isn’t counterantidisestablishmentarianist the same thing as disestablishmentarianist?
Not to ruin the fun though, we can still have cryptopseudodisestablishmentarianists, you know. I’ll let you know if I am one after I think that out a bit, he he.
I agree that much depends on the popularity of the monarch in question.
Monarchs (and dictators) tend to destroy or get control of all a society’s powerful institutions but the CofE is no longer the major source of power that it was. It may have a central ceremonial role, but these days it has no power and the quaint pronouncements emanating from the Archbishop are more giggled at than anything.
The English monarch doesn’t need to be in control of the CofE any more. If a popular monarch wanted to remain the monarch but announced they had no faith and that it was untenable for them to remain head of the CofE I don’t think there would be any serious constituational crisis. There is a lot of secular power in the UK that regards the lack of seperation of church and state as embarrassing in the 21st century, and would leap at the chance to modernise the country by disestablishment
But, it would be a shame if the UK gave up on coronation ceremonies like most European monarchies have. There’s nothing like that pageant in the world. And how can it play without an Archbishop?!
No shit, this would be one of many Grand Master of Small Orange Belt Buckle type roles you’d have to perform. When you grown up with the yearly ceremonial goose count I have to believe you shrug it all off as a noble.
True but, on a nitpick:
It’s not an essential element of establishment that the monarch be the head of the national church. After all, the Catholic church used to be established in a variety of countries, but the monarch - however influential - was never the head. And the Church of Scotland is established in Scotland without the monarch being the head.
The English did experiment with having non-Protestant monarch as head of the Church of England - Mary I, James II. Those experiments ended badly, of course, which led to the introduction of the must-be-a-Protestant rule. But given that the role the monarch now plays in the church is radically different from what it used to be, disestablishment isn’t the only possible response to a non-believing monarch. One is to articulate the role of “supreme governor of the Church of England” in a way which makes the monarch’s personal faith, or lack of it, redundant. Another is to retain the establishment while dispensing with the Supreme Governor.
After all, it would be anomalous if the Church of Scotland remained established while the Church of England did not. But it would be a bit rough on the CofS if it had to be distestablished because the CofE couldn’t live with a Scottish-type establishment.
I think it’s notable and incredible that although the monarch’s role in the CoE is purely nominal, the role of the government is not. The bishops of the CoE are appointed by Her Majesty on the advise of her Prime Minister! And while the monarch is constitutionally required to be Protestant, there’s no problem I’m aware of with a Catholic, atheist, or Muslim PM.
So, if the C of E were disestablished, who would choose the bishops?
Who chooses the bishops in the other branches of the Anglican Communion?
According to the wikipedia CoE article there is a special “Crown Nominations Committee” in the CoE that proposes two names to the PM, who may either select one for HM to appoint or (as margaret Thatcher did) request alternative names from the committee, and there is a proposal from Gordon Brown to have the committee in future select only one name that must be presented to HM by the PM. If the church were disestablished I suppose the committee would just appoint someone directly.
Are you sure about that? I thought that’s why Tony Blair waited until he was out of office to convert to Catholicism.
Quite to the contrary. The British Crown is bigger than any one person’s own beliefs.* If Charles or William or Harry don’t want to play ball, the next in line will succeed to the throne.
- I get that this didn’t hold for Henry VIII, but none of the three I’ve mentioned need to worry about that.
“Sir Humphrey Appleby: The Queen is inseparable from the Church of England.
Jim Hacker: And what about God?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: I think he is what is called an optional extra.”
I remember that, in the 80s, the antiirancontraantidisestablishmentarianists caused a lot of problems for the US government. I imagine it would be much worse in Britain.
No, there’s no problem with the PM being any religion (or none). The current head of the Labour Party (Tony Blair’s current successor) is jewish and a self-declared atheist, which no one gives two hoots about, and he would be Prime Minister if Labour were to win the next election. Tony Blair didn’t convert til he left office because, in stark contrast to the United States, he didn’t want his religion to become a focus or distraction rather from his work. As his Press Secretary said when Blair was once asked about his faith at a press conference ‘We Don’t Do God’. (i.e. we don’t discuss religion).
When religion was deeply involved in politics, and Europe was in something similar to the Cold War, though it was not so cold, and was between Catholic and Protestant not Communist and Capitalist, it was important for the monarch to be head of the church.
But nowadays in religiously apathetic Britain, where lip service to Christianity is more of an insurance policy then deeply held belief, (You know just in case there is something, and it doesn’t do any harm ) , I don’t think that it would worry the average man and woman in the street that much, if at all .
Just as we don’t really expect Beefeaters to protect the Tower of London against terrorists armed with their pikes, we don’t really expect the monarch to have to hold religous beliefs.
Prince Charles himself said that he would like his future title to be defender of the faiths rather then defender of the FAITH.
Americans seem to be more extreme in their Christianity then the average Brit.
Something I find ironic is; that the more strongly people tend to profess their Christianity, the less Christian they are, as in turning the other cheek, love thine enemies, judge not lest ye be judged etc.
They appear to think that they can be as intolerant, aggressive and generally uncharitable as they like, but thats all erased from the book of judement when the time comes because they turn up at church once a week and lecture everyone else on how THEY should behave.
But I’m wandering off topic here so I’ll shut up.
Speaking as a firm atheist, I have no problem with the established Church of England. It’s not doing any harm, and if it started to it would be disestablished.
I like it being established as it gives a bit of historical colour to our Constitution.
Less harmful than the Electoral College, at any rate . . .