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.

Men and women are equal but not interchangeable
There are differences in the roles they naturally play. Women are more natural caregivers for children, and men more naturally work outside the home. Yet women can and do work outside the home and men do act as caregivers for children (changing nappies, feeding babies their bottles, burping them, carrying them around when they are crying at night–men do all these things, just as women do). Their roles tend to be focused in one area (caregiving for women and working outside the home for men), but one can fill in for the other whenever needed.
Where there is an absolute difference in the roles the two sexes can play is in the giving of life. By natural law, only women can give physical life by serving as mothers.
By supernatural law, only men can give spiritual life to the faithful by serving as priests.
Women have the privilege of being intimately associated in the giving of life through birth, and men have the privilege of being intimately associated in the giving of life through the priesthood.

But he took an oath in the Church of England before the God of his forefathers.
He has broken that oath and so to be honest I'd not fit to be king.
William has been honest about his lack of interest in the church and I hope when he gets crowned he does it in a secular service.
However I don't see that happening.
Time the church of England joined GAFCON the global Anglican church and sacked off the king.
Better to have a man of God, even if he'd Nigerian than a hypocritical old man fannying about in fancy dress.

Lol, I wonder if all the people who were put to death for still believing in Catholicism during the Reformation would agree with you? I wonder if all the women who were burnt to death for being witches would agree with you?

Actually, mostly they were hanged and not burned to death.

Burning at the stake was reserved for petty treason, the killing of a woman's husband.

Quote " Better to have a man of God, even if he'd Nigerian than a hypocritical old man fannying about in fancy dress."

What fancy dress are you on about here ? If you mean the King in his Kilt, it is not fancy dress. I think it suits him. And as a Scot, it is great to see him wear it.

When the dirty hands of man interfere with the grace and mercy of God this is what happens.
Churches Across the spectrum have much to atone for.
I'm Christian and try as much as possible to follow the only church leader worth following, Jesus Himself.
Bring men in big hats. Women in robes etc and bestow a human being with the power of God and you are asking for corruption.

I could see Sharia courts being used in minor criminal cases. where both parties agree to restorative justice.

And witchcraft. That really came about because of the book on demonology that James 6th/1st wrote. Lots if witch burning because of that book.

Before that it was heresy of course. Catholics burning Protestants, and Protestants burning Catholics.

Oh dear, sorry I misled you there. I had in my mind the picture of coronation and all the costumes.
I love the king wearing a kilt, but that's not what I meant.
No insult to kilts, I think they are fabulous.

Don't know which I would prefer TBH.

Oddly, at the Commonwealth Games opening ceremony KC was the only one not in a kilt.

Good.

I prefer no burning of people myself.

Religion in England after Henry VIII was in a state of flux. It shifted rapidly between radical Protestantism, a brief Catholic restoration, and a permanent moderate Protestant settlement.
There were political pressures as well, such as trying not to upset Spain because of Henry's divorce from Catherine of Aragon, and keeping in the Pope's good books.
In those days the Papacy was a world power and maintained an army.

Witchcraft is a different subject and many myths abound concerning this activity.

https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/learn/histories/eight-witchcraft-myths/

Well he missed an opportunity there. But then he's not known for his stellar tact or intelligence is he.

The definition of Islam is surrender. There is a goal but people are too busy 'being kind' to see it. I'm very tolerant of people to follow whatever religion they like but I stop hard at domination instead of assimilation. I had a debate with a Muslim woman on the Nextdoor app who believed lesbians should be excluded from women only spaces. Her reasoning was that it was not in line with Islamic teaching and they were evil and possessed. Weirdly no one came on to argue with her and it was a thread that had much input already from other Muslims prior to that.

Sorry going off piste here but just between you and my, my mother was half Scottish and insisted on her scattering in the Highlands of Scotland. Alghough none of us South african children or grandchildren had kilts I hired an amazing piper who played her on her way in Loch Ness.
I know this is nothing to do with the thread but to assure you, kilts rock.

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

I don't understand your point.
Abortions are legal in UK within certain guidelines.
Christians who want to change the law on this are free to make representation to their Parliamentary Representative.

Quote " Sorry going off piste here "

Do you mean "off kilter"?

:-)

It goes beyond believing in a Christian God though.
New citizens have to
'swear or affirm allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III, his Heirs, and Successors, in accordance with the law."
I am really uncomfortable with this. I have no religion. I am very anti-royal. I have after many years made the decision to become a British citizen and this is the one thing that really sticks for me.

He doesn't have a choice about being head of the CofE; it's part of the job he inherited. So he didn't set himself up and then pretend anything. I get that you don't approve of him but his position is unique and he's trying to modernise it a bit.

Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, but who is going to be disadvantaged by this bit of inclusivity?

I say that Charles broke with his title when he decided to step out on his marriage. A good Christian doesn't break a commandment like that.

Forgiveness is a thing but only if one learn from the transgressions and feels true remorse. I don't think Charles does.

I think a secular ceremony for William would be more authentic to who he is, but overall the monarchy is a bit of an relic that I don't think needs to be around after William.

Er, clearly! I think that's why it is referred to as the Reformation. Regardless of the flux, it was still all those jolly good Christian folk murdering each other because of their Christian beliefs! Hence my questioning the virtuous origins of the beliefs that underpin our Christian country that some posters on here believe are so very precious.

Again, witches were persecuted by Christians!!!! It doesn't really matter why. They were tried and killed by Christians.