A very interesting post at this blog on the Act of Settlement 1701 which "bars" Catholics from being Monarchs in the UK. The author quite rightly points out that a host of other religions are banned as well. The essential requirement is that the Monarch be "in communion with the Church of England." I asked the question if the Act of Union 1707 between England and Scotland had negated this provision and got this answer.
"The answer is No.
Article 11 of both Acts of Union refer to the provisions of the (English) Act of Settlement. Members of the Church of Scotland are "in communion" with the Church of England even though Scotland has its own Anglican (Episcopal) Church and England has its own Presbyterian Church (now part of the URC)
When Queen Victoria started the tradition of British Monarchs staying in Scotland at Balmoral she made a point of going to Church at the local Church of Scotland parish church a tradition continued today by Queen Elizabeth 2 who is an Anglican in England and a Presbyterian in Scotland "
If I understand this correctly there is something quite ironic going on here. Mainly centering around the fact that Queen Elizabeth 2 can be "Anglican in England and Presbyterian in Scotland".
I think it will come as a surprise to many "Free" Presbyterians, that it is infact their perceived communion with the Church of England with its many faces, from Liberalism to High Anglo Catholicism, that prevents their own denominations also being outside the pale as far as the Monarchy goes in exactly the same manner as Catholics.
Whyfor the scare quotes, CT? Free Presbyterians are free, in just the came way as the Free Church is free - from state encroachment on ecclesiastical rights.
ReplyDeleteInteresting about the CoS being "in communion with" the CoE though. But precisely because the other denominations (FC and implicitly FP) broke with the "vitiated establishment", can they even be regarded as in communion with the CoS-hence-CoE? All mightily perplexing.
And why any presbyterian worthy of the name would want to marry someone who fancies themselves to be the earthly head of the Church, would be an entirely other question!
No reason it was more emphasis than irony. If I had just written Free Presbyterians I could have been referring to one denomination. I was referring to all the "Free" (sorry! - cant help it!!) Churches.
ReplyDeleteMore importantly..it just doesn't refer to being married to the monarch, it excludes you from being the monarch. Very important point. Essentially if Presbyterians dont consider themselves in communion with the Church of England, they aint going to get the throne. Or rather they will if they are prepared to be Presbyterian in Scotland and Anglican in England!!!
ReplyDeleteSo, in effect, the Act of Settlement excludes practicing Presbyterians (as you and I know them) as much as it excludes Catholics.
:-) Ok.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you meant ""Free" presbyterian" ?! But the CoS is presbyterian! That's why i'm wondering if it must be the particular denomination's official ties to the state that determines the in-or-out of communion business.
Married, yes obviously. Shows how much interest i really take in constitutional quesitons :-) But a good presbyterian, ie strictly speaking in terms of stance on church government by presbyters not prelates, should be just as dismissive as a good Catholic of the privilege of headinig up the CoE :-)
Catherine - Funny - the possibility of you marrying one of the princes had never occurred to me before - sorry to admit to having had such little ambition for you in my mind - I can just see the headlines "Catherine renounces full commitment to Free Presbyterianism to become an 'Anglican when in England'" - Peter
ReplyDelete