The new reforms to the rules of succession to the British throne got me wondering about another possible situation: what would happen if a future monarch, or one in immediate line of succession, announced that he/she did not believe in God? The implications could be quite serious, as the British monarch is not only Head of State but Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Many Anglicans, I would have to guess, wouldn’t be happy with an avowed atheist as the head of the church, even if the monarch’s role in it has mostly become symbolic.
One could very well argue that no monarch would be willing to face the consequences of self-declared atheism and would simply grin and bear the ceremonial duties as required. But if this became intolerable and the monarch felt he/she had to be honest, how would the church and government react? Eliminate the monarch’s role from the church? Disestablish the church? Disqualify the monarch from reigning further?
I compared the situation in England with that of other Protestant monarchies:
*Denmark: the monarch is head of the Danish National Church (Lutheran) and thus required to be a member.
*Netherlands: the monarch is traditionally Dutch Reformed (currently known as the Protestant Church in the Netherlands), but apparently is not strictly required to be a member. The monarch is not the head of the church.
*Norway: the monarch is head of the Church of Norway (Lutheran) and must be a member.
*Sweden: the Church of Sweden (Lutheran) was formally disestablished in 2000. The Archbishop of Uppsala is the head. I wasn’t able to find out how that affected the question of the monarch’s religion.
So there are at least two other countries, Denmark and Norway, where an atheist monarch might cause some constitutional difficulties. (Much of the foregoing is from Wikipedia, so it may be incorrect or outdated.) For those who live in countries with a monarchy and established religion, has the question of atheism re: the sovereign ever been discussed?
Not to my knowledge. Not that anyone would give a damn. In general religion and atheism are way more an issue in America than around these parts. Why don’t you all mellow out a bit. Atheists and theists alike.
I can’t imagine anyone caring very much, to be honest. Certainly not to the extent of making any legislative or constitutional changes - monarchs are much more transient than the establishment is. In my opinion the popular response would be an overwhelming “That’s nice, dear.”
They would theoretically be required to abdicate, rather than change the constitution for them.
In practise I suspect they’d be expected to do so voluntarily rather than being forced to do so. As monarch you dont get to pick and choose which pointless symbolic tradition you do, its pretty much all or nothing.
In my opinion, it would be controversial, and there would be at least three schools of thought:
(1) Those wanting the monarch to abdicate;
(2) Those wanting the relationship between the monarchy and the established churches to be changed – with the extremists here wanting the Church of England and the Church of Scotland to be disestablished;
(3) Those who would say it doesn’t really matter, since the monarch does not make any real decisions about the Church of England and the Church of Scotland.
As an atheist non-Briton, I find myself most in sympathy with disestablishment.
I was actually reading about this on Wikipedia today, and based the interpretation of the Act of Settlement presented there, anyone not a member of the Church of England is considered “naturally dead” when it comes to succession - that is, they are no longer eligible, but their heirs may be.
As a Brit, I imagine that the media would have a field day, and the rest of us would shrug and then get on with our days.
As far as what would happen legally and religiously, I would tend to think that there would be more support for a disentangling of the Crown and the CofE than for abdication or the like. I don’t know what form it would take, but by and large again the historians and legal types have a field day while the rest of us pay little attention. I’m not sure even all Anglicans would be that bothered.
Queen Juliana reigned the Netherlands before Beatrix, and she sought the help of a faith healer called Greet Hofmans. This woman was very close to the queen, advised her in many ways (apparently including pacifist views) and obviously attempted to ‘heal’ members of the royal family.
The effects of this were:
Juliana held a speech about pacifism in the US House of Representatives, pretty weird in the midst of the cold war, and not appreciated I would’ve thought
A strain on her marriage (though her husband initially contacted Hofmans, he later disapproved). Hubby Bernard became the informant for Der Spiegel (yes, German, not Dutch), telling them about the whole thing in the hope that the scandal would mean Hofmans would have to leave. Such drama!
Bernard’s plan worked, pretty much. And the government forbade the sale of that edition of Der Speigel.
There appear to have been plans in the military to assassinate Hofmans!
