A recent letter published in The Spectator has stirred the waters of Church and State by proposing that King Charles III should personally choose the next Archbishop of Canterbury. The suggestion, made by a parish vicar, speaks to a deep sense of dissatisfaction in some Anglican quarters with the modern Church’s leadership – but it also betrays a misunderstanding of how the English ecclesiastical and constitutional machinery actually works.
Despite the monarch’s title as “Supreme Governor” of the Church of England, the idea that the King could unilaterally appoint the next Archbishop belongs to another century – the 12th or perhaps the 16th, not the 21st.
A Process Rooted in Law and Convention
The appointment of an Archbishop of Canterbury is governed by a mix of parliamentary statute, Church tradition, and established constitutional convention. At the heart of it is the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC), a 17-member body composed of bishops, clergy, laity, and Anglican representatives from around the world.
The CNC meets behind closed doors, often for several days, to discern the qualities required for the next Archbishop and to identify suitable candidates. Ultimately, it forwards two names to Downing Street, ranked in order of preference. The Prime Minister, by long-standing convention, selects the first name and advises the monarch to approve it.
At that point, the King acts in his ceremonial capacity: issuing a congé d’élection (a formal licence to elect) and a letter naming the preferred candidate. The College of Canons at Canterbury Cathedral then formally “elects” the Archbishop – in reality, a rubber-stamping exercise – before the appointment is confirmed in law.
In other words, the monarch’s role is procedural, not proactive.
Can the King Say No?
Technically, yes – but only in the way that he could refuse to give Royal Assent to a bill passed by Parliament. It hasn’t happened in over 300 years and would provoke an immediate constitutional crisis. For the King to reject the Prime Minister’s advice would be to violate the foundational principle of a constitutional monarchy: that the sovereign reigns, but does not rule.
Were King Charles to attempt to bypass the CNC and select his own Archbishop, he would be stepping into dangerously political waters. Such a move would not only breach custom and law, but would likely spark uproar both in Parliament and within the Church itself. The outcome could include legal challenges, resignations, and potentially even calls to further separate Church and State.
Implications of Intervening
Were the King to act on the letter writer’s suggestion, it would amount to more than an eccentric overreach. It would risk the legitimacy of the appointment process itself and further strain relations within the global Anglican Communion, already divided over doctrine, sexuality, and the role of women.
Moreover, it would challenge one of the Crown’s most important modern duties: to serve as a neutral symbol of unity above politics, not a player in ecclesiastical factionalism.
However well-intentioned, the idea that the monarch should choose the next Archbishop of Canterbury is not only unrealistic – it is constitutionally dangerous. It is one thing to wish for stronger leadership in the Church of England. It is quite another to invite the Crown to abandon impartiality and step back into the days of princely power.
There may be cause to reform the process. But if change is to come, it must come through Parliament, Synod, and consensus – not royal fiat.
