So the question would be, in the event of (say) a monarch converting, which would be the path of least resistance for Parliament: Changing the Act of Settlement, or changing which particular figurehead sits in the Irrelevant Chair?
I’m not sure about that. The monarch is the Supreme Governor of the C of E, but that doesn’t mean he has dictatorial powers in it. The C of E has a legislative process for adopting pieces of legislation called “measures”. They are voted on by the Church’s general synod, but after that vote they are submitted for final approval by Parliament. That’s necessary because in British constitutional law, C of E Measures have the same force as an Act of Parliament - a consequence of the status as the established religion. (Of course, as far as intra-ecclesiastical affairs are concerned, Parliament would be highly unlikely to refuse to approve a Measure adopted by the synod, but that’s a political matter, not a legal one). I would guess that reuniting the C of E with the Church of Rome would require amending or abrogating some existing Measures, which the King could not do on his own, just like he can’t legislate on his own to abrogate or amend an Act of Parliament.
Quite.
Absolutely the former, it would pretty uncontroversial nowadays. Whereas a few centuries ago the idea that a monarch might be Catholic led directly to the execution of one king and the deposing of another. Nowadays it would barely raise a shrug.
I’m sure the government would find it a nice break from actual meaningful legislation that is hard to pass.
Put me in the “we won’t know until we know” category. Never underestimate people’s capacity for petty bigotry.
On the one hand, it’s ridiculous. On the other, so is the monarchy.
Come to think of it, the answer would probably depend. If a monarch were to convert to Catholicism because they did’t want to be monarch any more, then Parliament would probably let them quit and name the new monarch, because no good can come of a king who doesn’t want to be. And if the monarch were to convert for reasons of personal faith, then they’d probably notify Parliament in advance of the official conversion, so they’d have plenty of time to change the law beforehand (even from the Catholic Church’s own procedures, converting to Catholicism isn’t a hasty process).
I should add it would be greeted by a shrug in almost all the UK. In Northern Ireland (and a few parts of Scotland) it would be moderately controversial. But even there the actual Catholic religion has long since become insignificant other than a marker of which community you belong to. No one is going assume the king is going to start supporting sein Fein (or Glasgow Celtic) if he converted to Catholicism
I’d say even Farage et al, would have trouble whipping his gammon followers into a frenzy over it. Maybe if (as Charlie has mentioned he’s interested in) he changed his title to “defender of faith” from “defender of THE faith” then he could whip up some outrage about the royalty going woke (and how the real aim is to appease all the Muslim refugees). But just converting to Catholicism, it’s a big “meh whatever”.
Who?
Charles I was a staunch C of E episcoplian. The religious criticism against him came from Presbyterians and Congregationalists.
Sure, but his marriage to a Catholic certainly didn’t help assuage that criticism.
He had a Catholic wife and was persistently accused of crypto-catholism, particularly when he did things like bring troops from Ireland (even though the troops in question weren’t Catholic they were in the mind of his opponents). He wasn’t Catholic but the idea that he might be was a big contributing factor to opposition against him.