Lecherous King Henry VIII wanted to divorce one of his playgirls in order to start an affair with a new one. The Pope said no way. So Henry formed his own church with rules allowing divorce.
Common, oversimplified apologia against Anglicanism (see just one example here)
Far from the post-Reformation Church of England being historically lax on divorce and remarriage, it held among the strictest rules on this.
This week, background to the news of Queen Elizabeth II’s death, encourages a re-look at oversimplification of Church History to the point of saying the opposite of what actually happened.
Queen Elizabeth II would never have been Queen but for the impossibility of marriage after divorce in the Church of England. Elizabeth’s father, King George VI, only ascended the throne after his elder brother, King Edward VIII, abdicated to marry divorcee, Wallis Simpson. Marriage after divorce was opposed by the Church of England, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cosmo Gordon Lang, was vocal in insisting that Edward must go.
After Elizabeth became Queen, her sister, Princes Margaret, hoped to marry a divorcee, Peter Townsend. As Margaret was under 25, she needed the Queen’s consent, consent Elizabeth could not grant as Supreme Governor of the Church of England which did not allow for marriage after divorce.
Similarly, Prince Charles and Camilla could not be married in the Church of England as Camilla was a divorcee.
Far from the Church of England being historically lax on divorce and remarriage, it held among the strictest rules on this. Like Roman Catholicism, it held to complex regulations on annulments (ruling that a marriage was not valid). The Church of England’s annulling a marriage was never as lavishly applied as in Roman Catholicism. [Two of Henry VIII six marriages were annulled – there never were divorces].
The sixteenth-century English Reformers were not founding a new church any more than the bishops at Vatican II were founding a new church. Their answer to, “Where was your Church before the Reformation?” would have been, “Where was your face before you washed it this morning?”
To round out these reflections, Queen Elizabeth II was not the Head of the Church of England, she was its Supreme Governor (Christ is the Head of the Church). King Charles III is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, but he has no status in any of the other 41 Anglican provinces. He is simply a layman when he visits Anglicanism in Aotearoa New Zealand.
Queen Elizabeth II was an Anglican in England. She was a Presbyterian layperson when she was in Scotland. I understand she never did official Church of England business whilst in Scotland. Queen Elizabeth II died a Presbyterian – because she died in Scotland.
Queen Elizabeth was the first Elizabeth to reign over Scotland (and over New Zealand). Her royal cypher was ‘EIIR’. Some in Scotland objected to this. The legal challenge ruled that the title, “Elizabeth the Second”, was within her royal prerogative to adopt any title the Queen saw fit. In other words “the Second” is not so much an ordinal number, it is part of her name.
King Charles III is Defender of the Faith. He holds this title in New Zealand. Fascinatingly, he does not hold this title in Australia. What it means to hold the “Defender of the Faith” title in New Zealand, others will have to work out. The Te Reo Māori version in the Proclamation of Charles III as King of New Zealand has him as “Te Kaipupuri i te mana o te Hāhi mihingare” – confusingly, as te Hāhi mihingare (or mihinare) is a common title for the Māori Anglican Church!
So interesting — thank you! Does King Charles have any power / influence to make changes to the CofE, say to make it easier for divorced people or same-sex couples to marry in church?
Thanks, Corinna – my understanding is that he has influence rather than “power”. The CofE has been softening its stance towards divorcees more recently. Blessings.
Bosco, when and how did the church of England change the rules so that Harry could marry a divorced woman in church?
Just as no RC rules were changed for Boris Johnson to marry in church, no rules were changed for Harry to marry in church. Their previous marriages were not recognised, Marnie. Blessings.
Thanks for this succinct recap. I’m not a fan of aristocracy under any circumstances so I have mostly tried to not think about Henry VIII or QE2. And as I am a non-monarchy person, I was glad to hear C3 is not going to have any official church role outside of England. I don’t mean to insult those who ARE fans of the Royals, as that is certainly their prerogative. It’s just not for me, even though I do love the Episcopal Church.
A brilliant piece of clarification, Bosco, and very timely. I must admit I either did not know about or was only vaguely aware of these facts. This is all very enlightening. There is a case for getting more Anglicans (and others) to understand points like this that relate to church governance and discipline. It might save a lot of arguing and stem the proliferation of inaccuracies relating to Anglicanism in the media and on the internet.
Thanks for the encouragement, Chris. Blessings.
Funnily enough, I am currently reading Diarmaid MacCulloch’s ‘Christianity: the First Three Thousand Years’, and had just read the part on page 625 about Henry VIII’s ‘marital adventures’ and their connection with the wider European Reformation when I read your post this morning. Quite a coincidence.
I stumbled on your interesting post, and generally concur. My understanding of history is that Henry VIII wanted another wife not because he wanted to “divorce one of his playgirls in order to start an affair with a new one,” but because he wanted a male heir and thought a new wife would give him one. Being married did not appear to stop him from having an affair with various “new ones.” But he had to be married to the woman in order to have a legitimate heir. That required divorcing (or executing) the last one.
You say what others have said this week, that Elizabeth II “would never have been Queen but for the impossibility of marriage after divorce in the Church of England.” However, let’s assume that Edward had been able to marry Wallis Simpson and keep the throne. She was about 40 by that point. She had no children by her first two husbands, and she and Edward for whatever reason never had children. So it is not unreasonable to say that even if Edward VIII had stayed on the throne, Elizabeth would have become Queen when he died in 1972.
With regard to Corinna’s question as to whether as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Charles III has “any power / influence to make changes to the CofE, say to make it easier for divorced people or same-sex couples to marry in church,” I am an Episcopalian from the United States, but I follow COE and Anglican Communion issues, and I believe the answer is No. The King’s power here essentially that of a legal figurehead — this is another throwback to the days of Henry VIII. He will attend synods of the COE, and certainly meet regularly with senior church leaders, but has no more authority in church policy than he does in political life.
Save one thing: The King appoints all senior bishops and archbishops, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, upon the recommendation of a Crown Nominations Commission and Prime Minister. But it is unlikely he would use this authority to steer the COE in any particular direction.
Regards,
Don Brownlee
That is an intriguing detail regarding “Defender of the Faith” in NZ but not Australia. According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Charles_III#Full_style) NZ and Canada are the only countries other than the UK where the monarch is Defender of the Faith. There must be some interesting stories behind that!