A Changing World

Half of the population of modern-day Britain professes other religions or does not belong to any religious denomination at all [2]. King Charles III has therefore openly expressed his desire to be a monarch who rules a multi-faith nation with equal respect for all citizens [2]. During a special address to more than thirty religious leaders at Buckingham Palace, he emphasized that he has a personal duty to protect the country’s diversity [2].

As early as 1994, Charles indicated that he would prefer to use the title of protector of faith in general, rather than of any one specific faith [2]. In his message, he highlighted the positive influence of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and gurdwaras on British society as a whole [2]. From his position as monarch, he declared that his work must necessarily include safeguarding the space for faith itself and the values by which people are guided [2].

Although the king has no actual pastoral duties within the church and is not ordained, he formally appoints archbishops, bishops, and deans on the advice of the prime minister [18]. However, the Archbishop of Canterbury remains the church’s supreme spiritual leader and is currently the head of the worldwide Anglican Communion [17]. To understand this unique phenomenon of the interconnection between the Crown and the Church, we must go back to the turbulent 16th century [7].

Six Wifes and No Pope

The English Reformation began primarily for the personal and political reasons of King Henry VIII, who desperately needed a male heir [7]. His first wife, Catherine of Aragon, bore him only a daughter, Mary, and the king naturally feared that without a son, the Tudor line would die out [7]. Moreover, Henry was passionately in love with the court lady Anne Boleyn, who, however, refused to become his mistress and demanded a proper marriage [7].

The king argued that his marriage to Catherine, the widow of his brother Arthur, was forbidden according to the biblical book of Leviticus and went against God’s will [7]. In 1527, he therefore asked Pope Clement VII to annul the marriage so that he could remarry immediately [7]. However, the pope rejected this extremely ill-timed request because he feared it would undermine his own authority and provoke the wrath of Catherine’s nephew, the influential Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, whose rebellious soldiers—among whom were already many followers of Martin Luther—had just sacked Rome and nearly killed the pope in the process [7].

After years of fruitless diplomacy, Henry used Parliament to permanently assert royal authority over the Church of England [9]. In 1533, Parliament passed a law prohibiting appeals in legal cases outside the territory of England, which finally allowed the Archbishop of Canterbury to annul the marriage [9]. Subsequently, in 1534, the Act of Supremacy was passed, which formally abolished papal authority and declared the king the supreme head of the Church of England [9].

Behind Henry’s actions lay a desire for absolute power and the vast revenues then held by the Catholic Church [7]. With the help of reform-minded advisors such as Thomas Cromwell and Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, the king began to radically reshape religious life in the country [7]. This had fatal consequences for the laity, as refusal to take the new oath of allegiance to the king was often punished by immediate execution [4].

It Wasn’t Just the Communists Who Closed Monasteries

Beginning in 1535, royal commissioners began ruthlessly closing both small and large monasteries based on often fabricated evidence of corruption [7]. In total, around 800 religious houses were dissolved, and their vast estates—which accounted for one-third of the country’s land—were forfeited to the Crown [7]. This was the largest redistribution of property in England since the Norman Conquest, through which the king generously rewarded his loyal advisors [7].

This revolution was not welcomed by the general population, and many English people actively rejected these drastic changes, leading to several armed uprisings that were brutally suppressed [4]. Royal decrees led to the destruction of popular shrines, such as the statue of the Virgin Mary in Walsingham, and to the irretrievable loss of ancient texts [4]. One positive development, however, was the 1538 decree requiring parishes to purchase an English Bible, making it accessible to ordinary people for the first time [7].

After Henry’s death, the country became the scene of bloody struggles between evangelical and conservative factions [7]. Although the brief reign of his son, Edward VI, brought about a radical Reformation, after his death the Catholic Queen Mary returned to the throne [16]. This transitional period was marked by the burning of martyrs on both sides and harsh criminal laws against religious opponents [10].

