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.

It’s a watering down of Christianity in the UK. This country’s laws and freedoms are based on the Anglican interpretation of the Christian faith, I really worry about the erosion of those ideals - honesty, fairness, hard work, kindness tolerance, love, family etc.

I am not sure what that means.

The Roman Catholic Church pays attention to them. They are in the Bible after all.

I mean he’s not the defender of anything is he.

Isn't he a Freemason?

@Eatally how does it water down Christianity? Surely, it suggests that all Christian faiths are looking to be included, not just the Church of England?

Good point.

Goodness. This is what I meant when I referred to small minorities. And talk about a distraction technique.

There is a real problem within Islam of Islamism and violence to non-Muslims to get them to conform to Christian norms, as well as a normalisation of homophobia we do not have in mainstream Christianity, and much higher levels of anti-Semitism than we see in other faiths. We have literally seen a return across the West of Jews being murdered for being Jews, and these attacks have been by Muslims. The police thankfully thwarted, thanks to a very brave undercover muslim police officer, a murderous attack on march against anti-Semitism by muslims who were acquiring military grade weapons. Police say that if this had not be prevented by their operation, it would likely have been the most deadly terrorist attack ever in the UK.

I don't have a christian good, islam bad view, thanks. What I do have is an honest appraisal of the situation and its clear which religion has a violent minority, which is large enough in total numbers to be causing a significant and violent problem.

Charles was talking about making this change before William was even born.

I think Charles is actually a secret Muslim

And I think the moon is made of cheese! Just as well our thoughts don't carry any real significance eh!

Err, I don't recall Charles, the now King saying he was sorry for all the hurt he caused Diana.
For forgiveness to occur one must first acknowledge the sin and show contrition.

Not much contrition in the "Camillagate" tapes was there ?

It means your quotes were about much more than female leadership in the church.

the first is about women being effectively sold off to man who have had sex with /raped them, that no church follows. The second is about female leadership ( though remember the RC church does have nuns which has always given women a respected role in the faith, as well as leadership opportunities within nunneries) and about women being saved through childbirth which I have never seen any christian church teach or heard any christian make this claim.

So no, your post was not just about female leadership - your presented a whole lot of other stuff no church follows. LIke I say, irrelevant stuff.

Completely agree

One should not misread St. Paul in 1 Timothy 2:11-12, the verses that typically raise the most concern in the longer passage of 1 Timothy 2:8-15. As a leader in the early Church, Paul is not issuing a categorical ban on women in teaching ministry. He is specifically prohibiting them from the teaching and governing ministry exclusively reserved to the ordained clergy (1 Cor. 14:34-35). That would mean, for example, as it does to the present day, that women cannot give homilies at a Catholic Mass, a teaching function reserved to bishops, priests, and deacons.

Ah, yes, of course. There was that other thing that Jesus said -- you have to show contrition to a bunch of randoms via the Daily Mail, not just to god.

'We have literally seen a return across the West of Jews being murdered for being Jews'

Your arguments are so one sided - disgustingly so. Are you aware of the murders being committed in the West Bank by Jews? Of Muslims for merely being Muslim?

Religion should be a private affair. All are based on some kind of magical thinking. Golden tablets appearing from nowhere. Men flying to the moon on donkeys. Virgin births long before artificial insemination was invented. Men with elephant head. People rising from the dead.

Surely recognising and accepting that other people have different religions is tolerance?

So with your interpretation, women can't be Priests or Bishops.

Seems a bit sexist to me.

I agree with this.
People should be allowed to believe whatever they want as long as it doesn't run contrary to the laws of the country they live in.

Islam and their desire for Sharia Law shows the danger here.

So you'd agree that Christians who desire bans on abortion are also a danger?

They aren't growing in number in the UK, are they? Christianity is in decline.

We're a Christian nation with values built on Christianity. We abandon that at our peril.

That's irrelevant to the question of whether or not the followers of a religion are a danger if their beliefs run counter to the laws of the country.

And that makes it an ideal time to scrap "defender of the faith". Or "faiths".

It would be nice to give Kings nicknames again. Too late for Chuck I suppose, but " William the Secular" might catch on.