iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Royal Wedding Emphasizes Church-State Ties

Royal Wedding Church And State

First Posted: 04/25/11 10:46 PM ET Updated: 06/25/11 06:12 AM ET

By Trevor Grundy
Religion News Service

CANTERBURY, England (RNS) When Prince William and Kate Middleton walk down the aisle at Westminster Abbey on Friday (April 29), Britain's unique and historic ties between church and state will be on full display.

Some here think -- even hope -- it could also be the last powerful stroll for church and state in this increasingly secular country.

As the Dean of Westminster, the Very Rev. John Hall, and Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams prepare to conduct and solemnize the wedding of the century, both Christians and prominent and powerful nonbelievers are raising their voices and demanding disestablishment of the Church of England that has dominated religious life here for 400 years.

In a special message issued for the royal nuptials, Williams underscored the historic ties between the church and state in England.

"Since about 1300," he said, "the archbishops of Canterbury have had their London residence here in Lambeth Palace. The view from Lambeth Palace is straight across to the House of Parliament, Big Ben and, of course, Westminster Abbey."

In a powerful measure of Britain's unique marriage of church and state, the parliament's House of Lords contains 26 Lords Spiritual, all of them unelected men who also serve as bishops in the Church of England.

The assembled royals and bishops inside Westminster Abbey will reflect the close ties on both sides. Williams was appointed by Elizabeth in 2003 -- her fifth appointment to Canterbury in nearly 60 years -- on the recommendation of former Prime Minister Tony Blair.

He, in turn, or his successor will one day crown the next monarch.

The queen became "Supreme Governor" and "Defender of the Faith" of the Church of England when she ascended the throne in 1952 -- a title established in 1562 after King Henry VIII broke with Rome in 1534.

"We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious Zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in the Unity of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace," the preface to the church's Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion states.

Assuming he one day assumes the throne, William, too, will hold the same power to appoint bishops and archbishops.

By law, the monarch must be an Anglican and confirmed member of the Church of England. Middleton was confirmed in the Church of England on March 10 at a private ceremony held at a London palace.

Current Prime Minister David Cameron has expressed support "in principle" for scrapping the 1701 Law of Settlement restricting access to the throne by non-Catholics -- a move Anglican leaders strongly oppose.

The 1701 law also forbids heirs to the throne from marrying Catholics, on the idea that their royal offspring who are raised as Catholics would be forced to choose between loyalty to Rome and loyalty to the Church of England.

The presumed heir to the throne, Charles, Prince of Wales, is the longest serving heir apparent in history, but opinion polls suggest most Britons want to see William succeed his grandmother as sovereign.

For his part, William has expressed little concern about or commitment to either the Church of England or Christianity. Those close to the couple say they are, like their peers, quietly indifferent about religion.

A theologian who did not want to have his name used publicly quipped at a recent reception at Lambeth Palace: "Ever since Saul, David and Solomon, the Church of England's ideal of a monarch is a man or woman with one eye on their subjects, the other on heaven."

For the most part, the queen leaves church operations to the Archbishop of Canterbury and other bishops, who have struggled in recent years to keep the Church of England intact despite deep differences over a move to allow female bishops.

Williams, too, has wrestled with an independent-minded American flock in the Episcopal Church over the election of gay bishops. In former British colonies, Williams has wrestled for control with conservative archbishops who see themselves as leaders of the so-called "Global South" church.

When Elizabeth, 85, dies, many observers expect calls for the disestablishment of the church to grow, and perhaps succeed. Williams, the former archbishop of Wales, has indicated he's not scared by the idea.

"I spent 10 years working in a disestablished Church (the Church of Wales) and I can see that it's by no means the end of the world if the establishment disappears," he told the left-leaning New Statesman magazine in 2008.

