In the final part of this series, we continue exploring what happened after England separated from the Catholic Church. We look beyond Henry VIII and examine how his decision reshaped the relationship between the monarchy, the Church of England, and the law for centuries to come. We begin with the Magna Carta and its declaration that the English Church should be free from royal interference, then return to Henry VIII and the ways his break with Rome changed that relationship. From the religious conflicts and succession laws that followed to the exclusion of Catholics from the British throne, we trace how Henry's decision continued to shape England long after his death. Then we bring the story into the present, looking at King Charles III, Prince William and the future of the Church of England. What does it mean that the British monarch is still required to be in communion with the Church of England? Could that ever change? And what might happen to the relationship between the monarchy and the church as Britain becomes increasingly secular? As a Catholic convert and former Anglican, I'm not approaching these questions as someone who has all the answers. I'm following the history, asking difficult questions, and trying to understand what it reveals about authority, faith and the Church. After following this story from the English Church before Henry VIII to the monarchy and Church of England today, I come back to the question that ultimately led me home to Catholicism: who has authority over the Church? For Catholics, the answer isn't a king, a parliament or a nation. The Church was founded by Christ. This is the final episode in the series, but I don't think the questions raised by this history have simple endings.
In the final part of this series, we continue exploring what happened after England separated from the Catholic Church. We look beyond Henry VIII and examine how his decision reshaped the relationship between the monarchy, the Church of England, and the law for centuries to come.
We begin with the Magna Carta and its declaration that the English Church should be free from royal interference, then return to Henry VIII and the ways his break with Rome changed that relationship. From the religious conflicts and succession laws that followed to the exclusion of Catholics from the British throne, we trace how Henry's decision continued to shape England long after his death.
Then we bring the story into the present, looking at King Charles III, Prince William and the future of the Church of England. What does it mean that the British monarch is still required to be in communion with the Church of England? Could that ever change? And what might happen to the relationship between the monarchy and the church as Britain becomes increasingly secular?
As a Catholic convert and former Anglican, I'm not approaching these questions as someone who has all the answers. I'm following the history, asking difficult questions, and trying to understand what it reveals about authority, faith and the Church.
After following this story from the English Church before Henry VIII to the monarchy and Church of England today, I come back to the question that ultimately led me home to Catholicism: who has authority over the Church?
For Catholics, the answer isn't a king, a parliament or a nation. The Church was founded by Christ.
This is the final episode in the series, but I don't think the questions raised by this history have simple endings.
History through a Catholic lens. Faith with honest questions. A new Catholic convert in search of truth.
Follow Baby Catholic on TikTok, Instagram and YouTube: @BabyCatholic
#BabyCatholic #HenryVIII #Catholic #ChurchHistory #EnglishReformation
This episode is most likely to be my most controversial one on the Church of England, as it deals with people of today and the future, but to sum up where we've gone thus far, basically there's a misconception that Henry VIII started a brand new church. He didn't quite do that, but you Anglicans can't get rid of him either. He is yours. He is the reason why there is a new church. He sort of kept the Catholic Church, altered it to his personal liking. He acted like an anti-pope, which is someone who is ruling as a leader of the Catholic Church in opposition to the current pope at the time. He did start a schism, a weak one, a cruel one that had blood all over it. And now this Christian tradition is here far and wide, all over the world. The motivations for the schism were not theologically based like Luther, but more practically based on land acquisition and his personal life. Even though there were people interested in leaving the Catholic Church at the time in England, the church never truly changed like other protests of the Catholic Church, they govern themselves based on where they live and who's in charge, which means Anglicans are not truly united. And the most important difference that they have from the Catholic Church is that they do not follow the Bishop of Rome, also known as the Pope. This foundation of the Anglican Church is so inconsistent that you see so many splits within it, which makes sense. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is unified. There are different groups within. However, if any of the groups decide to go against the actual Catholic Church teachings, they can be excommunicated depending on the issue, but always have the opportunity to repent and come back. There is true structure, which was started by Jesus Himself. Welcome to Baby Catholic. Now, before we start making predictions about the future of the Anglican Church, let's take one more trip back through history to june 15, 1215, the day King John sealed the Magna Carta. King John is a fascinating and complicated figure, and his story deserves an episode on its own. But for now, all I need you to know is that he didn't willingly create the Magna Carta, he agreed to it under immense pressure from the rebellious barons, who forced him to accept limits on his authority. Although it was intended for a peace agreement, the original Magna Carta was short-lived. Just weeks after being sealed, Pope Innocent III annulled it at King John's request, declaring it invalid and plunging England into the First Baron's War. However, his young son Henry III eventually reissued the charter to secure the loyalty of the rebels. Over the centuries, the Magna Carta evolved from a failed peace of treaty into one of the most influential constitutional documents in history. For those who may not know, the Magna Carta established the revolutionary principle that even the king was subject to law. While many of its original clauses dealt with disputes between the crown and the barons, it helped shape later ideas about the rule of law, due process, individual rights, and the limits of government power. If you're American, you can think of one of the historical influences behind the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If you're Canadian, it helped the foundations for the principles of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In France, the comparable foundational document would be the Constitution of the Fifth Republic. Nearly every country has its own constitutional document or legal tradition that serves a similar purpose. If you're watching from somewhere outside Canada, United States, or France, I'd love to know what the equivalent in your country is. If you're watching on YouTube, leave it in the comments. Now back to the Magna Carta. The original Magna Carta contained 63 clauses, many of them dealing with the political disputes and customs of medieval England. So over the centuries, many were repealed or became obsolete. Today, only four of those original principles remain part of English law, the first clause is the only one I really want to focus on. Now I'm about to read the original 1215 version, although it was later shortened when the Magna Carta was reissued. Its central principle still survives in English law today. I'll read you it first, and then we'll break it down together.