Conflict with Spain

The establishment of an independent church also had an extremely significant impact on British foreign policy. The schism with Rome meant that England remained economically and politically cut off from what was then a powerful Catholic Europe [7]. Had Henry remained a devout Catholic, the later Anglo-Spanish War would likely never have occurred, as its causes were purely religious [4].

On the other hand, England’s new Protestant identity enabled it to enter into armed conflicts on the side of other Protestant states [4]. Without English assistance, for example, the famous Thirty Years’ War would likely have been a much shorter and less successful conflict for the Protestants [4]. Thanks to this political direction, Britain was subsequently able to successfully thwart French efforts to dominate Europe until 1815 [4].

The King versus Parliament

Domestic religious strife culminated in the 17th century with a civil war that began in 1642 [11]. The Puritans, who sought to purify the church, stood in sharp opposition to conservative factions striving to preserve traditional beliefs and the episcopacy [11]. The bishops also served as state censors and sat in the House of Lords, which ultimately led to their forcible expulsion from Parliament [12].

After the defeat of the Royalists in 1646, the episcopate was formally abolished and the Anglican liturgy itself was outlawed [13]. It was not until the later restoration of the Stuarts to the throne in 1660 that the church saw a partial restoration to a form resembling the golden Elizabethan era [14]. However, the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688 brought a definitive end to the hopes of Catholics, when the Catholic King James II, the younger son of the executed Charles I, was forced to flee the country [5].

This upheaval led to the adoption of important constitutional laws that forever changed the line of British succession. At the turn of the century, the daughter of the exiled James, Queen Anne, reigned; despite having many children, she had no living heir at the end of her life [1]. To prevent Catholics from regaining power, the English Parliament passed the pivotal Act of Settlement in 1701 [5].

Succession is determined by law

This historic law permanently established that the British monarch must be a Protestant without exception and may not marry a Catholic [5]. If the heir to the throne were to reconcile with the Roman Catholic Church, the subjects would immediately be relieved of their constitutional duty to serve and obey him [5]. After Anne, the throne was to pass automatically to Electress Sophia of Hanover, the granddaughter of King James I, and to her legitimate Protestant descendants [5].

As a result of this law, more than fifty blood relatives of Queen Anne were excluded from the line of succession solely because of their Catholic faith [1]. Sophia of Hanover ultimately died two months before Anne, so the crown was unexpectedly inherited by her German son, King George I [5]. The new Act also dramatically reduced the monarch’s power by making his travels abroad and the declaration of war subject to parliamentary approval [5].

The Act of Settlement of 1701 also limited foreign influence by prohibiting foreigners from serving on the Privy Council and in Parliament [5]. The independence of the judiciary was guaranteed by a new rule stipulating that judges could be removed only by Parliament itself, thereby protecting them by law from the king’s wrath [5]. These strict rules definitively laid the stable foundations for a modern constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system of government in Britain [5].

The Act of Succession remained in effect in virtually unchanged form for an impressive three hundred years, until its inevitable modernization took place. The Succession Act of 2013 definitively ended the system of giving preference to male descendants for all royal children born after October 2011 [5]. Likewise, the strict rule under which family members who married a Roman Catholic were automatically excluded from the line of succession was repealed [5].

However, the monarch’s fundamental constitutional duty to be in communion with the Church of England and to maintain the Protestant faith remained in full force [5]. As a result of this change in the law, George Windsor, Earl of St. Andrews—who had married a Catholic as early as 1988—returned to 34th place in the line of succession [5]. But what would have happened to the British throne if the Reformation had never taken place in the 16th century and England had remained Catholic forever?

Who would have reigned instead of Charles?

According to supporters of the so-called Jacobite line of succession, the history of the monarchy would have looked completely different [15]. These supporters believe that, following the death of the deposed King James II, the crown should have passed through the Catholic line according to the historical rule of male primogeniture [15]. The last direct descendant of James II died in 1807, and the legitimate claim to the throne passed to the heirs of King Charles I’s daughter [20].

