Please or to access all these features

Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

King Charles is now not Defender of faith

408 replies

Smokeywater · 24/08/2026 23:38

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
Loobylooisblue · 05/09/2026 09:41

pointythings · 05/09/2026 09:38

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.

The only way I get the subtle nuances behind someone's post is to ask them. Then I will find out what they are actually trying to say.
Not all internet sources are reliable.
You work your way and I'll work mine.

EasternStandard · 05/09/2026 09:42

Parker231 · 05/09/2026 08:59

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.

It doesn’t matter particularly. The role of the monarch and the faith it represents is bigger than the person speaking the words.

pointythings · 05/09/2026 10:43

Loobylooisblue · 05/09/2026 09:41

The only way I get the subtle nuances behind someone's post is to ask them. Then I will find out what they are actually trying to say.
Not all internet sources are reliable.
You work your way and I'll work mine.

But in this case the website was .gov.uk, not some fly by night operation.

And if you post nonsense on a forum, you're going to get called on it - that's how it works. We're all entitled to our opinion, but we are not entitled to 'alternative facts'.

Scarily enough, you and I agree on something...

And as far as I am concerned monarchs should never have been allowed to continue with the "Defender of the Faith" title.

This, 100%.

RedTagAlan · 05/09/2026 10:45

Loobylooisblue · 05/09/2026 07:44

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.

And yet yet yet again, note what I said in that very post you quoted. . "On things within his power anyway."

Why can you not see what I wrote ?

Loobylooisblue · 05/09/2026 10:50

RedTagAlan · 05/09/2026 10:45

And yet yet yet again, note what I said in that very post you quoted. . "On things within his power anyway."

Why can you not see what I wrote ?

Yes and it is ambiguous like most of the stuff you write.

RedTagAlan · 05/09/2026 10:56

Loobylooisblue · 05/09/2026 10:50

Yes and it is ambiguous like most of the stuff you write.

What is ambiguous about it ? Or do I need to spend hours finding out what is and what is not within his power and list them.

I gave an example. He stripped his brother of his titles. Remember back to that when it was in the news. It was thought it would take an act of Parliament to do that. Nobody really knew how it could be done. Then one day the news said Chuck had done it with a stroke of his pen. And everyone said, " Oh, that's how it's done".

And I don't recall anyone yelling " He is not allowed to do that".

Parker231 · 05/09/2026 11:01

EasternStandard · 05/09/2026 09:42

It doesn’t matter particularly. The role of the monarch and the faith it represents is bigger than the person speaking the words.

As the majority of the population aren’t Christian it’s becoming irrelevant imo.

pointythings · 05/09/2026 11:07

RedTagAlan · 05/09/2026 10:56

What is ambiguous about it ? Or do I need to spend hours finding out what is and what is not within his power and list them.

I gave an example. He stripped his brother of his titles. Remember back to that when it was in the news. It was thought it would take an act of Parliament to do that. Nobody really knew how it could be done. Then one day the news said Chuck had done it with a stroke of his pen. And everyone said, " Oh, that's how it's done".

And I don't recall anyone yelling " He is not allowed to do that".

I don't find what you write ambiguous at all. You just assume we are all able to read, infer and look up where we aren't clear on something.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page