Free King Charles! Why does the monarch have to be a Presbyterian?

Parliamentarians in Westminster soon have a rare opportunity to right a wrong affecting a particular Scottish individual. Lady Eilish Angiolini KC has been appointed as the Lord High Commissioner for the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly in May.

However, as a Roman Catholic, she is in no position to take up the post unless parliament changes the law. As it stands, the law discriminates against Roman Catholics holding this position. It is something that is obviously wrong and, notwithstanding the arcane procedures of getting parliamentary agreement, will be easy to put right.

The need to change the law for Lady Angiolini is urgent but it also shines a spotlight on other areas where the law still continues to discriminate on religious grounds. The Lord High Commissioner is the King’s representative to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.

If it is right to change the law to ensure that she, a Roman Catholic, can be the representative of the King, then surely it is time to change the law to allow the monarch not to be a Presbyterian too.

King Charles should have the same freedom of religion as anyone else (Picture: Hannah McKay) | POOL/AFP via Getty Images

Legalised sectarianism

The law is quite specific. The monarch has to uphold the protestant succession. But in England and Scotland this takes quite different forms. In England, the monarch has to be in communion with the Church of England. In Scotland, the monarch relates to the Church of Scotland and guarantees its privileges within Scottish society. The King’s religious affiliation changes as he crosses the Border.

The law should have no truck with sectarianism. Discrimination against individuals on the grounds of religion is wrong and should have no place in the law.

The appointment of a Roman Catholic to the role of Lord High Commissioner is something to be celebrated. The fact that this is being celebrated with joy by the Church of Scotland is a positive sign of good relations existing between the mainstream denominations in Scotland.

Paradoxically, the structures of the ecumenical movement in Scotland, which sought to unite churches, are withering at the very moment when its fruits are becoming a reality. Maybe those structures, such as the much-lamented Action for Christians Together in Scotland, are simply no longer needed.

It seems obvious, doesn’t it? If the Church of Scotland can welcome the King’s representative being a Roman Catholic then the Kirk should have no problem with the King being a Roman Catholic too. Or being an Episcopalian. Or being a Buddhist for that matter. And what religious group worthy of respect these days wants anyone to be forced to belong to it anyway?

Defender of faith, not ‘the faith’

Famously, when he was still Prince Charles, the King offered the opinion that he wanted to be a defender of faith rather than the Defender of The Faith. He seemed to be emphasising the importance of freedom of conscience and, in particular, religious freedom for himself.

In the modern world, it should be important for all of us. At the moment, the King himself is not free to practise his religion in whatever way he chooses. The time has come for us as a nation to become the defender of the King’s right to practise a faith, just as he has indicated he would want to defend that right for the rest of us.

Religious sectarianism has long been a scar on Scottish society. Though inflamed by footballing rivalries in our modern day, it has a long and inglorious history that predates any sporting allegiances.

It still leads to violence on the streets, antisocial behaviour and even fuels domestic violence. There should be no limit to the determination of those who have the responsibility for the rule of law to root out sectarianism wherever it appears.

However, street sectarianism doesn’t arise from a vacuum. It has its roots in violent religious turmoil in the 17th century. The roots of the discrimination that affects the monarchy stem from the same time and are made from the same stuff.

Discrimination at the highest levels of society should be tackled with as much determination as efforts to combat sectarianism at the grassroots level. We don’t live in the 17th century anymore and our laws should reflect that.

Illogical and perverse

If we are going to change the law for Lady Angiolini, then we should have equal determination to change the law for the King and for his descendants. The time for reviewing the appropriateness of the religious consequences of the Act of Settlement is long overdue and the Church of Scotland should be first in line to call for that to happen.

Freedom of religion is one of the building blocks of a modern constitutional settlement. It is surely illogical and perverse for that to be founded in laws which discriminate on the grounds of religion, even for one particular family.

These things are mostly symbolic for almost everyone in Scotland. But symbols matter and these symbols need to be changed.

In a constitutional monarchy, a monarch lacks the power to compel their subjects to take a particular religious view or adhere to a particular religious faith. That lack of power is something to be celebrated.

One of the ways we could celebrate it would be by giving the same religious liberty to the one in whose name our laws are passed. The King is no tyrant and neither he nor his descendants will even again have the power to compel religious thought.

It is time for the law to catch up. It is time to liberate the King from the restrictions of the Act of Settlement and let him believe whatsoever he chooses to believe.

God save the King! And let the rest of us set him free.

The Very Rev Kelvin Holdsworth is provost of St Mary’s Cathedral, Glasgow in the Scottish Episcopal Church [email protected]