King Charles is now not Defender of faith

[Smokeywater]

King Charles is now not Defender of the Faith for Church of England Christian -
in the Sovereign Grant Report 2025-26
Where last year’s report described the King as “Head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith,” this year’s version reads: “His Majesty is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and protects the space for Faith within the multi-faith nation.”

Doesnt seem a great move to me - he has a historical role as King and messing about with that role diminishes it imv - if you can just change things overnight why not change other things like being crowned in a big carry on by the Archbishop of Canterbury - William can just give that a miss and have a chinwag with a few other religious leaders.

I prefer it. It’s more inclusive.

I am no expert, just a citizen.

The answer is Parliament of course. But you knew that anyway. There would be no need for any wars or uprising. None of that. Just a vote on an act of law.

The fact Charles is head of the church and was defender of the protestant Christian faith is not an inclusive position. Sure saying you are defender of all faiths is more inclusive, but it fundamentally changes his position.

I think historians will look back on this moment as the start of the diestablishment of the church of England. We will no longer be a Christian country.

I would much rather the UK were a secular country.

I would much rather we had a public debate about such a momentous change rather than a monarch simply being able to decide.

I agree with you that actual disestablishment would require public consultation, but I don't think it is at all unreasonable for a monarch to choose to be there for ALL his people, not just those of one particular faith. It feels a bit like saying 'he's my king more than he is yours, he'll defend me more than he will you'. Playground stuff.

But that is how the whole King thing works. The King decides. On things within his power anyway.

You are mistaken.
The Monarch has No Unilateral Power: The monarch's legal authorities (known as the royal prerogative) are exercised by the government in the King's name. The King has no independent political power to tear up laws, disband Parliament permanently, or rewrite the constitutional order.

Note what I said. "On things within his power anyway."

Such as ? What time he has his lunch? When he goes for a walk? When he changes his shirt?

Maybe you should stop assuming things and deal with facts.
I'm allowed to say "I don't know" and if you don't like honesty, that says a lot about you. I can't be expected to know when The UK Parliament website is updated and by whom.

A good example is stripping his brother of his titles.

OK.

But I repeat as it seems you didn't read it The Monarch has No Unilateral Power: The monarch's legal authorities (known as the royal prerogative) are exercised by the government in the King's name. The King has no independent political power to tear up laws, disband Parliament permanently, or rewrite the constitutional order.

Again. Note what I said. "On things within his power anyway."

Why are you arguing with me about something I never said?

Why does anyone care what religion the king is - does it really matter?

This is your response to a question about public debate at 1.34

OneLilacHedgehog · Yesterday 21:39
I would much rather we had a public debate about such a momentous change rather than a monarch simply being able to decide.

But that is how the whole King thing works. The King decides. On things within his power anyway.

Your inference is that the King can decide these things which he can't. A rather ambiguous post IMO.

Not to me it doesn't.
And as far as I am concerned monarchs should never have been allowed to continue with the "Defender of the Faith" title.

Honestly not true. The queen had hundreds of laws changed to exempt the royal family. They have a lot of power.

Then he should resign as head of the church of England.
And the coronation vows should be changed where he agrees to be defender of the protestant Christian faith.
Or are you pretending the coronation and the oath is meaningless?

I don't get your point.
.
Monarchs from Henry VIII onwards have usurped the Title "Defender of the Faith" which referred to the Roman Catholic Church.

And the coronation vows should be changed where he agrees to be defender of the protestant Christian faith.
I think you will find that is a given

Or are you pretending the coronation and the oath is meaningless?
I'm not bothered because I'm not a Protestant

Not over what @Loobylooisbluecorrectly describes.

But you can be expected to look things up before challenging what another poster has written. That's basic stuff.

No, I'm allowed to ask for clarification and say "I don't understand". That's one of my assertive rights as an individual.
I'm surprised to don't know that because it's basic stuff for anyone who has a grain of intelligence.

For all we know he pays lip service to the oath relating to the Christian faith and is an atheist or believer of a different faith? We’ll never know.

If I don't understand something posted, I look it up. It really isn't that difficult to do, and the great advantage is that I'm in control of the search, not someone online that I don't know. I prefer not to be spoonfed.