What would happen if the Queen of England became Catholic?

[SKWill]

She would have to step down. It is against the law to be Catholic and be member of royalty. It is in Act of Settlement of 1701.

It is not against the law for a member of the British royal family to be Catholic. Being Catholic or marrying a Catholic does, however, remove a royal from the line of succession. Several of the Kents (cousins of Queen Elizabeth) are excluded for being married to Catholics, becoming Catholics, or being raised as Catholics.

Prince Michael of Kent (first cousin of Queen Elizabeth II) was removed from the line of succession in 1978 when he married a Catholic woman (Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz). Their children were raised as Anglicans, so they remain in the line of succession.

Coincidentally, his older brother Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, is also married to a Catholic, but he retains his succession rights because his wife converted after their marriage. His son Lord Nicholas Windsor, not only converted to Catholicism to marry a Catholic and is raising his two sons as Catholics, but Lord Nicholas and his wife were married in the Vatican in 2006!

Since succession rights to titles of nobility aren’t affected by the Act of Settlement, all of the Duke of Kent’s sons and grandsons retain their succession rights to his dukedom.

 

[liturgyluver]

The Monarch is the Supreme-Governor but not the Head of the Church of England. This is a constitutional title linked with fact that the Church of England is the established church in England.

It’s slightly complicated - but important to note - that the Monarch, whilst monarch of the UK, is not the head of the Anglican churches of Wales, Scotland or Ireland (the latter covers both Northern Ireland and the Republic) all of which do not have established churches, and are separate jurisdictions within the Anglican Communion.

 

[Martin15]

This is mostly correct, not completely, with respect to how Henry acquired the title Defensor Fidei. And the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum (concerning all the sacraments, not matrimony alone) was only a part of the tale.

The story is interesting; I’ve posted it around here a number of times. Could do so again, if there was interest.

GKC

Hi GKC

If you have a good link for that bit of history I’d certainly be interested in reading it.

I did know that his book was about more than just marriage, but given that this sacrament was a major reason for the split with rome, I thought it worth emphasising (I couldn’t remember the name of the book, so thanks for that!).

All the best

Martin

P.S. I noticed my typo ‘santity of marriage’ - I’d like to be clear that should have been sanctity, not sanity…

 

[RileyG]

That would be great, but probably won’t happen. So, she’s both Presbyterian and Anglican? I’m not from the UK but isn’t it required for the monarch to belong to the Church of England?

 

[pinctor]

The Queen cannot ‘become Catholic’. One of the things the British monarch promises to do is do ‘defend the faith’ - every coin minted in the UK has the letters DGRFD after the queen’s name (or at least ER to represent her name) the FD part marks her as defender of the faith.

What she could do is abdicate, after which Elizabeth Windsor would be free to become catholic, but as soon as she signs the abdication Charles would become King, and therefore defender of the faith (and head of the Anglican communion) instead of her.

All the best

Martin

No, not the whole Anglican Communion, only the two provinces comprising the Church of England (Canterbury and York).

 

[GKC]

Hi GKC

If you have a good link for that bit of history I’d certainly be interested in reading it.

I did know that his book was about more than just marriage, but given that this sacrament was a major reason for the split with rome, I thought it worth emphasising (I couldn’t remember the name of the book, so thanks for that!).

All the best

Martin

P.S. I noticed my typo ‘santity of marriage’ - I’d like to be clear that should have been sanctity, not sanity…

After 44 years in the state, I’d vote for sanctity, myself.

What I usually post on the *Defensor Fidei *topic is below. Henry and his times has long been a hobby of mine. Most of this info is from J. J. Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII, page numbers available. And a few points from a couple of other bios to pad it out. Scarisbrick is the best book on Hank I have found. Always recommend it.

How Henry got the title.

Henry like sparklies. Was always on the look-out for a new and nifty title, or gee-gaw to add to his collection. In 1512, he petitioned Julius II to award him the title possessed by Louis XII, “Most Christian King” (you didn’t just call yourself something like that; it was awarded). Not sure if “Most Christian” was a unique title, but Julius did award it to Henry, and, for good measure, secretly gave him the French throne. All he had to do to claim it was to defeat Louis in the then on-going unpleasantness between the Holy League and France. That part never happened, though Henry tried, after Ferdinand of Spain finked out on him. But Henry got his “Christianissimus”.