This story was corrected from an earlier version that misidentified Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall as a Roman-Catholic.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST RELIGION

By Trevor Grundy Religion News Service CANTERBURY, England (RNS) When Prince William and Kate Middleton walk down the aisle at Westminster Abbey on Friday (April 29), Britain's unique and historic...
By Trevor Grundy Religion News Service CANTERBURY, England (RNS) When Prince William and Kate Middleton walk down the aisle at Westminster Abbey on Friday (April 29), Britain's unique and historic...
Filed by Bryan Maygers  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 72
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:21 PM on 05/02/2011
“In a powerful measure of Britain's unique marriage of church and state…” How is this ‘power’ manifested? There is no power beyond a symbolic relationship. Royal prerogatives, and the appointemnt of bishops, etc, are subservient to the British government through the office of the Prime Minister.

The monarchy and Church have no relevance, and less influence (excepting the 26), on the State in a secular, liberal democracy. Disestablishment? Will anyone notice a difference? No. However, a self-financing – not tax-payer subsidised - funding of the monarchy would be an obvious benefit. Hail to Cromwell.
03:59 PM on 05/01/2011
I was Catholic so I've always ignored this fact anyway.
Whatever.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
07:38 AM on 04/30/2011
There is absolutely no reason to have bishops siting in the lords, and excellent reason to cast them out.

Nevertheless, the church of england is a largely harmless institution that provides a basic and competent mumbling facility on these occasions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Freddie27
Liberal Gay Jewish Atheist
06:10 PM on 04/27/2011
Wait! Americans are lecturing others about secular government. Don't make me laugh.
photo
European1919
I am the PigmⒶn
01:13 AM on 04/27/2011
It is called the "Act of Settlement", not the Law of Settlement. Filed in 1700, enacted in 1701, so both dates are admissible.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grailknight
is happily godless
08:51 PM on 04/26/2011
Wow, for all the people who have stated on this post that they don't have an excremental care about this upcoming wedding, why did you bother reading and commenting?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grailknight
is happily godless
08:46 PM on 04/26/2011
Actually the title "Defender of the Faith" was bestowed on Henry by Pope Leo X as a reward for a treatise Henry wrote condemming Lutheranism. Henry embrace the Protestant spirit as a way of ensuring succession through mail primogeniture, and making himself the head of the church in England.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jokamachi
12:24 AM on 04/27/2011
Educate those half-wit Brits!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grailknight
is happily godless
12:33 AM on 04/27/2011
My spelling embarasses me, "mail primogeniture!"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AJ39
06:17 PM on 04/27/2011
Your are right about when Henry VIII received the title "Defender of the Faith." However you are incorrect when you say that" Henry embraced the Protestant spirit . . ." . Henry never embraced Protestantism. He remained a Catholic, just not a ROMAN Catholic. And his declaring himself as Head of the English Church was unrelated to wishing for a son and heir to be king. English law has never had a prohibition against women becoming monarchs. It has always had a strong preference for male monarch, though. It was not until the last of the Stewart monarchs that an order of succession was spelled out in law - that document made a prohibition against a member of the Catholic faith becoming a monarch of England and also specified that male heirs take precedence over female heirs to inherit the throne, even though the female heirs may be older. This practice was followed by Henry VIII himself. He specified that his youngest heir, Edward, become king and following him, if Edward had no heirs, his daughter Mary and then his daughter Elizabeth. This is exactly what happened (except for the 9 day reign of Jane Grey).

I assume that the writer of the article is referring to the date when "Defender of the Faith" was restored to the English monarchy. When Henry VIII split from the Roman Church, his title was revoked by Rome. The title was later restored to the British monarchy by Parliament.

And, incidently,male, no "mail"l!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grailknight
is happily godless
06:46 PM on 04/27/2011
The fact that Henry closed all the monastaries in England was an act of PROTEST, the root work of Protestant. Henry didn't embrace Lutheranism. Henry didn have Ann Boleyn executed under a flimsy charge of adultery while he pursued an adulterous relationship with Jane Seymour who gave him the much desired son. Male primogeniture may not have been spelled out until the Stuarts, but it was a custom observed from time immemorial.