First, that we have granted to God and by the present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this to be observed appears from the fact that our own free will before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by the Charter of Freedom of the Church's elections a right reckoned to be one of the greatest necessities and importance to it, and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III, this freedom we shall observe ourselves, and the desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs, and in perpetuity. We have also granted to all freemen of our realm, for us and our heirs forever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep them and their heirs, and for us and our heirs. So what this means is the Magna Carta established that the English Church should be free from royal interference and that its rights and liberties were remained intact. Now it was a direct response from King John's earlier abuses of power, including his seizure of the church's properties and his interference with the appointment of the bishops. Now, if this sounds familiar, it's because more than 300 years later, Henry VIII would once again bring the English church under the authority of the crown. He seized the church property, controlled the appointment of the bishops, and ultimately declared himself supreme head of the Church of England. The very kind of royal interference the Magna Carta had sought to restrain. Henry VIII's break from Rome was not only a schism, but it was also the rejection of the very first principle of the Magna Carta, if that principle had been upheld by the king and his parliament, the Church of England would never have been established based on England's own laws. So, what happened next? If the break from with Rome was complete, did the monarchy simply move on? Not exactly. The consequences of Henry the Eighth's decision didn't end with him; they shaped every monarch who followed, determined who could inherit the crown, and continued to influence the relationship between the monarch and the church to this day. Now let's take a quick look at the rulers who inherited the world Henry created after those awful tutors, and to be frank, I don't find many redeeming qualities with some of these religious leaders. Yes, I'm looking at them through a modern lens to some extent, but even in their own time, many of these actions were deeply controversial. I see persecution, political manipulation, Countless mistresses and children being labeled as illegitimate, and I just want to pause on that for a second. No child is illegitimate in the eyes of God. The circumstances of a child's birth is never the child's fault, and every person in the world has equal dignity, and that worth is starting at conception, and also if you have British ancestry, there's a surprisingly good chance you're related to someone connected to the royalty somewhere along the line. So, with that said, let's get started. Charles II. He ruled from 1660 to 1685. He was publicly an Anglican, although he was received into the Catholic Church on his deathbed. His brother James II, who ruled until 1688, openly embraced the Catholic faith and became the last Catholic monarch to rule. James II's reign ended with the Glorious Revolution of 1688. After his removal, Parliament passed the Bill of Rights in 1689, declaring that no Catholic or anyone married to a Catholic could inherit the throne. The Act of Settlement in 1701 reinforces by requiring every future monarch to remain in communion with the Church of England. From that point on, the British monarch was Protestant by law. One story shows how seriously these laws were taken. If you look at George the Fourth, 1820 to 1830, before becoming king, he secretly went through a marriage ceremony with Maria Fitzherbert, a devout Catholic widow. Because she was Catholic and because he had not received the king's permission, the marriage could not be legally recognized. George publicly denied the marriage and later married someone else for political reasons. England had gone from being a Catholic nation for nearly 1000 years to making it illegal for a Catholic to inherit the throne.
