What should a future King of England do if he was not superstitious in the least and didn't believe in the supernatural obviously.?

I think it's logical to assume that in this day and age, a number of royals in this or that country are not religious and perhaps flat-out atheistic in their views. However, they are not going to wound or anger the sensibilities of those of their fellow citizens who accept and appreciate the claims of religion, or perhaps the traditions that religions represent, by announcing their skepticism publicly.

In the UK, someone relatively distant from a throne, very unlikely to inherit, might be willing to speak out about his or her religious disbelief, but probably not an heir apparent. This is because the UK monarch is legally required to be "in communion" with the Church of England. Publicly rejecting the doctrines of the Church, the existence of a god, would obviously represent a rejection of that "communion" and therefore the throne.

On the other hand, the number of practicing Anglicans in the UK is very low these days. Such a public rejection might spark a rather interesting, and even salutary, debate about whether it's fair to demand at least the appearance of religious belief from the sovereign or the heir.

He should learn how to use verb tenses and moods appropriately.

That being said: I believe it's true that for over a century the monarch has not in any way gotten involved in the running of the Anglican Communion. The monarchs, to the best of my knowledge, have left that task *entirely* up to the archbishops for well over a century.

Why I think so: I'm no expert on the matter, but

a - I know that the last several Anglican Church authorized English Bibles - dating back to the late 1800s - were not authorized by the monarch.

b - As far as I know, Elizabeth II has never been reported issuing instructions or orders concerning the operation or doctrines of the Anglican Communion

If I became the King of England (I hope the Queen is healthy), I would dissolve the title of Head of the Church of England. That is what I would do as King of England.

Worldly government has no business leading God's church. God raises people for that purpose. We usually have names like pastor, priest, prophet, or apostle for instance, and then we have the complication of Jesus being the Head of his own church.

The monarch of the United Kingdom (not just England) is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England - which is only in England. As the CofE is part of the government, and vice verso, it makes sense for the monarch to be the head of both. In theory, this could be done if they were atheist, but, atheists are fairly rare, so, this has never been a problem.

Charles is an extraordinarily fickle person. This week he's not superstitious, next week he'll be spotted in the bushes with Michael Fawcett looking for four-leaf clovers. He doesn't know what he wants, only that it's what he doesn't have.

It is not necessary to be superstitious to be the Head of the Church of England.

No such TITLE as King of England..England is one part of the UK and the MONARCHY is BRITISH. Been British since 1707..Is a while....

Fake it. It's part of the job. Either that or abdicate, if his conscience will not allow him to do it.

Our future King Charles III, a.k.a. Big Ears, has already taken on the role of Defender of The Faiths, yes plural Faiths. Now as we already know he is C of E then I think he is already "playing the game".

One can never KNOW the mind of another person. For all any of us know the Queen does not believe.

If "he" wants the job he has to utter the oath.