# Non-Christians in the British line of succession **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 8, 2019, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christians-in-the-british-line-of-succession/836700 "2019-07-08T07:20:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christians-in-the-british-line-of-succession/836700/1 "2019-07-08T07:20:25Z")
Are there any avowed non-Christians in the British royal family, or elsewhere in the line of succession to the British throne? By “avowed” I mean that the individual is known from their own words or positive actions to practise a religion other than Christianity, or to be atheist or agnostic. Mere speculation based on, say, nonattendance at church, does not count. How far down the line of succession do we need to go before a non-Christian inherits the throne? Wikipedia maintains a short but up-to-date [line of succession](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_British_throne#Current_line_of_succession). [A much more comprehensive but less current one](http://www.wargs.com/essays/succession/2011.html) was compiled by David Lewis and William Addams Reitwiesner in 2011; it’s due to be updated next in 2031. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christians-in-the-british-line-of-succession/836700/2 "2019-07-08T07:25:34Z")
The rules of inheritance\* of the British throne require the Monarch to be a Protestant, where Protestant includes the CofE. Catholics and those who would inherit through them are explicitly excluded; I have not seen anything about whether Orthodox are eligible but I expect not. So, you’d have to go through every single Protestant (by that definition) who can show any kind of blood relationship to the Electress Sophia of Hannover before you get to someone who’s eligible and not a Christian. - Actually a different piece of the legal system, the Acts of Union of 1707. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christians-in-the-british-line-of-succession/836700/3 "2019-07-08T08:07:44Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > The rules of inheritance\* of the British throne require the Monarch to be a Protestant, where Protestant includes the CofE. Oh, silly me—I’d forgotten about that restriction. So let’s amend my question as follows: are there any members of the British royal family who are non-Christian, or any people who _would_ be in the line of succession to the British throne had their non-Christianness not excluded them? ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christians-in-the-british-line-of-succession/836700/4 "2019-07-08T08:14:13Z")
And since whether someone is a Protestant or not can change over time, the question of determining someone’s religion only arises at the point where they are actually due to inherit. In practical terms, the requirement to be a Protestant for the purposes of inheriting the UK throne comes down to (a) having been baptised, (b) being willing to take the eucharist at the hands of an Anglican minister and © being willing to make the religious declarations that the monarch makes at the time of the coronation. If you can tick all those boxes, you’re Protestant enough to be monarch. Beyond that, nobody will ask you what your theological beliefs are, or what the strength of your commitment to them is. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christians-in-the-british-line-of-succession/836700/5 "2019-07-08T08:49:59Z")
And d) never having been a Catholic. Whether you were a Catholic for half a second as a baby is irrelevant, if you ever were one you and your descendants are ineligible. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christians-in-the-british-line-of-succession/836700/6 "2019-07-08T09:47:09Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > And d) never having been a Catholic. Whether you were a Catholic for half a second as a baby is irrelevant, if you ever were one you and your descendants are ineligible. Not quite. The Act of Settlement 1700 provides that _every Person and Persons that then_ were or afterwards should be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or should professe the Popish Religion… should be excluded and are by that Act made for ever [incapable] to inherit possess or enjoy the Crown and Government of this Realm\* \*i.e., 1689 It would all depend whether a child not having taken their First Communion could be considered to have been “reconciled” or to “profess” any particular religion, especially in the light of what they might have said or done later. > [@UDS](#): > > If you can tick all those boxes, you’re Protestant enough to be monarch. Beyond that, nobody will ask you what your theological beliefs are, or what the strength of your commitment to them is. The whole point of the Elizabethan settlement of the Church of England was that she “would not make a window into men’s souls”. The fear of a Catholic monarch was not what they might believe in private, so much as what they might seek to impose with the aid of dominant Catholic powers on the continent (in the case of the later Stuarts, Louis XIV, especially after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes). The position now is simply the assumption that a loyal Catholic could not at the same time be titular head of a church that Rome is not in communion with and whose sacraments Rome regards as invalid. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christians-in-the-british-line-of-succession/836700/7 "2019-07-08T10:47:46Z")