Although the law changed in 2013, so that the heirs to this realm may marry Catholics without losing their place in the line of succession, the monarch still cannot be Catholic, because the sovereign is the supreme governor of the Church of England. Looking back over the past 500 years, it is clear that Henry VIII's break from Rome did far more than separate England from the Pope, it permanently changed the relationship between the monarchy, the Church, and the law. Those changes are reflected in British monarchy today. Now let's jump to today. Although King Charles III remains officially defender of the faith, Buckingham Palace recently changed the official description of his role, instead emphasizing him as defender of faith, it now states that he protects the space for faith within the multi-faith nation. While this title has not changed, the language describing the role has, and many have seen this as reflecting his long-held vision of a broader multi-faith monarchy. Now, before I move on, I want to address a theory that often comes up when people discuss King Charles III and his relationship with Islam. I don't bring this up because I necessarily believe it. I bring it up because it's a claim that exists, and if I'm being thorough, it deserves to be acknowledged and examined. Some have claimed that King Charles is secretly Muslim, or that the royal family is a descendant from the Prophet Muhammad. There is no credible evidence that King Charles is Muslim. The question of ancestry is actually different. Some historians and genealogists have suggested that the royal family may descend from the Prophet Muhammad through Princess Zayeda of Seville, who later converted to Christianity because she became part of the court of Alfonso VI of Castile. Whether the Princess Zayeda herself was a blood descendant of Muhammad, or only connected to the lineage through marriage, remains debated. What we do know that is that King Charles has consistently spoken about the importance of Islam and the role of Muslims in British society. Muslims make up about 6.7 percent of the population, so some people have questioned why he's spoken so frequently about Islam in particular. Others argue that as monarch, he's trying to encourage good relations among all faith communities. I can't know his personal motivations; they could reflect a longstanding interest in interfaith dialog, the responsibility of leading a multi-faith nation, diplomatic considerations, or something else entirely. My purpose in mentioning this theory is simply to acknowledge it, examine the historical evidence, and separate what is documented from what remains speculation. I think the interesting question that keeps the rumors ablaze is that even if he wanted to convert to Islam, would he be able to? I'm not convinced he would be, as he's the head of the Church of England, and that completely contradicts the law. The more I've studied the monarchy, the more I've wondered whether members of the royal family have less freedoms than most people in some of the life's most important decisions. Now back to that pesky rule. A Catholic can still not become the head of the monarch. Will that change? Personally, I don't think it will. The rule is so closely tied to the monarch's role as the supreme governor of the Church of England that removing it would raise much bigger constitutional questions about the church itself. That brings me to Prince William. To be clear, this is my opinion. It's based on observing patterns, public statements, and actions over the years. All three of his children have been baptized in the Church of England as tradition requires, and he's made it clear that he intends to fulfill his constitutional responsibilities. But unlike King Charles, William has spoken very little publicly about his faith. When he did address it, he described it as a quiet faith, saying, "I might not be at church every day, but I believe in it. I want to support it, and it's an important aspect of my role and the next role, and I take that very seriously in my own way. To me, that sounds less like someone speaking deeply about their personal faith and more like someone speaking about an important duty. I also wonder whether the history of the Church of England itself has played a role. It was born out of a schism and a shaky foundation that has experienced centuries of theological debate and division.
At the same time, William has grown up in a world that is very different from the previous generations. Public expression of Christian faith are often met with skepticism and criticism, and many traditional Christian beliefs no longer reflect the values of many mainstream Western culture values. According to an Open Doors 2026 World Watch List, more than 380 million Christians around the world face high levels of persecution or discrimination because of their faith, and many have been killed over it. I can't imagine this role is an easy one to inherit, especially in this environment. I can't know what Prince William truly believes, and it would be very unfair for me to claim that I do, he might have a sincere and deep-held faith that he simply chooses to keep private. Whatever the truth is, whenever it comes to his faith, his public comments are more focused on constitutional responsibility to support the church than on proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. And this could honestly just reflect his personality as well. But based on Prince William's public record, I expect a continuity rather than a revolution. He appears committed to fulfilling his constitutional duties to the Church of England, and he has so far presented his faith as something personal and quiet, rather than something he speaks on publicly. Whether that changes when he becomes king is remains to be seen. I don't think so myself, but we'll see. Now let's look at Prince George, the next in line after his father William. He's only 13, so it would be very unfair for me to draw conclusions about his future faith, what we do know is that he was baptized, like I previously stated, along with his siblings. His mother, Catherine, was confirmed into the Church of England shortly before marrying Prince William. So it's probably safe to conclude she wasn't a devout Anglican previously, and both his parents have publicly supported the church in their constitutional roles. George is also being educated at Eton College. While founded on a Christian institution, is not a school centered on religious formation in the way some independent Christian schools are today. So, looking at the broader picture, the church attendance in England has declined significantly over the past few decades, and the British society has become increasingly secular. If those trends continue, it seems possible that each succession of the monarch could become more culturally connected to the church than personally connected with it. Whether that eventually leads to the constitutional separation between monarchy and the church is impossible to know. History rarely moves in a straight line, but this is a question worth asking. We consider where the Church of England is heading over the next century. So where does this lead us? We begin 800 years ago, with the Magna Carta declaring that the English Church should be free from the interference by the crown, three centuries later Henry VIII placed the crown over the church, beginning a schism that changed the course of English history by overturning one of England's oldest constitutional principles. Since then, the monarchs have shaped the church. Parliament has determined who may wear the crown, and the relationship between faith and monarchy has continued to evolve. And right now, it looks like it might be devolving. Today, the British monarch is still required to be in communion with the Church of England. Yet, Britain itself is a very different nation than it was in the 16th century. Whether that brings renewal, reform, or further separation between the monarchy and the church remains to be seen. But one thing that has never changed for Catholics: the church was founded by Christ and was never meant to be built on authority of a common king, a parliament, or a nation-it was founded on Christ Himself, and that is why, after following this story through history, is one of the reasons I found my way back home to the Catholic Church, and I hope Britain, frankly, the entire United Kingdom finds its way home too, and if I could leave one message for the monarch, it would be this: acknowledge the actual past, seek reconciliation where it's possible, and come home. The door of the Catholic Church will always be open.