You can not have a monarchy without God in the picture - AIBU

[KohinoorDiamond]

If I remember correctly, there’s something about this in the OT before King David is appointed. God expresses concern that monarchy becomes idolatry and the people forget their covenant is actually with God, not a fellow mortal claiming to be ‘special’. However, monarchy has its symbolic uses to God, so it’s permissible on conditions of divine authority.

God has always been symbolic, rarely literal. I’d argue the symbolic connection remains between God and monarchy (constitutional or otherwise).


The symbolism of the Crown is that the monarch is saying they’re Head of State, but that God is above them and their Head. Divine appointment etc.


Monarchy without God is harder to justify. Yet so many people don’t believe in God, especially when compared to the last coronation, 70 years ago.

God comes in the monarchy package deal. Tough luck…

You can not have a monarchy without God in the picture - AIBU

YABU the King 🤴 I almost wrote Queen, is head of the Church of England which can't really happen without God.

He is also 'defender' I think it said of the Church of Scotland which doesn't really have a Head, it has a Moderator who is voted for on an annual basis by Church elders. It has a very flat structure, no bishops, Arch Bishops etc.

But I'm curious does Wales or North Ireland have its own Church?

That is what I said. You can’t have a monarchy without God. The tradition pre-dates the churches you’ve referenced and Christianity.

It’s in the OT (Old Testament) for starters.

The "divine right to rule" went out the window with William & Mary but from King Charles' point of view he really needs to believe all this is God's will otherwise he could just be an incredibly rich old man pottering about in his greenhouse without a care in the world.

This was Charles oath re Scotland the other day:

"I, Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of my other realms and territories, King, Defender of the Faith, do faithfully promise and swear that I should inviolably maintain and preserve the settlement of the true Protestant religion as established by the laws made in Scotland in prosecution of the Claim of Right and particularly by an act intituled an act for securing the Protestant religion and Presbyterian church government and by the acts passed in the Parliament of both kingdoms for union of the two kingdoms, together with the government, worship, discipline, rights and privileges, of the Church of Scotland.

So Help me God."

I don't find a monarchy any more justifiable with a god.
To me it is meaningless either way.

That’s interesting. Are there any secular countries with monarchies?

I agree with you, OP. The God bit means the crown is answerable to a higher authority - it’s a physical representation, like a conduit connecting God with the people through the medium of the Church of which the monarchy are the defenders and head of.

I do think when people talk about dismantling religion in society it means the monarchy - the two are intertwined and the monarchy are meaningless without faith as, even though the modern monarchy doesn’t adhere to divine kingship, etc it still represents the faith and faithful - ‘your servant’, etc

It’s interesting as I think many don’t see the whole world of the church that exists behind the image. There is a whole world where this stuff means something and I don’t think we will realise how much we have been part of it when it goes.

There is no link between Monarchs sitting on the throne and God. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 settled this as the Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty became the norm thereafter.

James II and Louis VIX wanted to remain Absolute Monarch due to divine right. William famously defeated his father in law, James II at the Boyne. William of Orange and the Pope defeated Louis XIV, IIRC.

Ever since, Monarchs have been subject to Parliamentary Sovereignty. Not God.

Any mention of God is purely ceremonial as part of Royal Tradition.

Ergo, we have a Monarchy without God for over three centuries.

I do wonder what would happen if the future Monarch was an atheist.
with no faith?
How could they be anotited, swear with a bible in hand and become head of a church they don't believe in?

North Korea is a monarchy in all but name. No concept of Divine Right there.

Charles had rather famously said in the past when he becomes King he will amend whatever it is he says about defending the faith to be "defender of faiths" which is subtle but good. (insofar as i, an atheist republican thinks any of this is anything other than frippery)

I have been wondering that too! What if the monarch lost their faith during their monarchy, would they be obliged to abdicate?

It’s very confusing to use God’s name for ceremonial purposes only. Isn’t that using God’s name in vain?

“Many are the plans in a man's heart, but it is God’s purpose that prevails.” (Proverbs 19:21).

What about the monarch being Head of the Church of England? Defender of the faith? Swears an Oath to God? Do you think oaths are merely ceremonial too?

Since 1688 sacred jewels were taken from countries like India and continue to adorn the Crown (Crown is used to represent God’s sovereignty, not parliamentary sovereignty).

Many of those sacred gems were plucked from the eye of a Hindu deity; the government has chosen to accept those gems into the British Crown, even though they were arguably sacred to a different deity (and not the Christian god they would have been familiar with).

A monarch wears a Crown to symbolise God above them.

Then in 1849 the world’s most famous (and infamous) sacred jewel came into the hands of the British monarchy. Government makes all the arguments it can to hold on to the sacred Indian gem.

It’s telling that the British Royal Family heed the Kohinoor’s curse by only giving the jewel to a woman:

He who owns this diamond will own the world but will know all its misfortunes. Only God or a woman can wear it with impunity.

The Kohinoor is historically conflated with another gem in Hindu scriptures called the Syamantaka gem (believed to be blessed with magical powers). The Syamantaka was said to belong to Surya, the sun god, and had the power to destroy unworthy mortals without mercy. Worthy mortals, however, were rewarded and wearing the gem with impunity was seen as evidence of divine appointment.

Makes sense to be Defender of the Faiths plural. The Crown (used to represent divine authority) is adorned with gems from different faiths.

God's such a narc, isn't he?

Makes sense to be Defender of the Faiths plural. The Crown (used to represent divine authority) is adorned with gems from different faiths.

but then i re-read one of the posts above mine from what Charles said in Scotland, and it was "defender of the faith" which is disappointing. I'd prefer "defender of all faiths and none" just so i know I'm covered too.

It wasn't in Scotland it was at the privy council thing on Saturday when he basically vowed as King as defender of the faith protect the Church of Scotland @InWalksBarberalla has written the whole thing out above. It wouldn't make sense for that to say faiths the CoS is one faith.

What is surprising me that there doesn't seem to be anything similar for the Church of Wales (if there is one) or the Presbyterian Church in NI.

I don't think the divine right of kings comes into it anymore. I certainly don't think of the King as religious although I know he is head of the Church of England.

I regard him more as a consistent and apolitical head of state who stands for British values when our elected leaders too often don't.

I was born (but thankfully never grew up) in the town which is the heart of the Orange Order in Scotland, it's a dark little town full of sectarianism.

Charles making that proclamation about the Protestant faith is pretty much the same as Rangers fans singing about the Battle of The Boyne and shouting 1690.

It's notable that my cousin who is still an active member of the OO has changed his Facebook profile photo to King Charles, defender of the Protestant

That proclamation has no place in the modern UK.

Divine appointment does… it’s in the title “by the Grace of God”.

It is what it is.

You can’t have your cake and it.

You can’t have a monarchy without God in the picture, subtle or overt.

The Bible says you can’t have a king without a god - well it would, wouldn’t it!

There were kings before Christianity arrived.

They are mainly Presbyterian/non-conformist Protestant.

I don’t understand half of this. How can you be head of Presbyterian church and Anglican - isn’t Presbyterian a subsection of the Anglican Church.

I thought Anglican was an umbrella term for all the Protestant faiths ( Presbyterian, Evangelical, Methodist).

Also the Anglican now seems to consider itself Catholic. How does that fit in to it all

The Church of Scotland and the Orange Order are completely separate organisations without any links.

He is defending the rights of the Church, basically not to be swallowed up by the Church of England.

So the Church of Scotland (Pres) is complementary to the Church of England - independent but part of the wider Anglican union?