Prince of Wales and Catholicism

Factual Questions
1

As is well-known, the title “Prince of Wales” is usually given to the heir apparent to the throne of the United Kingdom. However, this title is not automatically acquired upon becoming the heir (unlike the Dukedoms of Cornwall and Rothesay which are automatically acquired by the eldest son of the Sovereign.). As such, there is no formal requirement that the heir become the Prince of Wales. Charles became the heir in 1952, but was not created the Prince of Wales until 1958.

That being said, what would happen if Charles were to convert to Catholicism before he inherits the throne? Obviously, he would lose his place in the line of succession and Prince William would become the heir apparent. But what would happen to the rest of his titles?

Prince of Wales – would he lose this? Or is that a decision left up to the Queen? And, if the Queen decides to keep him on as PoW, would that expire at her death, or would he retain the title, potentially blocking William’s son from being created PoW?

Duke of Cornwall – would he lose this title? It seems that this title is always given to the eldest son of the Sovereign. It would not go to William, as it is not given to a grandson, even if he is the heir apparent. Or would the title go to the Duke of York as the eldest eligible son of the Sovereign? Lastly, if he kept the title, it would probably expire with the Queen’s death (or certainly with the birth of William’s eldest son if that happens after the Queen’s death).

Duke of Rothesay – the Dukedom of Rothesay belongs to “the first-born Prince of the King of Scots for ever.” But is it also restricted to heirs apparent?

In short, what happens to these titles if Charles remains alive but drops out as the heir apparent?

Zev Steinhardt

2

Interesting questions.

Just guessing, but I’d suggest that Charles would keep his title as Prince of Wales. It was actually **conferred ** on him by a positive act in 1958. So I’d think that without a formal withdrawal of the title by the Queen it would continue to exist. Generally a Prince of Wales can only lose the title by dying before acceeding to the throne, or by acceeding to the throne and having the title merge with the Crown. Perhaps one could imagine a scenario of a Prince of Wales having his titled stripped from him if he were found guilty of treason? But I doubt that conversion to Catholicism would be considered that serious.

As for the other titles (Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay), I’d suggest that Charles could lose them. They were not created for him. He just got them the moment that his mother became Queen and he heir apparent. If his religion meant that he was no longer heir apparent* then perhaps he’d automatically lose these titles. If he did lose them then I think they’d go into storage. They couldn’t go to William (since they’re only available to a sovereign’s sons) and they couldn’t got to the Duke of York (since they’re only available to a sovereign’s heir apparent).

  • I don’t know the technical workings of the rules of succession. I’m unsure whether it’s the act of conversion to Catholicism that removes a person from the line of succession or the status of being a Catholic at the time of accession. So if Charles became a Catholic and the Queen then died:
  • would some government official come to Charles and say “are you still a Catholic? Here’s your opportunity to convert back and become King.”
  • or would the government official just by-pass Charles entirely?
3

[QUOTE=Cunctator]
…- would some government official come to Charles and say “are you still a Catholic? Here’s your opportunity to convert back and become King.”

  • or would the government official just by-pass Charles entirely?
    [/QUOTE]

That can’t happen. The sovereign never dies. At the exact moment the Queen dies the next-in-line ascends the throne. Charles would be skipped over and William would become King.

4

[QUOTE=alphaboi867]
At the exact moment the Queen dies the next-in-line ascends the throne .
[/QUOTE]

heh. From Terry Pratchett.

<< The only thing known to go faster than ordinary light is monarchy, according to the philosopher Ly Tin Wheedle. He reasoned like this: you can´t have more than one king, and tradition demands that there is no gap between kings, so when a king dies the succession must therefore pass to the heir instantaneously. Presumably, he said, there must be some elementary particles - kingons, or possibly queons - that do this job, but of course succession sometimes fails if, in mid-flight, they strike an anti-particle, or republicon. His ambitious plans to use his discovery to send messages, involving the careful torturing of a small king in order to modulate the signal, were never fully expounded because, at that point, the bar closed. >>

5

I can imagine a situation where it’s an open question whether the Prince of Wales is a Roman Catholic.

Hypothetical: Suppose that the Prince of Wales were particularly ecumenical, and wanted to heal historical divisions within the Christian Church. As a result, without formally renouncing his membership of the Church of England and while still regularly taking communion in Anglican churches, he has also regularly taken communion in other churches, including Orthodox, Catholic, Methodist, etc.

Of course, public opinion would be divided on this. Some would argue that he had become (at least from time to time a Roman Catholic), and hence lost his right to the throne. Others would say this was a “good thing”, and not inconsistent with him remaining a good Anglican. And a third part of the public wouldn’t care less.

If the matter had not been formally resolved by the time of the sovereign’s death, who would resolve the issue as to whether the Prince of Wales was a Roman Catholic? Parliament (even though it may lack one essential part)? The Privy Council? Or the House of Lords (as the high court of the United Kingdom)?

6

[QUOTE=zev_steinhardt]
Prince of Wales – would he lose this? Or is that a decision left up to the Queen? And, if the Queen decides to keep him on as PoW, would that expire at her death, or would he retain the title, potentially blocking William’s son from being created PoW?
[/QUOTE]

It would depend on the exact wording of the 1958 patent (which I haven’t been able to find), but I would suspect Cunctator’s line of argument would apply.

