My father’s Commission from World War II is kept in our home and will be passed down to the next generation (along with my husband’s, similarly worded) from Queen Elizabeth II.
Some years before inheriting the throne, the then Prince Charles, on being asked about that ancient title “Defender of the Faith”—conferred, of course, by a Pope on King Henry VIII, in one of the ironies of history—reflected that he would see himself rather as simply “defender of faith”. This caused a minor stir at the time and is still quoted with indignation by friends who enjoy being angry about this perceived lapse from loyalty to Christianity.
I am not so sure. As Prince of Wales and now more significantly since coming to the throne, King Charles has been an outspoken defender of Christians persecuted for their faith. This Advent, he led the congregation at a special service of prayer for the Christians of Iraq who have suffered cruelly at the hands of ISIS (Daesh). The service, held at London’s famous Farm Street Jesuit Church, was organized by the international Catholic charity Aid to the Church in Need. It was a powerful experience to be there, along with the Papal Nuncio, our Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, and a large congregation, listening to a Chaldean choir and hearing a prayer in Aramaic, the language Our Lord himself would have spoken while on earth. And we sang “Dear Lord and Father of mankind” with its line about those very first Christians “beside the Syrian sea”.
At his coronation, the King made the now-standard promise to uphold the Protestant form of Christianity. George V adapted the oath, refusing to use an earlier version that specifically denounced various Catholic beliefs and practices.
King Charles is known to be interested in Eastern Orthodoxy—in which his father Prince Philip was brought up—and has stayed on Mount Athos where monks offer hospitality to those prepared to share in some days of austerity and prayer. And he has been openly supportive of Catholicism: in a significant move, he attended the canonization of St John Henry Newman in Rome in 2019 and wrote a notable feature published in The Times celebrating Newman’s life and work.
The link between monarch, Church, and people is a strange one. Queen Elizabeth II, along with large numbers of her subjects, attended church as a matter of course on Christmas morning. This was usually mentioned in the news bulletins later in the day, but I don’t recall any live television coverage of her walking with her family along the lane to the little church near the Royal estate at Sandringham, much less of large crowds attending her as she did so.
But in recent years, this Royal walk to worship has become something of a spectacle: people gather to present flowers, call out greetings, and hope for the chance of a chat or even a selfie with one of the Royals. It’s strange: most seem to pay little or no attention to the service in church (old-fashioned Matins), which is sometimes broadcast to the crowds outside. And they are certainly not in church themselves—instead, they have traveled by car (Sandringham is in a rural part of Norfolk) simply to be near the Royals on this Christmas morning in what seems to be turning into a sort of substitute for Christian worship.
I have lost count of the times that Americans, taking part in the Catholic History Walks that I lead around London, have asked me about the status of the Church of England and the religious prospects of our country. They are fascinated by the role of the King.
The situation is going to get messy. Along with many (most?) other Catholics in the UK, I have always felt that having some Church of England bishops in the House of Lords is in general a good thing, bringing some Christian influence to bear and paying due tribute to our Christian tradition and heritage. As St John Henry Newman put it, the Church of England was at least some sort of bulwark against atheism. But today’s Anglican bishops certainly cannot offer any reliable guarantee that they will defend, for example, marriage as the specific union of a man and a woman or the need to protect children in the womb.
Numbers for Anglican worship are plummeting. Catholic numbers are poor, too, and the majority of boys and girls at our Catholic schools are certainly not at Mass on Sundays. We can muster large crowds for major events, and there are big gatherings at, for example, the national shrine at Walsingham every summer. A major conference planned for February with Bishop Robert Barron among the speakers will certainly fill the massive O2 arena in London’s former docklands. But the state of the Catholic church is poor: we are not ordaining enough priests and parishes are being effectively merged or having to offer reduced numbers of Sunday Masses.
On the other hand, the general trend is towards orthodox and traditional beliefs and values among the Catholic young: the days of “kum-by-ya” are over, and projects like Radio Maria, Youth 2000 (still booming and attracting the children and grandchildren of its founders), and the Faith Movement (ditto) flourish along with Latin chant and Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. Large numbers of African, West Indian, Goan, Filipino, and Hong Kong Chinese parishioners keep urban and suburban congregations flourishing and produce crowds at pilgrimages and diocesan events.
What next? At a guess, nothing dramatic. The quietly busy Anglicanism that Queen Elizabeth II knew and lived has gone: today many country churches of Medieval beauty attract only a tiny group of worshippers. The vicar, sometimes with his young family, still exists in rural areas—usually serving several churches—and the most energetic tend to be of an Evangelical style. There continues to be a small, irregular trickle of the “high” Anglican clergy towards the Catholic church. The Church of England’s lady “priests” tend to describe themselves as having studied “pastoral theology” in what is often a later-life career change with—at least to this Catholic questioner—a confusion about once standard Christian theology. There is a lot of emphasis on higher-level bureaucracy with well-paid staff at diocesan levels, and this has caused some public backlash, as has a recent announcement that the Church of England would pay sums of money to undisclosed recipients in countries deemed to have suffered from Anglican involvement in slavery two hundred years ago.