In 1515, Henry wanted something else to pad his resume. Various ideas were passed around: “Protector of the Holy See”, maybe “Defender”, from the English side. The first was turned down because it already belonged to the Holy Roman Emperor, the second was the property of the Swiss. Some in Rome countered with “King Apostolic” (interesting combination) or “Orthodox”. The Pope vetoed both. In 1516, the title of “Defender of the Faith” was proposed from England. Leo ignored it, and Henry pouted.

Henry gave up until May, 1521, when Wolsey wrote once again to Rome, asking for a pretty for Henry. Leo passed it to a committee of Cardinals. Forthcoming were suggestions:

“Rex Fidelis”, "“Orthodoxus”, “Ecclesiaticus” ,
“Protector”, “Anglicus”

When the Cardinals inquired just why Henry warranted another honor, the part he had played supporting the Holy See against Louis, 9 years before, was mentioned. And there was the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum (at least partially Henry’s work, conceived as a response to Luther), of which Rome had heard (it was in draft in May 1521, printed in July, sent to Rome in September (the Pope’s copies bound in Henry’s trademark cloth of gold), after the Cardinals had been considering the matter for a few months. So, before the Assertio was received and presented to Leo, a list of titles for Henry to choose from was shipped to England.

The Assertio probably tipped the scales. About the time it was presented to Leo, Henry chose the same title that had been suggested by England 6 years before:
*Defensor Fidei *. Leo granted it six weeks after he received the book. Doubtless directly inspired by the Assertio, some cardinals then wanted to add a flourish such as Gloriosus or Fidelissimus, but Leo vetoed it.

So Henry got his sparklie, partially because of the Assertio, partially because of his support of the Papacy, partially because he was a pain in the neck. It was intended as a title for him personally, though he thought it was hereditary. Paul III took it back, but Parliament thought it looked nice, and attached it to the Throne, in 1544. Mary took it off, Elizabeth put it back, and it’s there now by Parliamentary legislative fiat.

History is complicated.

GKC

 

[Martin15]

Thanks for that GKC, I didn’t realise that he had proposed it himself. An interesting read

All the best

Martin

 

[GKC]

Thanks for that GKC, I didn’t realise that he had proposed it himself. An interesting read

All the best

Martin

My pleasure.

GKC

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Considering the current political trend, and the temper of the people in the U.K., I would wager that a decision of the Queen, or Prince Phillip or anyone else in line for the throne to become a Catholic could and probably would mean the end of the Monarchy in Great Britain.
Never forget that it wasn’t too long ago that the House of Commons did awat with the hereditary peerages in the House of Lords, and the Peerage is not amongst the most politically popular group of people in the U.K.

 

[spellinggirl]

Besides the fact that it is legally impossible for the Queen (or any ruler of England) to convert to Catholicism or any other religion and remain on the throne, it’s a pretty silly notion altogether. Her Majesty strikes me as very attached to her faith. Her visible successors (Charles and William) seem if not overtly religious, at least desirous of fulfilling their royal duty someday.

It’s kind of like the reason the Queen became part of the succession in the first place: her uncle, Edward VIII, wanted to marry a twice-divorced American woman. The Church of England opposed marriages of divorcees when their former spouses were still alive, so his decision to marry her would have been contrary to the tenets of the faith of which he was Supreme Governor. So he abdicated in favor of his brother, Elizabeth II’s father, King George VI.

Now I’m all wrapped up in history… awesome!

 

[ltwin]

That would be great, but probably won’t happen. So, she’s both Presbyterian and Anglican? I’m not from the UK but isn’t it required for the monarch to belong to the Church of England?

The Church of England is the established church in England. The Church of Scotland is the national church of Scotland. By Act of Parliament, she is the Governor of the Church of England. So, she is Anglican. But as monarch of Scotland she is simply a member of the Church of Scotland. She appoints a commissioner to represent her at the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly, but this commissioner only has a representative role. So, technically when she is in Scotland she is Presbyterian.