BTW, if you had bothered to look at the entire thread, you would have seen my acknowledgement of my spelling gaffe, o holier than I.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jokamachi
06:48 PM on 04/26/2011
We fought a revolutionary war so I could have the right not to care one iota about this nonsense.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
deluk
disgusted.
07:14 PM on 04/26/2011
Yes and you've surrounded yourselves with even more nonsense than we could ever have bequeathed you.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jokamachi
12:23 AM on 04/27/2011
Well, if you care for a rematch....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Redgriffin
01:05 PM on 04/26/2011
As a member if a Disestablished Church myself I've got sat it does make for some great arguments with the mother church and you get to reflect your members better.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
papagroove
07:44 AM on 04/26/2011
Still living by a decision Henry 8 made... yea.. great role model there. How many times did he "change" england's religion to fit his personal love life?
the Royal Family is simply a carnival attraction at this point... why anyone puts up with this nonsense is beyond me.
06:00 PM on 04/26/2011
Henry VIII did not change the theology of the church much. He was quite "Catholic" except for the dispute with the papacy. The real English Reformation was spearheaded by Protestant clergymen within the church, who made sure that the Roman errors were purged.

For many centuries the Church of England was decidedly Protestant, although it kept an episcopal structure.

Unfortunately, in the 1800's the Oxford Movement brought too much of a Romeward drift to the Church of England.
07:44 AM on 04/26/2011
What rot. I'd say neither the church nor the royalty are necessary.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jokamachi
12:25 AM on 04/27/2011
You're halfway there...
08:52 AM on 04/27/2011
Especially the church.
photo
JeremyGold
I prefer macro bios
05:23 AM on 04/26/2011
Wow. Only ever had one previous chance to do this legitimately. (Cough)....here goes...

Personally, I always felt that the antidisestablishmentarianism movement has failed to truly understand the effect of the historical links between Royalty and the Church and, more importantly, the somewhat quaint tradition vis a vis the Queen being head of the church in a modern secular multicultural society.

See what I did there?
photo
Indigo1941
Time traveler.
06:45 AM on 04/26/2011
You used antidisestabllishmentariansm in a sentence. Good job!
photo
JeremyGold
I prefer macro bios
07:21 AM on 04/26/2011
Yeah. Lol. I feel so proud, but somehow dirty as well.
photo
ydnas639
I want my country forward
09:23 AM on 04/26/2011
Yeah, you're a regular floccinaucinihilipilificator, bud.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jokamachi
12:25 AM on 04/27/2011
Enjoying celibacy much?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Luke McIntosh
04:35 AM on 04/26/2011
Yeah I'm not sure how they expect to disestablish the church when the monarch is the head of it. But even if they manage it, it won't change anything.

At any rate, the system has worked for hundreds of years and from experience, the UK is now probably one of the most tolerant western societies, even more so than their US cousins.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Montanagrl
Came to believe.....
05:46 AM on 04/26/2011
Pretty much all of Europe is more tolerant than the United States.
photo
Indigo1941
Time traveler.
06:45 AM on 04/26/2011
Except for the Moslem thing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Shanard
05:44 PM on 04/26/2011
Tolerant towards white LGBTQ maybe...ethnic minorities...? Not so much.
photo
DavidBlackburn
Recovering Republican since 1995.
03:57 AM on 04/26/2011
What country really has separation of church and state? In the United States, we have the National Cathedral? France who prides itself on separation of church and state, but is the owner of practically all the churches and maintains them for the Vatican, while curbing the rights of women to dress as they choose?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NYJedi
08:13 AM on 04/27/2011
The name is a little tricky because the National Cathedral was built and is run by The Episcopal Church (the American offshoot of the Church of England). It's open to and hosts all kinds of religious services, but it's not run on federal funds.
photo
peacekitten
primum non nocere.
03:41 AM on 04/26/2011
this is one of the most absurd headlines this site has put up in a very long time.  way to humiliate yourselves in public.
Chauncey1186
EMAILGATE!!!
07:00 AM on 04/26/2011
Couldn't agree more. Apparently the author has no clue as to what the term "divine right of kings" means.