Why does England still have an Established Church?

[Del Tachi]

The whole premise of their government is it being a feudal theocracy ruled by a divine-right monarch; disestablishing the CoE would be a major constitutional headache and ultimately lead to the demise of the crown.

[Del Tachi]

The whole premise of their government is it being a feudal theocracy ruled by a divine-right monarch; disestablishing the CoE would be a major constitutional headache and ultimately lead to the demise of the crown.

wow.

Yeah, this strikes me as a pretty bad misapprehension of the current state of British constitutional theory, to say the least.

I mean, people love to say that the British Monarch is only a "figurehead" but that doesn't change that fact that everything HM's government does is technically in the monarch's name.  While the current monarch chooses not to exercise her sovereign power in any meaningful way, all civil authority in the country is derived from her status as a divine-right monarch.

It's laughable that in 2018 any government continues to operate under such a ridiculous premise.

[Del Tachi]

So, is the Queen a divine-right monarch in the entire UK, then, or just in the one (1) of its four constituent countries that has an established church that she's the head of? Was she a divine-right monarch in Wales until 1920, at which point she became a "normal" constitutional monarch? What about in Scotland, with its non-established "national church" with completely different ecclesiology and churchmanship? Is she a divine-right monarch there?

Dieu et mon droit

I would argue that since the British monarch is crowned in an Anglican rite performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury that makes her head of state over the entire United Kingdom, that she is a divine-right monarch even in the constituent countries with disestablished churches.   

Semantics aside, I can't understand why any enlightened person living in 2018 would accept that there are still f[inks]ing kings and queens ruling over people.  In Britain, civil servants and politicians take oaths to uphold the Crown, navy vessels are styled "HM's ship", government ministers serve at her leisure, and she precedes and outranks every other Briton by virtue of her birth.  The UK shouldn't be allowed to call themselves a civilized nation with that kind of government.

[Del Tachi]

You would argue quite incorrectly in all respects. Firstly, the last (and arguably only) monarch to claim to rule by 'divine right' was deposed and executed for doing so. Secondly, the monarch is the avatar of Power rather than Power itself; the Queen is the symbolic physical representation of 'the Crown' but she herself is not 'the Crown'. The powers of 'the Crown' are vested ('by History', essentially) in Parliament, which is deemed to be sovereign. The concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty is the basis of the entire British Constitution. This is all extraordinarily basic stuff.

Then why is there a need for a monarch?

[Del Tachi]

You would argue quite incorrectly in all respects. Firstly, the last (and arguably only) monarch to claim to rule by 'divine right' was deposed and executed for doing so. Secondly, the monarch is the avatar of Power rather than Power itself; the Queen is the symbolic physical representation of 'the Crown' but she herself is not 'the Crown'. The powers of 'the Crown' are vested ('by History', essentially) in Parliament, which is deemed to be sovereign. The concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty is the basis of the entire British Constitution. This is all extraordinarily basic stuff.

Why yes, there is a long tradition in Britain of performing philosophical somersaults to defend antiquated institutions.