Holding Communion doesn’t require having had First Communion. One means being dogmatically aligned, the other one is a specific instance of a Sacrament. People officially become Catholic when baptised so, not the first time a Sacramental Host touches their tongue. One word, two different meanings. Heck, you even use the “hold communion” meaning in your last paragraph. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christians-in-the-british-line-of-succession/836700/8 "2019-07-08T12:28:26Z")
I don’t think the exact meaning of those provisions is something we can really know for sure in the absence of it actually being litigated (judicially or politically). The Royal Household seems to be of the belief that very young children aren’t Catholic enough to be excluded, as some of the grandchildren of the Duke and Duchess of Kent were included in the line of succession published by the Palace even when they were probably being raised Catholic, but that decision may well have been made by a random person in the PR department. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christians-in-the-british-line-of-succession/836700/9 "2019-07-08T20:07:50Z")
And for the record, the Roman Catholic Church does hold that many (though not all) of the Anglican sacraments are, in fact, valid (though usually not licit). In particular, baptism can be validly performed by absolutely anyone, and Anglican ordinations are also regarded as valid so long as the line doesn’t pass through any female bishops (which the RCC doesn’t recognize). There have been a few cases of ordained Anglican priests converting to Catholicism, and thereby becoming Catholic priests (including a few married Catholic priests), with no further sacrament needed. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christians-in-the-british-line-of-succession/836700/10 "2019-07-08T21:29:30Z")
As others have noted, non-Protestants can’t actually succeed. However, I think the current Earl of Harewood is Buddhist, or at least has been “involved with” Buddhism for several decades. ([cite](https://buildingbuddhism.wordpress.com/2015/05/04/the-stupa-at-harewood-house-a-yorkshire-bhutan-co-production/), [cite](https://www.buddhistdoor.net/news/jamyang-buddhist-centre-to-open-3000-square-meter-buddhist-community-center-in-the-british-city-of-leeds)) He’s roughly 60th in the order of succession, being the senior heir of the present Queen’s aunt Princess Mary the Princess Royal, Countess of Harewood (only daughter of George V); he was 52nd on Lewis and Reitwiesner’s 2011 list. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christians-in-the-british-line-of-succession/836700/11 "2019-07-08T22:26:35Z")
On the other hand, does being Buddhist necessarily mean that he’s not Protestant? There’s nothing that says that religions must be mutually exclusive, and it’s not uncommon with Eastern religions for a person to identify with more than one. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2019, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christians-in-the-british-line-of-succession/836700/12 "2019-07-09T00:56:49Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > I don’t think the exact meaning of those provisions is something we can really know for sure in the absence of it actually being litigated (judicially or politically). > > The Royal Household seems to be of the belief that very young children aren’t Catholic enough to be excluded, as some of the grandchildren of the Duke and Duchess of Kent were included in the line of succession published by the Palace even when they were probably being raised Catholic, but that decision may well have been made by a random person in the PR department. SFAIK the Kent children were all baptised in Anglican ceremonies, and that’s a sufficient communion with the Church of England to get you regarded as Protestant for succession-to-the-crown purposes. It was only when they chose to be confirmed in the Catholic church that they were excluded. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2019, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christians-in-the-british-line-of-succession/836700/13 "2019-07-09T00:59:07Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > And for the record, the Roman Catholic Church does hold that many (though not all) of the Anglican sacraments are, in fact, valid (though usually not licit). In particular, baptism can be validly performed by absolutely anyone, and Anglican ordinations are also regarded as valid so long as the line doesn’t pass through any female bishops (which the RCC doesn’t recognize). There have been a few cases of ordained Anglican priests converting to Catholicism, and thereby becoming Catholic priests (including a few married Catholic priests), with no further sacrament needed. Nitpick: the Roman Catholic church does not regard Anglican ordinations as valid, regardless of whether there are any female bishops in the line. Anglican priests who enter the Catholic church are re-ordained. ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2019, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christians-in-the-british-line-of-succession/836700/14 "2019-07-09T01:19:53Z")