Incidentally, it wouldn’t be William’s son who would be affected (see below), but William himself. There is a precedent (George III) for an heir apparent who was only the grandson of the monarch to be created Prince of Wales.

[QUOTE=zev_steinhardt]
Duke of Cornwall – would he lose this title? It seems that this title is always given to the eldest son of the Sovereign. It would not go to William, as it is not given to a grandson, even if he is the heir apparent. Or would the title go to the Duke of York as the eldest eligible son of the Sovereign? Lastly, if he kept the title, it would probably expire with the Queen’s death (or certainly with the birth of William’s eldest son if that happens after the Queen’s death).
[/QUOTE]

The great problem with this is that the rules for who gets the dukedom of Cornwall are a complete mess anyway. This is so mainly because the particular details of interpretation have over the centuries been stretched to preserve the general principle that the monarch’s eldest son gets it. Thus, it could argued that neither Henry VIII nor Charles I should have got it because they were not the eldest son, only the eldest surviving son, and it could be argued that none of the post-1714 holders should have got it because none of them were the son of the heir general of the Black Prince. But each time the rules were bent. And why not?

But there is a possible precedent for the idea that a royal duke can lose his dukedom by changing his place in the order of succession - Prince Henry (later Henry VIII) was deemed to have ceased to be the Duke of York when he became heir apparent in 1502. So lots for the lawyers to argue over.

[QUOTE=zev_steinhardt]
Duke of Rothesay – the Dukedom of Rothesay belongs to “the first-born Prince of the King of Scots for ever.” But is it also restricted to heirs apparent?
[/QUOTE]

There is general agreement that only an heir apparent inherits it. The question would therefore be whether they can subsequently cease to hold it.

Note however that once the Queen died, any uncertainty would be resolved instanteously. At that point Charles would be ‘legally dead’. Which would be one compelling reason why it would have made sense for him to resolve any uncertainties long before then. The obvious thing for him to do would be to announce his conversion, formally renounce his claim to the throne, disclaim all his peerages and support the passage of an Act of Parliament to clarify his position, all in return for a new title and, more importantly, a permanent allowance.

And that would also be the point at which everyone began asking, ‘But why shouldn’t a Catholic become king?’

7

[QUOTE=APB]

And that would also be the point at which everyone began asking, ‘But why shouldn’t a Catholic become king?’
[/QUOTE]

Indeedn. What might happen if a sitting monarch converted to Catholicism?

8

[QUOTE=Giles]
Hypothetical: Suppose that the Prince of Wales were particularly ecumenical, and wanted to heal historical divisions within the Christian Church. As a result, without formally renouncing his membership of the Church of England and while still regularly taking communion in Anglican churches, he has also regularly taken communion in other churches, including Orthodox, Catholic, Methodist, etc.
[/QUOTE]

(some paragraphs snipped out by me)

It isn’t considered kosher (pun intended) to receive the Eucharist in the Roman Catholic Church unless you’re Catholic. While I don’t think that the prince would automatically be refused the Eucharist, I do think that it would potentially create bad press for him. I can’t imagine that disrespecting another faith’s beliefs would be a good way to heal historical divisions.

9

According to this wikipedia article, the heir to the throne must be Protestant to succeed to throne. According to some interpretations if the heir has ever been Catholic they cannot succeed, although other interpretations allow for conversation before the death of the reigning monarch. It does allow for the heir to be member of another religion as long as they convert to Protestant before the death of the reigning monarch.

If the heir is not protestant when the reigning monarch dies, the crown will pass to the next in line.

The rules of succession are covered by the Act of Settlement of 1701.

As to his titles, reading through the articles on wikipedia, he would lose most of them. The titles are meant for the heir of throne, as he would no longer be the heir, he could no longer hold the titles. Some of the titles would pass to the next in line, but some would not. Duke of Cornwall is only for the eldest son of the reigning monarch, so William could not be Duke of Cornwall unless Charles ascended to the throne. The Prince of Wales would have to be recreated as William.

If a sitting monarch would to convert they would have to renounce the throne. As Edward VIII when he wanted to marry a divorcee.

10

Am I the only one who was skimming thread titles too quickly and read this as “Prince of Wales and Cannibalism”?

11

[QUOTE=bordelond]
Indeedn. What might happen if a sitting monarch converted to Catholicism?
[/QUOTE]

The big problem is that the monarch is head of the Church of England, and (at least formally) appoints bishops of that church. Of course, there would also be a problem, if the monarch converted to Islam or Buddhism, but historically Catholicism has always been the most likely threat.

12

[QUOTE=MissMossie]
(some paragraphs snipped out by me)

It isn’t considered kosher (pun intended) to receive the Eucharist in the Roman Catholic Church unless you’re Catholic. While I don’t think that the prince would automatically be refused the Eucharist, I do think that it would potentially create bad press for him. I can’t imagine that disrespecting another faith’s beliefs would be a good way to heal historical divisions.
[/QUOTE]

In this hypothetical, the relevant Catholic priest(s) and bishop(s) would have to go along with the prince taking communion. Indeed, given the relevance to relations between the Church of Rome and the Church of England, it would be likely that the Pope would have been consulted and would have supported the action.

