Christianity and the quirky British constitution
THE AMERICAN political system, despite its formal separation of church of state, still finds room for a sort of civic religion which lends dignity to military funerals and presidential inaugurations. In Britain, by contrast, a quirky unwritten constitution gives a central place to what might be called royal religion. This reflects the twin role of the monarch as the apex of secular governance and guardian of the Christian faith. That royal faith was on spectacular display on May 19th when an African-American prelate, Michael Curry, dazzled some and perplexed others with an exuberant hymn to love delivered at the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
But any constitutional law buff can tell you that royal faith has its sombre moments too. As is argued by a couple of newly published studies by University College London, thought needs to be given now to the ceremonies which will take place when Harry’s father, Prince Charles, eventually succeeds Elizabeth II as head of state. “The ceremonies of accession and coronation help to define not just the monarchy but the nation whom the monarch is there to represent,” one of the reports by UCL’s Constitution Unit says. To put it mildly, that nation has moved on in the last seven decades. The report lists some of the vast social changes that have taken place since Elizabeth II became queen in 1952 and was crowned in 1953. Post-war Britain was class-divided, deferential, militarised (with armed forces of 863,000 compared with under 150,000 today) and, at least formally, devout. Baptisms in the Church of England have declined from 672,000 a year in 1950 to 130,000. In 1956 a third of the British public professed the belief that the Queen had been specially chosen by God.
In those relatively devout days, it went without saying that the coronation took the form of an elaborate Anglican service, reflecting the monarch’s 400-year-old role as head of the Church of England. An essential part of assuming office consisted of a series of oaths in which the monarch firmly eschewed Catholicism. One of the first things that Elizabeth II had to do on succeeding her father was promise to protect the national (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland. She also had to make an “accession declaration oath” affirming that she herself was a faithful Protestant. This formula was introduced by her grandfather George V in 1910. Before that, incoming monarchs had to make a more explicitly anti-Catholic declaration, rejecting as “superstitous and idolatrous” Catholic beliefs about the Eucharist, the Virgin Mary and the saints.
Then, during her coronation, the queen swore to defend “the Protestant Reformed religion established by law”. The whole ceremony in Westminster Abbey was not a display of generic religion; it was an act of intense piety. Although the coronation entered history as the first global television spectacular, certain scenes were considered so intimate and sacred that the cameras were kept away. These included the moment when the queen was anointed on her head, chest and hands with specially prepared oil, an act which consciously recalls the earliest known period in the religion of ancient Israel, when the roles of priest and monarch were combined. (The story of Samuel anointing King Saul was the inspiration for many subsequent dynasties, including the Byzantine and Russian, whose emperors in certain contexts were treated like priests. English monarchs have been anointed since at least the tenth century and Scottish ones since the mid-sixth century.)
One of the UCL reports suggests that the oaths, dating from a time in the late 17th century when Catholicism was seen as a strategic threat, should be rethought completely. The Scottish pledge could become an oath about the union, the accession declaration could become a promise to parliament to uphold the laws and constitution, and the coronation oath could become a pledge of service to the people. But legislation needs to be passed now, the author argues. The other report predicts that the coronation will continue to be an Anglican service but it will be simpler and shorter, and find a place for other Christian denominations and other religions.
Others are calling for much more sweeping change. The National Secular Society (NSS), which campaigns against religious privilege, said the next coronation would be an ideal moment to start the process of cutting all ties between church and state. “If Britain is to retain a monarch as head of state, then he or she should not promote an official religious preference, far less be under an obligation to sustain one,” said Stephen Evans, chief executive of the NSS.
Still, Prince Charles has religious interests of his own, ranging from Sufism to the faith of his paternal kin, Greek Orthodoxy. One of his favourite projects is an art school that teaches both Orthodox iconography and Islamic calligraphy. The style of his coronation may surprise everybody as much as the peroration of Archbishop Curry, drawing on Martin Luther King and the French mystic and scientist Teilhard de Chardin, seemed to startle the bigwigs who had gathered for last weekend’s wedding.