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.

You described Camilla as 'an old trout'. That is hideously ageist. Now stop digging, admit you were rude and have a nice day.

And you can stop 'moving the goalposts'.
You accused me of being 'ageist' (which I wasn't - probably because you don't know what it means) and now you've realised your mistake and started calling me 'rude'.

I've not denied being rude and quite frankly I don't care because I'm entitled to have an opinion.

How is referring to Camilla as 'an old trout' not ageist? The fact that it is also very rude is neither here nor there. I made no.mistake; your comment was both ageist and rude.

It’s a really good move. Can’t believe it’s taken this long

Definitely! I was very glad DC’s were not educated under the English system and they weren’t allowed any religious instruction in school.

OK.
That's your opinion.
I have (at the last count) 11 people that agreed with my post so are you going to take issue with them as well ?

Perhaps he’s really an atheist so to keep the peace he aligns with all religions so that he is creating them all as equal?

Yep. They're just as bad as you are. And they're too chicken to come out and post in support of you as well.

'Old trout' is an ageist term.

This has really got you riled up hasn't it? Ever thought of getting a hobby ?

The royals were given little attention except for Royal functions until Diana came along and was so photogenic.
i don’t think anyone could have foreseen the never ending media attention

The Royals have always been up there in the news. What has changed over the decades is the news itself. From the news at 10 on telly and physical newspapers, to rolling news and the web.

Think back to "The Italian Job". The gangster boss being obsessed with the Queen. Just as an example.

I have many hobbies. One of them is calling out rudeness in others.

Does that include yourself?

Of course. But I haven't been rude to you. Pointing out that someone is being ageist isn't rude. In fact it's helpful, because that person might learn better ways.

Yes, you have on another thread by insulting my belief system. You do it regularly.

Oooh, advanced searching me?

I am allowed to criticise religion. I criticise all belief systems, including my own. If you feel insulted, that's for you to handle.

I think you must be too young to remember the press interest in Princess Margaret’s love life, glamorous lifestyle and celeb connections. The early tabloid interest in girlfriends of Charles and Andrew’s many girlfriends. And the extensive celebrations across the country for the Queen’s silver jubilee in 1977. The country didn’t begin in your living memory!

"including my own."
Well, seeing you don't have one that's a bit of a stupid comment.

"Oooh, advanced searching me?"
If you don't like it, that's for you to handle.

Atheism is a faith position. I can't prove or evidence the non existence of God any more than you can prove or evidence God's existence. And if an atheist on Mumsnet starts going on about imaginary friends or sky fairies in a discussion about faith, I will criticise that. Not stupid, unless you don't think critically about what belief is.

Equally I will call out the arrogance of believers who think they own the truth and everyone else is wrong.

There are things we cannot know. I'm at peace with that.

@pointythings "Atheism is a faith position."
Well that's a contradiction in terms.
The explanation is in the word a-theism. a = without, theism = belief in god or gods.
Not very hot on Latin are you?
And as for criticising religions, to criticize religion in some areas of UK. eg Batley is just arrant stupidity. There is a teacher there still in hiding for criticising Islam. I'd keep my opinions to myself if I were you.

Atheism is indeed a lack of belief in any deity. The operative word here is 'belief'. Atheists don't believe in any gods. They do not however KNOW there are no gods, because it is not possible to know. Any more than it is possible to know that there ARE gods. Hence it's a faith position, because it's about belief, not certainty. Nothing to do with Latin, which indeed I did not take at school. I am fluent in four languages though, so I do quite well.

Anyone who categorises an entire religion by the actions of a few of its adherents needs to remove the beam from their own eye, by the way. Take a look at what Christians are up to in the US. Every group of humans has its bad eggs. Tarring everyone with the same brush is the preserve of the unfashionable.

But you still feel it's OK to criticize other people's belief systems?
Why don't you MYOB and let people do what they want without giving everyone the benefit of your unwanted opinions ?
IMO atheism is an absence of belief, and the logical conclusion of that is that as rocks have no belief in a god they must be atheist. So ipso facto, atheists are as dumb as rocks.
I rest my case.

You're getting very irate about all this. I wonder why?

I criticise other belief systems because I have the freedom to do so. Where I see a belief system impacting negatively on actual human beings, I will criticise it. That means all belief systems are in the firing line. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Judaism all have branches that systematically oppress women and LGBT people. That is immoral and deserving of criticism.

Your second paragraph is entirely predicated on a statement which by your own admission is mere opinion. There is no facto in your ipso. Atheists have plenty of beliefs - the most relevant among them the belief that there is no god.

Comparing human beings to rocks is - putting it kindly - irrelevant. It's the kind of classic strawman theists love to use, but sadly it isn't a very good one.

Lastly, it may have escaped your notice that this is a discussion forum. I'm not sure how that happened, but here we are. This is therefore a place where people will air their opinions - and if you do not want mine, you can hide the thread.

You're very entertaining, by the way.

You're getting very irate about all this. I wonder why?

Not at all. I'm not the one calling people names and telling them how to behave, because I'm not nasty like that.

Again your lack of Latin let's you down. "Irate" from "Ire" = Latin anger. It's not applicable here, so maybe you should do some more research as your other languages don't seem help you much.

My "strawman argument" as you call it, was quite logical, it's a shame you couldn't follow it.

I've avoided you on the Philosophy and Religion board because I can. IMO its pity you have wandered over here and I have to hide the thread (with some good input) because of your puerile contributions.

Lol, says the poster who referred to the current King's wife as "an old trout"!