13

[QUOTE=rayh]
If a sitting monarch would to convert they would have to renounce the throne. As Edward VIII when he wanted to marry a divorcee.
[/QUOTE]

I wasn’t sure about whether or not a conversion to Catholicism would be analogous to Edward VIII’s situation. If it’s not too much of a tangent, two questions:

  1. Would a “patent” be sufficient to change this, and

  2. How would a “forced abdication” take place, if it were ever needed? Stated another way – how is the line of succession enforced? I understand that Edward VIII abdicated of his own volition.

[QUOTE=Giles]
The big problem is that the monarch is head of the Church of England, and (at least formally) appoints bishops of that church. Of course, there would also be a problem, if the monarch converted to Islam or Buddhism, but historically Catholicism has always been the most likely threat.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks. I did know about the title of Defender of the Faith … was thinking maybe that those duties could be conferred onto the Archbishop of Canterbury or somesuch.

14

[QUOTE=bordelond]
2) How would a “forced abdication” take place, if it were ever needed? Stated another way – how is the line of succession enforced? I understand that Edward VIII abdicated of his own volition.
[/QUOTE]

The last forced abdication was in 1688 – the “Glorious Revolution” when the Catholic King James II and VII was forced to leave the kingdoms of England and Scotland, and the Protestant Stadtholder of the Netherlands invited to come and replace him.

It was a pretty bloodless revolution – though it lead to unsuccessful uprisings in 1715 and 1745 – and it would be likely to be even more bloodless now, with the PM telling HM that he had to go, and HM going after signing the right pieces of paper … or else, Parliament repealing the relevant parts of the, Act of Settlement 1701, and letting HM stay.

15

[QUOTE=Giles]
In this hypothetical, the relevant Catholic priest(s) and bishop(s) would have to go along with the prince taking communion. Indeed, given the relevance to relations between the Church of Rome and the Church of England, it would be likely that the Pope would have been consulted and would have supported the action.
[/QUOTE]

I would hope not. What kind of an example is that to set?

16

Interestingly the original “Defender of the Faith” was a pre-divorce Henry VIII.

and yet, from what I understand when the Irish President Mary McAleese did just that (well the opposite, took Anglican communion) it was generally seen to be a conciliatory gesture.

17

[QUOTE=Cervaise]
Am I the only one who was skimming thread titles too quickly and read this as “Prince of Wales and Cannibalism”?
[/QUOTE]

May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit, but all new ratings are warned that if they wake up in the morning and find toothmarks at all anywhere on their bodies, they’re to tell me immediately so that I can immediately take every measure to hush the whole thing up.

-Vice Admiral Sir John Cunningham

Okay, okay, so it was actually Graham Chapman

18

Interesting questions. Charles has said he would like to be the Defender of the Faiths (some of his predecessors would have had heart attacks at the mere thought), so the OP’s scenario is marginally more likely now than it might have been in the past. Charles is practically a Buddhist already, it seems, in his views on nature and lifestyle.

Would the British public be ready for a non-Protestant monarch? I highly doubt it. Certainly anti-Catholic feeling is nowhere near what it used to be; in the bad old days, it was considered patriotic to bash the Pope and to be forever on the lookout for Romish perfidy. But the average Brit would probably still prefer an atheist or agnostic king to a Catholic, Jewish, Hindu or Sikh one.

19

[QUOTE=Giles]
In this hypothetical, the relevant Catholic priest(s) and bishop(s) would have to go along with the prince taking communion. Indeed, given the relevance to relations between the Church of Rome and the Church of England, it would be likely that the Pope would have been consulted and would have supported the action.
[/QUOTE]

I really don’t think that the Pope would go along with it.

[QUOTE=Catechism of the Catholic Church]
1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders."239 It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."240
[/QUOTE]

It goes against Roman Catholic belief and I can’t imagine a situation where it would be sanctioned by the Church. That’s just not how the RCC works. The only reason I’m pushing the point is because it seems like a key part of your hypothetical situation. I would, however, agree that the pope and other bishops may encourage the prince to participate in all parts of the Mass besides the Eucharist. He could even come up to the front with the rest of the congregation to receive a blessing. I think that would be a beautiful sign of goodwill to help reconcile strained relationships between sects of Christianity. Unfortunately, that doesn’t do much for answering the OP. Sorry for the hijack, zev_steinhardt.

20

[QUOTE=MissMossie]
I really don’t think that the Pope would go along with it.

It goes against Roman Catholic belief and I can’t imagine a situation where it would be sanctioned by the Church. That’s just not how the RCC works. The only reason I’m pushing the point is because it seems like a key part of your hypothetical situation.
[/QUOTE]

That’s fine: I was just trying to construct a reasonable hypothetical situation where it might not be clear whether the Prince of Wales had become a Roman Catholic, and so it might not be completely clear what the effect of the Act of Settlement would be.