 

[SKWill]

Besides the fact that it is legally impossible for the Queen (or any ruler of England) to convert to Catholicism or any other religion and remain on the throne, it’s a pretty silly notion altogether. Her Majesty strikes me as very attached to her faith. Her visible successors (Charles and William) seem if not overtly religious, at least desirous of fulfilling their royal duty someday.

It’s kind of like the reason the Queen became part of the succession in the first place: her uncle, Edward VIII, wanted to marry a twice-divorced American woman. The Church of England opposed marriages of divorcees when their former spouses were still alive, so his decision to marry her would have been contrary to the tenets of the faith of which he was Supreme Governor. So he abdicated in favor of his brother, Elizabeth II’s father, King George VI.

Now I’m all wrapped up in history… awesome!

Her Majesty still would have become Her Majesty had her Uncle David (a.k.a. His Majesty, Edward the Eighth, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland, and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India) not had to abdicate.

Edward and Wallis had no children, so the line of secession – had he been able to stay king – would have gone from her uncle to her father to her. So instead of celebrating her Diamond Jubliee this year (1952-2012), we would be celebrating her 40th jubilee (1972-2012). That’s assuming her still-just-a-duke father still would have died young despite not having the stress of being a war-time monarch thrust upon him – his chain smoking didn’t help his health. [Ain’t alternate history fun! ]

 

[Journey322]

They would probably redo that Olympic skit, and make her REALLY jump
out of that helicopter, and without a parachute… Ooopsie…

 

[seeker57]

Since the Queen is the head of the Anglican Church/Scotland Church…

Would she still be head of those Church though her conversion?

Would she be excommunicated from those churches?

Just some basic answers would be fine.

The first thought that came to mind was, “Hell would have frozen over.”

 

[East_Anglican]

Since the Queen is the head of the Anglican Church/Scotland Church…

Would she still be head of those Church though her conversion?

Would she be excommunicated from those churches?

Just some basic answers would be fine.

She would have to abdicate. It is illegal for monarchs to be RC in England.

 

[TypesAndShadows]

She would have to abdicate. It is illegal for monarchs to be RC in England.

And for her not to have to abdicate, all the Commonwealth Realms would have to agree the new rules for the succession beforehand, just as they are currently working to enact new rules of succession (jointly, and in each country individually), before William and Kate have a child, allowing future female heirs the same priority as male heirs.

Interestingly enough, if you look at the version of the Line of Succession on the official royal family website, it looks like little royals born to Catholic parents and raised Catholic are included in the Line of Succession up until their Confirmation, at which point they are considered irrevocably Catholic and removed. Weird, and not how I thought the actual laws were written.

 

[stevekehl]

Sign of the Apocalypse ?

 

[Lucky7]

After 44 years in the state, I’d vote for sanctity, myself.

What I usually post on the *Defensor Fidei *topic is below. Henry and his times has long been a hobby of mine. Most of this info is from J. J. Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII, page numbers available. And a few points from a couple of other bios to pad it out. Scarisbrick is the best book on Hank I have found. Always recommend it.

How Henry got the title.

Henry like sparklies. Was always on the look-out for a new and nifty title, or gee-gaw to add to his collection. In 1512, he petitioned Julius II to award him the title possessed by Louis XII, “Most Christian King” (you didn’t just call yourself something like that; it was awarded). Not sure if “Most Christian” was a unique title, but Julius did award it to Henry, and, for good measure, secretly gave him the French throne. All he had to do to claim it was to defeat Louis in the then on-going unpleasantness between the Holy League and France. That part never happened, though Henry tried, after Ferdinand of Spain finked out on him. But Henry got his “Christianissimus”.

In 1515, Henry wanted something else to pad his resume. Various ideas were passed around: “Protector of the Holy See”, maybe “Defender”, from the English side. The first was turned down because it already belonged to the Holy Roman Emperor, the second was the property of the Swiss. Some in Rome countered with “King Apostolic” (interesting combination) or “Orthodox”. The Pope vetoed both. In 1516, the title of “Defender of the Faith” was proposed from England. Leo ignored it, and Henry pouted.