The present government seems likely to try to evict the Anglican bishops from the House of Lords. The Anglicans’ Synod will probably endorse formally the arrangement for public same-sex blessings that has already been agreed upon for private ceremonies. The Methodist church, once a major part of community life, has long conceded to the general culture on such issues and will continue to melt away in its former heartlands—Wales is now dotted with former chapels that have become picturesque holiday homes for well-to-do city dwellers.
The scene is messy and frankly bleak. England isn’t going to become Catholic anytime soon, and nor will it be sensible to describe us as an Anglican country. The Moslem strength grows daily. Large numbers throng the mosques, and Islamic dress is a normal sight on city streets, along with advertisements for Moslem projects and, of course, halal meat food for Eid as standard in supermarkets.
Don’t assume any dramatic change at a formal level in Britain’s Church/state relationships. Don’t assume, either, that things are static. They never are. When Catholics talk—and pray—about the conversion of England, as they have never ceased to do since the Guild of Our Lady of Ransom was founded during the Catholic revival of the 19th century, they do so with a recognition of our complicated history. The Reformation in England was never a popular movement—it was imposed from above via a king’s lust, a dynasty anxious to assert its power, and an episcopate in need of renewal.
The Church of England, inheriting the churches and parish system, worked partly through people’s sense of connection with their past and their local, national, and family structures. Today, with a population that is changing daily as new immigrants surge across the Channel and with new media shouting a vast variety of ideas and opinions against formal older structures urging varying degrees of “woke”, the hope for Christian renewal essentially lies where it always has—with the truth committed by Christ to the care of his Church, via fragile men and women with all their hopes and failings. With prayer and courage, that Church can remain and flourish in Britain.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
“…canonization of St John Henry Newman in Rome in 2028” should read “2019.”
We read: “What next? At a guess, nothing dramatic.”
Maybe not dramatic, but maybe tectonic? Some 6% of England’s population is Muslim, likely most of them practicing regularly. Muslims are 15% of the London population. As for the Anglicans, we have read: “The total Worshipping Community was 1,113,000 people in 2019; 1,031,000 people in 2020; 966,000 people in 2021; and 984,000 people in 2022. The Church of England’s Worshipping Community in 2022 was 1.7% of the population of England.”
One rule of thumb is that dormant Islamic demands have an inflection point when immigrant Muslims account for about 10% of the total population. Stand by for foot baths in city halls? And London minarets a foot taller than the Parliament clock tower?
I wonder if the author would write about Charles in a similar vein after his Christmas speech.
I note that Gavin Ashenden’s response to the speech is up to 552K views and counting.
I wrote the feature some days after HM’s Christmas speech. Dr Ashenden is a friend and enjoys writing commentaries – and people love reading criticism of the King (see my point about friends enjoying indignation when he announced his hope to be “defender of faith”). The King spoke with goodwill and gratitude and one of the good things that still flourishes is this Christian tradition of a Sovereign giving a message to his people at Christmas.
I actually enjoyed the King’s Christmas speech. And I enjoy Dr. Ashenden’s podcasts, too. God bless them both.
And God bless the UK.
“The story of British and American Catholic disaffiliation has, I fear, a while yet to run.” Page 263. Bullivant, S. MASS EXODUS Catholic disaffiliation in Britain and America since Vatican II.
I am myself completely disaffiliated from “Freemasonic Post-Conciliar NWO Catholicism”. Lefevbre and Latin Mass saved my soul.
*ordered shut by ppBXVI 30 years too late.
Replaces previous message.
“The story of British and American Catholic disaffiliation has, I fear, a while yet to run.” Page 263. Bullivant, S. MASS EXODUS Catholic disaffiliation in Britain and America since Vatican II.
I am myself completely disaffiliated from “Freemasonic Post-Conciliar NWO Catholicism”. Lefevbre and Latin Mass saved my soul.
“…a recent announcement that the Church of England would pay sums of money to undisclosed recipients in countries deemed to have suffered from Anglican involvement in slavery two hundred years ago.” How about making reparations to the Catholic Church whose churches, lands and monasteries were stolen? My mother was born in the Worcestershire hamlet of Martley. The few times I’ve visited the 12th c. church our family attended and where my grandmother and great grandparents are buried, I am reminded that for 300 years the church was Catholic.
Also, the author writes: “The Reformation in England was never a popular movement—it was imposed from above via a king’s lust, a dynasty anxious to assert its power, and an episcopate in need of renewal.” If you’ve ever read the history of the English Civil War, you’d realize that by the early 1600s, the protestants were thoroughly ensconced in their enmity toward Catholics and were the dominant force among the people. I doubt if many of the English were strong adherents to the Catholic faith during the Henrician Nightmare. He and his bastard daughter, Elizabeth, wrought havoc on the few Catholics for whom their faith meant something. Not to fear, the future of “Great” Britain is not bright; Satan is in his ascendency there. It won’t be long now.
