If Elizabeth II decided to become a Catholic or a Muslim or an atheist, what happens? Is she still the Supreme Governor of the C of E? Does the doctrine of the C of E change? Does Parliament kick her ass off the throne?
Parliament would have to kick her ass off the throne or disestablish the Church of England. Neither would be an attractive prospect for a government but I think they’d go for the former.
Can the Queen say nuts to that and dismiss the government?
She can dismiss the ministers, as the current laws are set up. At which point the House of Commons begins looking up precedent from the last days of Charles I.
May I point out, however, that the last Queen of England has been in her grave for 294 years?
[Hijack]
If she’s not the Queen of England*, then who is she? The “Queen of Great Britain and the United Kingdom”?
[/Hijack]
Tripler
Seriously. And does her ‘official style’ matter?
It probably matters to her.
“Queen of the UK” or “British Queen” is generally sufficient and perfectly accurate. But Queen of England isn’t.
If the Parliament forced an abdication, would she still be queen of the Commonwealth nations?
Is she the head of all of national churches in the Anglican Communion as well? How does that work? Does each Anglican-related church have to declare her no longer head of that church, or does her deposition as head of the C of E have blanket effect?
Hmmm…
First, she has exactly as much to do with running the Church of England as she does with captaining the H.M.S. Obnoxious – it’s done “in her name” but by people officially appointed by her but in reality named to the job for quite other reasons.
Second, only in England is she in any way, shape, or form connected with the local national Anglican church as other than just another communicant. The churches in Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand-Aeteorea, etc. are autonomous, autocephalous, and disestablished. In fact, if you look at that little plaque outside any Episcopal Church here in the U.S., you’ll notice a little St. Andrew’s Cross on it, subtly making the point that when we separated, in 1784, from the Church of England, they refused to consecrate us any bishops, so we got our first bishop from the Scottish Episcopal Church, which was completely independent of George III and could consecrate Bp. Seabury for us.
As for the title, it’s much like George W. Bush, President of the Confederate States of America. (Well, he is – they’re all back in the Union, and he’s the President in every single one of them, so it must be true, right?)
More like James II, I would say. When Jimmy Stuart tossed the royal seal in the Thames and skedaddled off to France, Parliament officially ruled that he’d abdicated the throne. Parliament would probably rule the same way if a modern monarch converted. It is the law, ever since the Act of Settlement, that the British monarch must belong to the Church of England.
It depends where she is.
When she’s in Britain, carrying out her royal functions there, she is “Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith,” as per her Royal Proclamation of 1953. Short form: Queen of the United Kingdom.
However, when she visits one of her other Commonwealth realms, she uses the Royal Style and Titles of that country. So when she’s in Canada, for example, she is: “Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith,” as per the Royal Styles and Titles Act enacted by the Parliament of Canada. Short form: Queen of Canada.
Furthermore, the Crown of Canada is independent from the Crown of the UK and the Crowns of the other Commonwealth Realms. All of the Commonwealth Realms’ Crowns are mutually independent. Theoretically Canada could set up a completely-separate royalty, or none at all. I would not be at all surprised to find a rule that said, “Until other arrangements are made, the succession of the Crown of Canada will follow that of the UK.”
If they went by the precedent of James II, she would be kicked off the throne and it would go to the next non-Catholic in the line of succession (in this case, Prince Charles, unless he converted too). That’s why James II’s son, James Stuart (aka The Old Pretender) was passed over in favor of his half sister Mary when James II was kicked out.
This isn’t unique to England, by the way. Queen Christina of Sweden had to abdicate in order to publicly convert to Catholicism.
AIUI, though, hostility toward Catholicism and fear of a Catholic monarch bringing in papal rule in present-day Great Britain isn’t what it was in 1688. Things might not shake out quite the same way today.
Strictly, there’s only a problem if she becomes a Roman Catholic, i.e., an adherent of the church headed by the Pope. Anglicans regard themselves as member of the Catholic Church, just not that part of the Catholic Church led by the See of Rome. (Of course, there’s a problem in terminology here, since the followers of the Pope regard other sects within the Christian church as not being part of the Catholic Church.)
I’m not sure that there would be a problem with an atheist monarch of the UK. Of course, the joke is that being an atheist is no impediment to becoming a clergyman or a bishop within the Anglican Church, but an atheist monarch could just stop taking Holy Communion. There might be some outrage in the Tory press, but most British people probably wouldn’t care much – and in order to force the monarch off the throne, Parliament would have to explicitly change the law.
Similarly, there’s no explicit legal impediment to the monarch become a Muslim, probably because such a strange thing was out of possible contemplation back in the 17th century. However, I would think that a devout Muslim would find it impossible to occupy the position of Head of the Church of England, and would want therefore to abdicate.
If they didn’t, I think that public opinion would be strongly against it, and Parliament would quickly pass a law against a Muslim British monarch – though there would be a supportive minority, who would point to the large number of Muslim British subjects, and ask instead for disestablishment of the Church of England and of the Church of Scotland.
Not quite. The Act of Settlement does explicitly exclude Roman Catholics as follows:
But it also imposes the requirement:
That’s the tricky bit for an atheist or Muslim.
I don’t see why. The Church of England probably shelters many an atheist, actually. Except for the very devout, it’s pretty much the British equivalent of the Rotary Club, isn’t it? “We switched from St. Mary’s to St. Austell-in-the-Moor. They serve a better vintage at communion…”
Either one of those titles will do… or Brenda
Obviously the problem can be avoided if the monarch simply doesn’t tell anyone they don’t actually believe in the doctrines of the Church of England. And this might well be the course of action they would decide to take. (Indeed there are historical precidents for this sort of behavior: Charles II probably falls into this category and there’s Henri IV cynically deciding that "Paris vaut bien une messe ".) But the thread title isn’t “What happens if the Queen of England converts, but doesn’t tell anyone?”
In the hypothetical, Rowan Williams might well be able to come up with a rationale that allows him to declare an openly atheist or Muslim monarch still happily in communion with the Church of England and solve the matter that way, but there would be a problem to be got around.
Most of the bishops are agnostic at best. They’re usually drawn from, if not the laity, then at least the lapsed- University deans, public servants and such.
Vicars rarely (if ever) become bishops.
Still, there are appearances to be upheld, and part of HM’s coronation vows is a bit about defending the CoE, which is one of the things that would make disestablishment so tricky.
Does the Queen attend services every week?
The Crown’s online information services are pretty silent on the subject, but she makes a point of spending virtually every Sunday at Windsor, so I would guess yes.