As the Coronation Oath reads: "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the
true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power
maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion
established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the
settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship,
discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?
And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the
Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and
privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?" "All this I promise to do," replied the King.
Thus, within the meaning of the Oath, is the same thing said in four different ways. "The Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel" are defined as "in the United Kingdom the Protestant
Reformed Religion established by law," which is defined as "the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine,
worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in
England," which are defined as "all such rights and
privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to [the Bishops and Clergy of England,
and to the Churches there committed to their charge] or any of them."
Those rights and privileges are of course defined by Parliament. Within the understanding of the Coronation Oath, whatever Parliament defines as the rights and privileges, mostly in relation to incomes and property, of the Church of England's clergy are the only meaning of the settlement of the Church of England, thus the only meaning of the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law, and thus the only meaning of the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel.
The King is therefore bound by the Coronation Oath precisely and solely to sign whatever Parliament puts in front of him. That, and that alone, is his sworn duty as monarch. This has always been thoroughly repugnant to many. For as long as anyone has checked, then there have been at least as many Recusants, Dissenters and Nonconformists as there have been members of the Church of England, and there are now vastly more, albeit within an extremely secular society at large.
The status of the late Queen as Defender of the Faith did not preclude Royal Assent to assisted suicide in Canada or New Zealand, both of which retain the title. Pope Leo X did confer the title Fidei Defensor on Henry VIII, but in its present form it derives from its conferral by Parliament on Henry's son, Edward VI, meaning that, again, the Faith to be Defended is whatever Parliament says that it is. "Defender of the Faith" tellingly remained part of the Royal Title of the Irish Free State throughout that State's existence. Not that it has ever been peculiarly British or English; various monarchs have used it in various times and places, and Popes have conferred it on a number of people.
For example, Catherine of Aragon was a Defender of the Faith in her own right. A generation into his revolt, Martin Luther supported Catherine against Henry VIII. As did William Tyndale, who effectively went to the stake at Vilvoorde rather than return to an England that he did not regard as having really become Protestant at all. Like Luther, Tyndale had no truck with some king who wanted to get divorced because he had got his bit on the side pregnant. The robustly Protestant supporters of Lady Jane Grey sought to write Elizabeth as well as Mary out of the Succession, since while Mary was a Catholic, Elizabeth was a bastard. People who took Protestantism seriously, including as an international movement, lost a Civil War in England.
The reality of that defeat would be brought home for the first time in living memory, as the reality of the defeat of the Catholic England that held sway for a millennium would be brought home for the first time in a good two generations, when Royal Assent was granted to assisted suicide, not in defiance of the Coronation Oath, but pursuant to it, and not in spite of the King's status as Defender of the Faith, but because of it. Put not your trust in princes. Do not necessarily try to get rid of them. But put not your trust in them.
As I once heard you say, a Catholic can't be British monarch but an orthodox Catholic would never be British President either.
ReplyDeleteThen again, with the right immigration.
Delete"Like Luther, Tyndale had no truck with some king who wanted to get divorced because he had got his bit on the side pregnant."
ReplyDeleteThat's the old Catholic myth for people who don't know British history. As all historians knows, Henry VIII never sought a divorce, but an annulment (perfectly legitimate under Catholic Church teaching) and it had nothing to do with a "bit on the side" but with Catherine's inability to fulfil his requirement for a male heir to secure the Tudor dynasty. The only reason Henry VIII was refused an annulment (frequently granted to other monarchs at the time) was that the Pope was in fear of Catherine's nephew the Roman Emperor Charles V.
Does anyone seriously still peddle the long-disproved Catholic mythology you posted above?
Everyone except Peter Hitchens, who just desperately does not want it to be true. Those are just the facts about Luther, Tynedale (who died rather than return to Henry VIII's England after the Breach), and the supporters of Lady Jane Grey. Hitchens presumably does not know them, and you clearly do not.
DeleteI never mentioned Tyndale-it was your characterisation of the events that was false, whereas what I posted above are just the historical facts. It is a fact that Henry did not seek a "divorce", he sought an annulment (look up the history). Nor did he ever want to break with the Church (hence his repeated overtures to the Pope to grant an annulment over several years). The notion that he wanted to leave Catherine because he had a "bit on the side" is ahistorical guff: historians say that, by the standards of the monarchs of his time, Henry VIII lived a fairly provincial love life and he greatly loved Catherine of Aragon, his only concern was that her inability to provide a male heir threatened the Tudor line.
ReplyDeleteThe Pope's only concern with granting him an annulment was displeasing her powerful nephew who led the sack of Rome in 1527.
Wending your way to that ridiculous old pub bore standby, are you? Not that it would matter. The authority of the Church is the authority of the Church. But it is still a ridiculous old pub bore standby. Or public school bore standby, anyway.
DeleteTyndale (admit it, you had never heard of him) saw what was going on. Luther saw what was going on. The supporters of Lady Jane Grey saw what had been going on. All Christendom has always known it.
I was responding to the Catholic Ladybird Book version of history occasionally seen in fictionalised accounts on TV that you were expounding (of Henry the randy king who wanted a divorce because he had a bit on the side). The truth is as I described. He sought an annulment. And everybody has always known that Clement VII refused on political grounds under pressure from the Roman Emperor. Most Catholics who don't believe a fantasy version of history also know that.
ReplyDeleteOf course I had heard of Tyndale. As for "The authority of the Church is the authority of the Church. " Is that supposed to be an alternative to thinking?
You are not Peter Hitchens and you never will be, get over it.
DeleteFictionalised accounts on TV? You think Mr. Lindsay watches Wolf Hall?
DeleteI have never even read the books. And I never shall.
DeleteThe Pope could have granted Henry a scripturally sound annulment on the grounds that he'd married his brother's wife (Henry feared God had cursed the marriage and prevented Catherine having a son as punishment for this) but it was of course pressure from the Roman Emperor that prevented it.
ReplyDeleteAs for "the authority of the Church is the authority of the Church" does that include the time of Pope Alexander VI (during the reign of Henry's father) who bribed his way to the papacy, killed Cardinals to rob their valuable properties and had more mistresses than Henry VIII?
Yes. It is the office, not the man.
DeleteBut it was “the man” who made the decision to refuse a (scripturally sound) annulment. And Popes during the lifetime of Henry VIII were not exactly guardians of the sanctity of marriage in their personal lives.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, it was a great moment in our history, and laid the foundation for our sovereignty. The glorious words “The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England” were the foundation for centuries of British independence from Europe.
Time for bed, dear boy. Time for bed.
DeleteThose "glorious words" will get you assisted suicide.
DeleteAnd what then of Article XXXVII?
Delete