The Queens of James I, Charles I, Charles II, and James II were all Catholics, by the way. Charles II was received into the Catholic Church on his deathbed.
My other post was meant to answer your other comment.
I’m well-read in the history of the English Reformations (note plural). Anglicanism was indeed imposed on England by Henry VIII against the wishes of most inhabitants. (Pilgrimage of Grace, anyone?) But the worst damage was done during the reign of Edward VI who’d been brought up a strict Protestant of the Calvinist flavor. This is when the Church of England lost its proper Apostolic succession. When he died and Mary took over, Catholic vestments and vessels hidden decades earlier re-appeared in many parish churches, only to be forbidden again when Elizabeth replaced Mary five years later. See the works of Eamon Duffy, especially his heart-breaking VOICES OF MOREBATH about a rural parish in the SW of England whose pastor held on to his Catholic faith for decades but eventually gave up. The Tudor state was unusually well positioned to exert pressure on its subjects and enforce its religious policies.
Addendum to what I’ve written above. .
The fact of the matter is that Great Britain owes its current monarchy to practicing loyal Catholics. During the reigns of Charles I who was beheaded by the parliamentarians and the restoration of the monarchy of Charles II, it was Catholics who supported the crown. It was Catholics for the most part who took great risk at hiding Charles II after his defeat at the battle of Worcester and succeeded in getting him out of England and into France. Certainly, if Cromwell’s men found him, he too would have been killed. The current King Charles ought to pay recognition to Catholics for saving the monarchy.
I feel infinite pain for writting this but i more agree with Mrs. Boogle than Joseph Pearce in this question. Unfortunately Europe will be muslim :-(.
I agree. And it will be Muslim because it’s not going to become Catholic any time soon.
I’m surprised to read a response from Joanna Bogle to my earlier comment on her article. I have to say that I at first shared her positive reading of signs that Charles might be more sympathetic to Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, as did Gavin Ashenden just days before the Christmas speech.
Charles’ Christmas speech was fine as long as it stuck to safe subjects like thanking the people for their kind support over royal illness. When it veered into more complex areas, it was shocking in its tone-deafness and breezy superficiality.
So sad to hear about the continued growth of Islam in Britain. It will inevitably mean the destruction of their ancient Western culture. This change will likely be hastened by the violence which is a systemic part of Islam toward those who do not share their beliefs. Tolerance is not a facet of this religion. But then, civil rights have been visibly slipping in Britain for some years now. Ask any pro-lifer. You can be arrested for stopping near a clinic and being in “thought”. Didnt know their police were mind readers.
I was mildly surprised to see the Henrician Reformation attributed to ‘a King’s lust’. When I started reading about the 16th century over 60 years ago, historians were pointing out that what mattered very much to Henry VIII was the need to secure a stable succession. It was a good deal more than a case of a dynasty asserting its power. As an ‘early’ Tudor, Henry was not that far removed from the Wars of the Roses, and his anxiety to acquire a lawful marriage and at least one male heir was what motivated his break from Rome after it became clear that the Pope was not going to help. Ironically, the Pope’s reason was also political. Clement VII was under pressure from the Emperor Charles V, who was related to Catherine of Aragon. (As I recall, she was an aunt.)
At any rate, that was the account I remember, and I’m not aware that historians on that matter have viewed things differently. Opinions about the popularity, or lack of it, for protestantism have certainly changed. But a theory of ‘a king’s lust’ is surely about as dated as theories of ‘the gospel light that dawned from Boleyn’s eyes.’
The Petition of Right raised in 1628 now for the first time directed at the Monarch, dealt with 4 specific concerns: 1. Illegal taxation, 2. billeting of soldiers upon persons, 3. arbitrary imprisonment and 4. punishment by martial law.
Charles I promised in return, June 2 of that year, “The King wills that right be done according to the laws and customs of the realm; the statutes be put in due execution; that his subjects should have no cause to complain of any wrong or oppression contrary to just right and liberty: to the preservation whereof he holds himself as well obliged as of his prerogative.”
The 2 separate items together comprise English Constitution and the proof especially of this is in the subsequent consistent and successive dealings with the Crown and the land down through the centuries, the development of the common law and the integrity of the statutory regime.
That is, until the reign of Elizabeth II. Elizabeth’s endorsement of the abortion and homosexual enactments amount to a repudiation of the Monarchy ipso facto as to the declaration and her endorsment of rogue Government, the abjuration of right as to the actual Petition; regardless of the change of name from Wettin to Windsor.
‘ I have lost count of the times that Americans, taking part in the Catholic History Walks that I lead around London, have asked me about the status of the Church of England and the religious prospects of our country.
They are fascinated by the role of the King. ‘ (Per J. Bogle)