> [@](#): > > “I [here insert the name of the Sovereign] do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne of my Realm, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.” > [@](#): > > . Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them? If the person is unwilling to make the promises, _parliament can change the requirements_ as they have done before. But by the time they get down to the 60th in line for the throne, they are probably going to dissolve the monarchy anyway. If the succession comes down to someone the people and the parliament want, they will make concessions as required by negotiation – as they have also done before. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2019, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christians-in-the-british-line-of-succession/836700/15 "2019-07-09T17:15:59Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > On the other hand, does being Buddhist necessarily mean that he’s not Protestant? There’s nothing that says that religions must be mutually exclusive, and it’s not uncommon with Eastern religions for a person to identify with more than one. Yep, technically it would be possible. He could be “in communion with the church of England” and also Buddhist. You couldn’t be Muslim and in communion with the CofE since that requires renouncing other faiths. You probably could be Eastern or Western Orthodox if you added in a CofE baptism before coronation. You could also theoretically be atheist and still be monarch if you agreed to be Christened. However, since becoming monarch includes becoming head of the Church of England, it would take a lot of cognitive dissonance to have someone as the head if their only involvement was being Christened and they did nothing else to do with the church. Charles doesn’t count - he’s expressed some sympathies towards other religions but has always been fairly heavily involved in CofE activities and attends regular church services. ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2019, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christians-in-the-british-line-of-succession/836700/16 "2019-07-09T21:56:39Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > And for the record, the Roman Catholic Church does hold that many (though not all) of the Anglican sacraments are, in fact, valid (though usually not licit). In particular, baptism can be validly performed by absolutely anyone, and Anglican ordinations are also regarded as valid so long as the line doesn’t pass through any female bishops (which the RCC doesn’t recognize). There have been a few cases of ordained Anglican priests converting to Catholicism, and thereby becoming Catholic priests (including a few married Catholic priests), with no further sacrament needed. UDS addressed the validity (or at least the Roman Catholic position on such validity) perfectly well above. You’re right about Anglican preists, though (assuming they’re been re-ordained). Just adding that my local parish, a few years back, had a former Episcopalian priest who’d crossed the Tiber, as they say. The pastor introduced him to the congregation one Sunday, and said, “don’t be surprised if you see Father [name] walking around the neighborhood with his wife and kids. It’s absolutely legit – he used to be an Episcopalian priest.” ---
**Author:** ![zimaane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a3d4f5/32.png) [@zimaane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zimaane)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2019, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christians-in-the-british-line-of-succession/836700/17 "2019-07-09T21:58:15Z")
I would like to think that if, say, Prince Harry converted to Catholicism and then it became his turn to become king that Parliament would change the law, including the part about the monarch being head of the C of E… But as there is still some anti-Catholic sentiment in the U.K., maybe I am being naïve. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christians-in-the-british-line-of-succession/836700/18 "2019-07-10T14:09:11Z")
> [@zimaane](#): > > I would like to think that if, say, Prince Harry converted to Catholicism and then it became his turn to become king that Parliament would change the law, including the part about the monarch being head of the C of E… But as there is still some anti-Catholic sentiment in the U.K., maybe I am being naïve. It would require dozens of countries changing the law. Plus the consent of the Anglican Church, which is not only in England. It really isn’t that simple. Not sure where you’re getting that there’s anti-Catholic sentiment though. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christians-in-the-british-line-of-succession/836700/19 "2019-07-10T14:14:06Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#): > > It would require dozens of countries changing the law. Plus the consent of the Anglican Church, which is not only in England. AFAIK the Anglican Church _as it’s relevant to the monarch_ is only in England (and a few acres of Wales). And it might be invited to give its views, but that would be a political decision rather than a legal requirement, as it has no formal role in the legislative process that would be required to change that restriction, beyond the small number of votes held by the bishops. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christians-in-the-british-line-of-succession/836700/20 "2019-07-10T14:23:05Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#): > > It would require dozens of countries changing the law. How do you figure that it’s dozens given that Elizabeth is the queen of only 16 independent countries? Also, which of these would require changing the law? I thought many (if not all) of them quite sensibly defer the matter of succession to UK law. (Certainly Canada does so.) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christians-in-the-british-line-of-succession/836700.md?page=2)