But since the monarch is the head of the Church of England, I would think he or she WOULD have to eventually convert to Anglicanism.
He “shall joyn in Communion with the Church of England as by Law established”.
But does that mean the monarch is required by law to join the CoE or that as a matter of law the monarch is, ex officio, a member of the CoE whether they actually take Communion or actively practice another religion?
It means the former. Remember, it was directed at James II who, although the head of the CofE, as a Catholic would not take the sacrament at the hands of an Anglican minister.
In fact the coronation service takes place within an Anglican eucharist - the coronation happens just after the recitiation of the creed. When the coronation proper has been completed the eucharis proceeds, so in fact the king takes communion within a few minutes of being crowned.
Speculation about Charles not being king has been going on for years but there’s another thorny issue looming that concerns the gender of William and Kate’s first child, assuming they have one.
If it’s a girl then it will stir up the whole succession debate. If it’s a boy then he will be next in line after his dad but if it’s a girl then I think she comes after all the males further up the tree. That would be after Harry, any sons he might have by then, and then I think it would be Charles’ brothers if they’re still around and their sons.
If it’s a boy then everyone will breath a sign of relief and the problem will be sweep under the carpet for another generation like it was when William was born.
That’s not how succession works for the British crown.
The throne goes through the oldest male child of the monarch, then to any living children of that male, before going to any of that child’s uncles.
If William and Kate have a female child, she is higher in succession than Harry or any of Charles’ brothers. That female child could only be displaced in the succession if William and Kate subsequently had a male child.
This can be seen in the case of Queen Victoria, who inherited the throne as the only living child of George III’s fourth son (Prince Edward, Duke of Kent). While there were several additional younger sons of George III, they were all lower in the succession than the female child of a son higher in the succession.
There is one possible thorny issue that could arise, and that is whether or not the succession should continue to favor males over females (which discriminates against females, of course). There was some talk about abolishing this practice a few years ago, but it was never done, and the matter is currently off the table. It could possibly be brought up again if William and Kate were to have a female first-born child, though.
Only insofar as Protestant is defined as “not RCC”; there are people who don’t consider CoE as Protestant and reserve the term for less-Catholicy Churches. The way the laws are phrased, the Monarch of the UK could be Orthodox - that might cause some headaches, though.
and also in the case of Queen Elizabeth herself - she had several uncles, but they were younger than her father, George VI, and therefore she had priority in the line of succession.
I seem to recall hearing that the queen has expressed interest in the idea of women inheriting equally with men according to their birth order instead of all brothers going ahead of all sisters. I can’t recall whether anyone took this suggestion seriously.
Except, by law, the monarch has to become a member of the CoE.
Nobody defines Protestant as “not RCC”, and there is no accepted classification by which Orthodox Christians are considered Protestant either by Orthodox Christians themselves or by Protestants. The British monarch cannot be Orthodox.
The C of E considers itself Protestant and is considered Protestant by English law and social custom. Note, though, that to succeed to the throne it is not necessary to be a member of the C of E; just a Protestant who will “join in communion” with the Anglican church. George I was a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Hannover when he succeeded to the crown.
But isn’t the monarch considered to be the Head of the C of E?
Yes, but you don’t have to be an Anglican to be head of the C of E. Mary Tudor was a Catholic. So was James VII and II. Mary used her position to try and steer the C of E back towards Romanism (or to try and impose Romanism on the C of E, depending on your point of view). James, not so much.
Since the Act of Settlement, only one person has succeeded to the throne who wasn’t already in the C of E. That was George I, and from the time of his accession he worshipped primarily or exclusively in the C of E. This is usually referred to as “conforming” to the C of E, and is a as close to “membership” as the C of E gets. It’s not like a club with an application form and an admission fee.
And most (though not all) people who have married anyone reasonably high up in the line of succession have similarly conformed to the C of E.
If this continues, the likelihood of an active member of another religion or denomination coming to the throne is fairly remote.
UDS is correct. This after all was a time when most other public officeholders in England had to take Anglican communion in order to qualify themselves to hold their offices. This was therefore little more than an extension of the ‘Test’ to the office of king.
But whether the monarch must take communion at the coronation is one of those details that remains unclear. Admittedly, the one precedent against doing so is James II, which, in this particular context, isn’t exactly the strongest example. The practical issue would be more that not taking communion in such a visible way could be interpreted as good evidence that the monarch was not in communion with the Church of England.
And, of course, the wiggle-room in the wording of the Act of Settlement by which the monarch only had to conform to the Church of England after succeeding was drafted with George I and his mother specifically in mind.