Today, this alternative Catholic line is represented by Prince Franz, Duke of Bavaria, who was born in 1933 [6]. According to Jacobite principles, he is the rightful ruler of England, Scotland, and Ireland, although he himself does not actively assert this historical claim [19]. His spokesperson has clearly stated that he considers this hereditary position to be a purely hypothetical matter that does not concern the Duke of Bavaria at all [15].

In addition to Duke Franz, this complex line of succession also includes Prince Max of Bavaria and his niece, Hereditary Princess Sophie of Liechtenstein [6]. A representative of a collateral branch of this family is the current Spanish Grandee Carlos Fitz-James Stuart, the 12th Duke of Alba [6]. So if England had remained loyal to the Catholic Church, the British Empire would likely be ruled today by a German aristocrat instead of Charles.

The reality, however, is different, and the modern British monarchy stands on a solid foundation of compromises and historic parliamentary decisions from the 18th century. King Charles III carries on the legacy of these changes with immense respect for the past, yet with a clear eye fixed on the future. His sincere efforts to act as a protector of all faiths demonstrate that even the role of Supreme Governor of the state church can adapt to a modern and diverse world [2].

List of References

[1] Exploring the British Line of Succession: From Glorious Revolution to Gender Equality | Guide London https://www.guidelondon.org.uk/blog/british-monarchy/british-line-of-succession

[2] King Charles III - Faith and beliefs - Christianity https://www.christianity.org.uk/article/king-charles-iii-faith-and-beliefs

[3] Q&A: Anglicanism and the Monarchy - Juicy Ecumenism https://juicyecumenism.com/2022/09/08/anglicanism-monarchy

[4] If there were a Catholic British monarch, would that be the end of the UK? https://www.quora.com/If-there-was-a-Catholic-British-monarch-would-that-be-the-end-of-the-UK

[5] Act of Settlement of 1701 | Background, Provisions, Facts & Worksheets https://schoolhistory.co.uk/early-modern/act-of-settlement-1701

[6] Jacobite succession facts for kids https://kids.kiddle.co/Jacobite_succession

[7] The Break with Rome – Henry VIII: Defender of the Faith? https://stories.sal.org.uk/henryviii/the-break-with-rome

[8] [1] Canon A 7 “Of the Royal Supremacy”

[9] Shagan 2017, pp. 29–31.

[10] Anglican and Episcopal History. Historical Society of the Episcopal Church. 2003. p. 15. Others had made similar observations; Patrick McGrath commented that the Church of England was not a middle way between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, but “between different forms of Protestantism,” and William Monter described the Church of England as “a unique style of Protestantism, a via media between the Reformed and Lutheran traditions.” MacCulloch has described Cranmer as seeking a middle way between Zurich and Wittenberg but elsewhere remarks that the Church of England was “nearer Zurich and Geneva than Wittenberg.”

[11] Helmholz 2003, p. 102.

[12] Wedgwood 1983, p. 31.

[13] King 1968, pp. 523–537.

[14] Miller, John (1978). *James II: A Study in Kingship*. Menthuen. pp. 172–173. ISBN 978-0413652904.

[15] Richard Alleyne; Harry de Quetteville (April 7, 2008). "Act repeal could make Franz Herzog von Bayern new King of England and Scotland". Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on June 17, 2008. Retrieved June 22, 2008.

[16] Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 1, Chapter 3: “Of the King, and His Title” (1765–69), Sir William Blackstone

[17] [PDF] The Roles of The King https://media.rct.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Teacher%20Presentation%20Notes_What%20is%20the%20role%20of%20our%20King.pdf

[18] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Governor_of_the_Church_of_England

[19] Franz, Duke of Bavaria. The British Museum. © 2020 The Trustees of the British Museum.

[20] Encyclopaedia Britannica: A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature and General Information, 11th ed., New York: Encyclopaedia Britannica Co., 1911.