Hofmans was eventually forced to leave the palace
It’s not the same as changing religion, and as the OP said, the king/queen is not the head of the church in The Netherlands anyway. But still pretty weird…
I think princess Irene of The Netherlands had to give up her place in the line of succesion when she became a Catholic (in 1964), but that was also because of her marriage, I think.
What would happen now? I think it would cause some controversy, but I doubt that either Beatrix or (in future) Willem-Alexander would have to abdicate if they announced they were atheists.
Yes, but what stops an atheist from being a member of the C of E – being “in communion with the Church of England” as the Act of Settlement puts it? I’m an atheist, but since (at the age of 12) I was baptised and confirmed in the Anglican Church in Australia, and I have not been excommunicated, I would argue that I’m “in communion with the Church of England”.
if you don’t attend the church regularly and make it common knowledge that you are an atheist, I would argue that you are not “in communion with the Church of England”
Giles has it. The legal requirement relates not to the monarch’s beliefs but to the monarch’s practice and associations. The Church of England is a pretty broad church, and there would be some - not many - Anglicans who describe themselves as “atheist”, in the sense of not believing in a personal God, but who still see transcendent spiritual value in the CofE’s faith and practice, and so continue to associate themselves with the CofE.
If the monarch announced that he could no longer be in communion with the Church of England, now, that would be a different matter. The Act of Settlement focuses on entitlement to succeed to the throne and doesn’t really address the question of a monarch who, after succeeding, alters his religious position to one which would, before he succeeded, have debarred him from succeeding. So you couldn’t point to any law which said that the monarch must abdicate, or had forfeited the throne. But I think there would be pressure to resolve an unsatisfactory situation, and the most likely outcome would be a renegotiation of the legally-required relationship between the sovereign and the Church of England.
In practice, I think that a British monarch who was strongly attracted to another religion (or who wished to avow irreligion) would abdicate with reasonable grace rather than instigate a potential constitutional crisis. Even if most of the public doesn’t care about the monarch’s private beliefs, taking any action that was widely unpopular or that shook the throne’s foundations could damage the long-term prestige of the monarchy.
Although, being a member of the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) is apparently not considered to be a conflict for the C of E’s Supreme Governor.
It was not so very long ago (from the perspective of the British monarchy) that Edward VIII was made to abdicate for going against the then standards of the C of E by marrying a divorcee. By comparison, declaring your atheism is a lot more extreme. I think abdication would be in order. Most of the British people might not care, but that is not relevant. I believe Edward had a lot of public support; it didn’t help him. There are always plenty of eager people in line for the throne.
The earlier thread addressed the position of a monarch who became a Catholic, about which there are specific statutory provisions in the Act of Settlement. A monarch who does this is deemed to have vacated the throne, in effect, and the next qualified person becomes monarch.
But there are no comparable provisions for a monarch who embraces any other religion, or who embraces irreligion.
In general, the monarch can engage with other forms of Protestantism, provided they are compatible with continuing to take communion in the Church of England at least occasionally, and no problem results. Such a person can succeed to the throne and, therefore, can continut to occupy the throne. (This is why the Queen can routinely participate in Presbyterian worship when in Scotland.)
But the the monarch embraced Orthodoxy, or a non-Christian religion, or repudiated all forms of religious practice, I think the position would not be covered by the current legislation. Presumably, this was an eventuality not contemplated in the early 18th century.
And as a theist Briton, I come down firmly on the side of antidisestablishmentarianism. high-fives Giles
Since the CoE has not too long ago managed to cope with a Bishop who publicly disavowed the Resurrection of Christ - in flat contradiction of the Nicene Creed - I think it would weather this storm too. And when Charles gets to the throne, we won’t be far off it, since he’s already said he sees himself more as a “defender of faith” than “Defender Of The Faith”; that is, he supports the individual’s right to whatever belief they prefer, including, presumably, none at all.
Oops, I think that should be counterantidisestablishmentarianists. I hope there are some around, since I’d like to see some counterantidisestablishmentarianistic arguments. I’m not British, so it doesn’t directly affect me, but I’d like to express my procounterantidisestablishmentarianist sentiments.