Dutch Reformed was in communion with COE so no issue there. James II being Catholic was a big problem and one of the things that led to the Glorious Revolution.
Apparently at that time there was no ban on the Supreme Governor being Catholic. Since there is now a ban on a Catholic being Sovereign, it is understood. But other non-protestant religions, that is a question that has never been answered because it has not needed to be, nor does it appear to be needed in the foreseeable future.
You make an interesting point there with that question. An example I would ask is - who was in fact supreme governor of the C of E while James II was on the throne? Or for that matter his son-in-law William III who was surely Dutch Reformed church?
But would they? Does the monarch have to be the Supreme Governor of the church?
For the sake of discussion let's say Prince George becomes a Buddhist when he grows up. Once he inherits the Crown. I would think he would appoint someone who was Anglican to represent the Crown as Supreme Gov.
The real question, which has never needed to be answered therefore it has not been, is what happens if a non-Protestant, but also non-Catholic comes to the Throne.
The likelihood of this situation happening is very remote as I believe the first person in the succession who fits this category is Princess Margarita of Romania who is Eastern Orthodox. Although there are a couple of Lascelles who might fall into this category as well.
The 1701 Act of Settlement only forbade a Catholic from succeeding to the throne and, until it was modified in 2013, forbade anyone in line of succession from marrying a Catholic. In theory, a Jew or a Muslim could succeed to the throne but, in practice, any future monarch would have to be in communion with the state church until the necessity for a state church is deemed no longer necessary.
266
Message Thread
« Back to index