Henry gave up until May, 1521, when Wolsey wrote once again to Rome, asking for a pretty for Henry. Leo passed it to a committee of Cardinals. Forthcoming were suggestions:

“Rex Fidelis”, "“Orthodoxus”, “Ecclesiaticus” ,
“Protector”, “Anglicus”

When the Cardinals inquired just why Henry warranted another honor, the part he had played supporting the Holy See against Louis, 9 years before, was mentioned. And there was the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum (at least partially Henry’s work, conceived as a response to Luther), of which Rome had heard (it was in draft in May 1521, printed in July, sent to Rome in September (the Pope’s copies bound in Henry’s trademark cloth of gold), after the Cardinals had been considering the matter for a few months. So, before the Assertio was received and presented to Leo, a list of titles for Henry to choose from was shipped to England.

The Assertio probably tipped the scales. About the time it was presented to Leo, Henry chose the same title that had been suggested by England 6 years before:
*Defensor Fidei *. Leo granted it six weeks after he received the book. Doubtless directly inspired by the Assertio, some cardinals then wanted to add a flourish such as Gloriosus or Fidelissimus, but Leo vetoed it.

So Henry got his sparklie, partially because of the Assertio, partially because of his support of the Papacy, partially because he was a pain in the neck. It was intended as a title for him personally, though he thought it was hereditary. Paul III took it back, but Parliament thought it looked nice, and attached it to the Throne, in 1544. Mary took it off, Elizabeth put it back, and it’s there now by Parliamentary legislative fiat.

History is complicated.

GKC

LOL…Henry liked sparklies.

I will never understand why the English still see his church as valid.

 

[aicirt]

Diana was interested…I suspect that’s part of the reason why she was murdered.

How do we know she was interested in becoming a Catholic?

 

[colliric]

She would have to abdicate. It is illegal for monarchs to be RC in England.

Not for long though, one day that remnant of anti-catholic discrimination from a bygone era will be brought to an end. Unfortunatly the Queen doesn’t have a say in it, because it would require parlimentary bills to pass both houses, so it’s more up to the politicians to put it through and I personally think they’ve been too busy with Mr Murdoch to worry about that issue at this stage(after all should things go to plan, Charles will be King, probably followed by King William… or perhaps just go straight to King William, as a fair amount of pundits are hopeful for!)

Interestingly enough, if you look at the version of the Line of Succession on the official royal family website, it looks like little royals born to Catholic parents and raised Catholic are included in the Line of Succession up until their Confirmation, at which point they are considered irrevocably Catholic and removed. Weird, and not how I thought the actual laws were written.

It’s well known that Charles the Second was in fact a Catholic, at what point he converted is up for debate, but he actually made a political pact with Spain that he would convert very early in his career. It didn’t really affect his rulership of the Anglican Church(Partly because only the Spanish, and his really really close friends, probably knew about it) at all as he saw fit to forfill his role and help that church along as much as he could anyway, in fact he arguebally took pride in his role of redeveloping and restructuring that churc, despite desiring/planning to convert to Catholicism(Likely he learn’t from Queen Mary’s mistakes in attempting to force the two Churches back together). And it’s most likely he choose to recieve confirmation on his deathbed due to political obstacles that he thought would cause serious issues to his subjects if his catholocism became public knowledge while he was alive(simular to Constantine), although he had Catholic family members and known friendships already.

I believe that if a future Monarch turns out to be Catholic, they will treat their role in a public but nonetheless simular manner to Charles. They will keep their title as secular head of the Church Of England(Archbishop of Canterbury is the spiritual head) and probably do that job very well. There’s not much issue with the title “Defender of The Faith” as “the faith” can be interpreted simply as Christianity(after all it was originally given to Henry by the Pope, so it’s interpretation is open to changes), and not Anglicanism specificially. I think the current monarch has seen it that way for many years already.

It’s not as if the COE(specifically) and Catholic Church hate each other anymore anyway, and it’s likely the arrangement could be a welcomed move anyway in terms of Ecumenical issues. The Catholic bishops were even invited to the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Thanksgiving Service(they were given a section on the front row at Westminster), which I frankly thought was exceptionally nice of her to do(heads of other religious/political organisations/countries were there too, but the Catholic Bishops got a great seat!).

The issue would mostly be with rusted on Protestants in the general public(and unsactioned grumblings in the lower less ecumenical sections of the Anglican Church).