Why does England still have an Established Church?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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?

Many would argue that Britain doesn't need a monarch, yet, much like Atlas Forum, which doesn't need arguments about whether the modern UK is a feudal theocracy, has one anyway.