It is time for the Church and the state to be separated

We expect our monarchs to remain strictly neutral in respect of political matters. So why the double standard when it comes to religion?

In his first address to the nation as monarch, King Charles said he would endeavour to serve all his subjects, whatever their “background or beliefs”, with loyalty, respect and love. But it would be easier to fulfil this ambition if our head of state didn’t also occupy the role of head of the Church of England.

Upon the death of Queen Elizabeth, King Charles immediately became the Church’s supreme governor and “defender of the faith” – the “one true Protestant faith”.

His coronation in Westminster Abbey will be a deeply religious affair. He will be anointed with holy oil, blessed, and consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Holy Communion will be celebrated.

Ours is the only monarch in Europe still crowned in a religious ceremony. It’s a peculiar way to inaugurate a head of state in one of the least religious countries on Earth. The UK’s religious landscape has changed beyond all recognition since the last coronation in 1953. We now have a non-religious majority, and a significant proportion of citizens who follow other religions and denominations.

Many of them will feel alienated by a ceremony purporting to legitimise a new head of state who must pledge to protect the privileges and doctrine of a church they don’t belong to. And let’s not forget, the doctrine King Charles will swear an oath to preserve asserts that gay sex is a sin, and that same-sex marriage is illegitimate. It is also a church that represents just one UK country, and whose weekly attendance is only 1 per cent of the UK population.

We expect our monarchs to remain strictly neutral in respect of political matters. So why the double standard when it comes to religion?

Is it really appropriate for the UK prime minister to have a weekly meeting with the supreme governor of the Church of England to discuss government matters? With Anglicanism so deeply entrenched in our constitution, it’s hardly surprising that religious privilege runs through Britain like the letters in a stick of Blackpool rock.

King Charles has made clear his intention to be a defender of faiths generally, not only “the faith”. This fits with the role the Church of England has assumed for itself, as a means by which other denominations and faith communities can be elevated in public life.

It’s unclear to what extent members of other faiths are content to ride on the coattails of the Anglican establishment. But many faith leaders enjoy the enhanced status granted by the Church of England holding the door open for them.

Humanists may on occasion be invited along, but ultimately the favouritism shown to the Church of England – with “crumbs from the table” for other religious groups – demeans minority faiths, and almost entirely neglects and disenfranchises the non-religious and religiously unconcerned majority.

Along with the late Queen Elizabeth, King Charles has been an advocate of religious freedom. But how is this consistent with the role of head of state being reserved exclusively for practising Christians? The monarchy’s religious role is underpinned by an assumption that all future monarchs will be believing Anglicans. The constitution prevents Catholics from becoming monarch. This runs contrary to concepts of fairness or freedom of religion or belief.

The accession of a new King inevitably raises questions about the relevance of a monarchy in a modern democracy. After all, inherited power and privilege by virtue of birth is an affront to everything modern Britain claims to stand for.

Turning a blind eye to a morally unjustifiable institution at the heart of our constitution – one that claims a “divine right” to rule over the rest of us – can’t be good for our national psyche. Nor can cleaving to our past in the absence of any confidence in our ability to carve out a democratic future.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

It will therefore be interesting to see the extent to which support for the monarchy has been tied up with admiration for Queen Elizabeth. But for as long as the monarchy remains, it is right to initiate reforms to ensure that our head of state has no constitutional entanglement with religion. Only a third of the UK public thinks the monarchy’s ties to the Church should remain intact.

Concepts of nationhood and citizenship are too important to be centred around an anachronism. If we want those living within these isles – irrespective of their personal religious beliefs – to buy into Britishness and feel part of a cohesive collective, our national identity needs to be meaningful and inclusive.

A constitutional settlement based on Anglican supremacism is a non-starter for a country that claims to be a beacon of freedom and equality. It’s time we had a serious debate about the kind of country we want to be.

Stephen Evans is chief executive of the National Secular Society