The other bit of wiggle-room in the clause is that it doesn’t exclude the monarch remaining in communion with another church (other than the Roman Catholic Church). Again, that’s because they had to make allowance for the fact that the new monarch might be a non-Anglican elsewhere. The existing king, William III, was an Anglican when in England but a Calvinist in the Netherlands, and George I would revert to being a Lutheran whenever he went back to Hanover.
What that loophole has since made possible is the convention that the monarch is also a member of the Church of Scotland and therefore a Presbyterian when in Scotland. The present Queen has only ever attended one Episcopalian church service north of the Border and it would be unthinkable for her to receive Anglican communion there. It has even been suggested that the same principle applies to other members of the Royal Family and it was on the basis that she was already a Presbyterian that Princess Anne’s second wedding was held at Crathie in 1992.
By convention, Parliament only debates bills affecting the royal prerogative with the permission of the monarch. Several Private Member’s bills proposing this change have been introduced in recent years and the Queen has always given that permission. However, that’s just a formality, granted on the advice of the Government and granted even when the Government, never mind the Queen, disagrees with the contents of the bill.
But there have also been some off-the-record suggestions that the Queen personally has no objection. It’s not as if she’s going to be affected.
Tiny quibble; I think the other church would have to be Protestant. So Reformed, Lutheran, Presbyterian are all fine, and as you point out there are precedents. But Orthodox, Oriental, Mormon, JW etc would be a problem, as well as Catholic.
Again, that’s because they had to make allowance for the fact that the new monarch might be a non-Anglican elsewhere. The existing king, William III, was an Anglican when in England but a Calvinist in the Netherlands, and George I would revert to being a Lutheran whenever he went back to Hanover.
What that loophole has since made possible is the convention that the monarch is also a member of the Church of Scotland and therefore a Presbyterian when in Scotland. The present Queen has only ever attended one Episcopalian church service north of the Border and it would be unthinkable for her to receive Anglican communion there. It has even been suggested that the same principle applies to other members of the Royal Family and it was on the basis that she was already a Presbyterian that Princess Anne’s second wedding was held at Crathie in 1992.
I think the real obstacle is not any concern of the Queen’s, but the fact that any such legislation could only be passed with the consent of the Parliaments of all the Commonwealth realms. And they all have pressures on their parliamentary time, and governments with their own legislative priorities, and the UK government would have to employ a good deal of diplomatic time and capital to get them to address this, and the UK Government really doesn’t want to have to do that. Plus, it’s quite possible that one or two of them would decide that the best way to avoid ever being bothered with this again would be to take the opportunity to stop being Commonwealth realms, and elect a President like everybody else. So the usual view is that this pot is best left unstirred.
Whether to continue favoring male over female heirs to the throne has also been a recurring issue in Japan: Japanese imperial succession debate - Wikipedia
Incidentally and FWIW, Prince William has said, through a Palace flack, that he has no intention of leapfrogging over dear ol’ Dad to land on the throne: AOL - News, Politics, Sports, Mail & Latest Headlines - AOL.com
The Queen has given Prince William three titles on the occasion of his wedding: Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus: William, Prince of Wales - Wikipedia
Minor correction needed here. Prince Philip did in fact “have” a surname, one he adopted in the 1940s: “Mountbatten” – he gave up the style “Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark” when he accepted British citizenship, and became Philip Mountbatten. couple of years later, he married the King’s daughter, and was created Duke of Edinburgh.
“Battenberg” was a cadet branch of the House of Hesse, resulting from a Grand Duke’s second son’s morganatic marriage, back numerous generations. Prince Louis of Battenberg, a British subject and formerly First Sea Lord, adopted “Mountbatten” as an Englishing of the name in 1917, at the behest of King George, who was simultaneously changing his House name from Saxe-Coburg-und-Gotha to Windsor. He was made Marquess of Milford Haven at about that time.
Prince Philip, however, is not a Mountbatten in the male line; he chose to use his mother’s maiden name in its Anglicized form when he became a British subject. The [del]Prince[/del] Louis [del]of Battenberg[/del] Mountbatten of the previous paragraph had a daughter Alice, who married Prince Andrew of Greece. And the Greeks had chosen a son of the Danish king Christian IX as their monarch, George I. Andrew was his son. So by male descent, William (the new Duke of Cambridge) is the son of Charles (Prince of Wales), the son of Philip (Duke of Edinburgh), the son of Andrew (the late Prince of Greece and Denmark), the son of George I (King of Greece), the son of Christian IX (King of Denmark), and as you said a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg … but not because the Mountbatten family is part of that house. Only two persons named Mountbatten ever were, and that’s Prince Philip and his mother, and her by marriage.
Interesting! So, can we expect the next British King to assert claims to the Danish and Greek crowns. 