the law of the United Kingdom. We all know the monarch’s role in both political and ecclesiastical governance is completely ceremonial, but even so, I have to wonder if the CofE will really think the benefits of establishment are worth having their church presided over by the “King in Parliament under God” when half of that equation is a Catholic.

How can having a Catholic monarch for a nation that has the “Protestant Reformed religion as by law established” ever make legal sense? How can a Catholic monarch give Royal Assent to laws passed by the General Synod of the Church of England and approved by the UK Parliament?

I confess it would seem strange to me too – keep in mind I’m an American like you.

 

[Picky_Picky]

This is what I thought. But not being, or having access to, such an expert, I hoped for someone to confirm it. Thanks to you and the Prof.

GKC

The Palace lists Lady Amelia Windsor as 34th in line (only 34th? poor girl!) although her father, the Earl of St Andrews (son of the Duchess of Kent, mentioned earlier in this thread) is excluded as a Catholic.

 

[GKC]

The Palace lists Lady Amelia Windsor as 34th in line (only 34th? poor girl!) although her father, the Earl of St Andrews (son of the Duchess of Kent, mentioned earlier in this thread) is excluded as a Catholic.

Due to my wife’s fondness for the Royals, I actually knew that about The Right Honorable. A mere fluke.

GKC