Your appraisal be for how well Queen Elizabeth II defended the faith?

[Inspecto]

The upcoming coronation is reminding everyone that the monarchy is tasked with defending the faith. New book released ahead of the coronation too: Defenders of the Faith

What would your appraisal be for how well Queen Elizabeth II defended the faith?

Apparently, she had a great personal faith.
But her ‘never complain and never explain’ line was a poor strategy for defending the faith. The faith numbers demonstrably dropped during her 70-year reign. And I don’t yet see any evidence of her doing anything meaningful to defend the faith from the fall in numbers.

It matters because the Crown is the symbol of justice. People need faith in justice. That means a monarch must be able to complain about injustice and explain the complexity of justice. Fair?

Title supposed to be:

“What would your appraisal be for how well Queen Elizabeth II defended the faith?”

Sorry!

It's a Papal award, given by Leo X to Henry VIII in 1521

It had also been granted to James IV by Julius II in 1507.

It's continued as a subsidiary title to the monarchs of England and Scotland, and later the United Kingdom, ever since, despite the breach with Rome, and indeed even the disbarring of Catholics from the throne.

So I think the answer has to be that no monarch has upheld it for several centuries.

I don't know if Charles will take action on his idea of modifying it to be Defender of Faiths. But if he does, I think that will be a good thing in an increasingly diverse society

This is very annoying @Inspecto because I already took time to answer this on another thread and you didn't even acknowledge it. How rude.

Both the Queen and King Charles have said they feel that the title should be more Defender of Faiths rather than defender of the Faith. Although their faith is Christianity, where the role of the Church of England is concerned, in a modern multi-cultural country like ours, it is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions. Instead, the Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country. Charles termed it as more like Protector of Faiths.

I agree with @EdithWeston , times move on, and so do ideas within cultures so I hope Charles' will be able to be implement his ideas. I think he's a spiritual and thoughtful man who doesn't want everything to just remain the same.

Sorry I have busy with Christmasy things in rl and catching up on messages now.

“This is very annoying @Inspecto because I already took time to answer this on another thread and you didn't even acknowledge it. How rude.”

That’s not like me. Can you point to when and where that was? I’ll reply, if I haven’t done so already in my catching up.

“Charles termed it as more like Protector of Faiths.”

I agree that’s less combative sounding than “defender of the faith”. Protector of the faiths sounds much better. Will they be changing that title for the coronation?

I would still say his mother, the late Queen, didn’t protect the faith she was head of and that’s clear from the census results. But she did visit other faiths and show her respect for freedom of faith.

he's a spiritual and thoughtful man

One would hope that being spiritual and thoughtful along spiritual lines was a perquisite for a King. The crown has spiritual significance.

@MarshaMelrose and if you were annoyed at me starting a new thread about this, then I’d just like to point out that the other thread was about something else. I thought it was better to start this topic’s own thread than go off on a tangent on another.

This is a question that is alive for me at the moment as the year is evaluated. The late Queen passed this year and it’s usually at the death of a historical figure that it’s normal to start questioning the era and legacy. My current questions are about her role as ‘defender of the faith’ - what’s the appraisal? This is also in response to the census figures too.

Thanks for the history. The new book should go into that too.

Does sound like the meaning has changed and evolved through the ages.

But that doesn’t mean there’s no appraisal for someone who spent their career holding the title.
That’s like someone holding the title as “the gardener of the garden”. When they die it’s not unreasonable to ask what kind of gardener they were and in what garden or gardens.

“What would your appraisal be for how well Queen Elizabeth II defended the faith?”

Given that she's dead I doubt she cares what your appraisal of her is* - it's not as if her payrise is dependent on how your mark her, is it? Anyway, Defender of the Faith is a meaningless term given that it was awarded by a pope to someone who later rejected papal authority.

*I doubt anyone else cares, either.

Um, not at all. She had a strong personal faith, that's it as far as I can see. I don't see her as having done anything at all to defend (in the sense of uphold) the Anglican faith in this country, nor would I have wanted her to.

Defenders of faiths (meaning something like, defender of our right to practise whatever faith we like or none)- fine, although I see that primarily as the role of government not the monarchy.

Given it was a title originally awarded by the pope, and it was only late in her reign that marrying Catholic didn't disbar from the throne, I'd say piss poorly.

It's interesting, because the book precis explains that it's an acknowledgement of the impact of the Queen's faith on her reign, and a look backwards and forwards on the connection between religion and the British monarchy.

Whereas your thread title make it sound as if we should be lining up to deliver the equivalent of a managerial end of year performance review! I also don't understand the correlation you are drawing between numbers of faithful (you don't specify a religion but I presume you mean protestant Christians), and justice. One does not have to be religious to believe (or support) the concept of justice.

Any historical figure is mindful of how history will speak of them in the future. Appraisals are done of historical figures all the time.

People care enough to write essays and books assessing historical figures’ legacies.

This is interesting because I think there have been several indications recently that Charles may decide to alter the traditional position on this, either formally or in practice.

But I find your question strange. I don’t think it’s really possible to appraise the late Queen’s position on this. It was what it was. I also think you have a very unusual preoccupation with the royal family and justice. What is underlying this for you?

You’ve just given me the mental image of the Queen going round banging on doors making sure people are still Christian. 😂

Any historical figure is mindful of how history will speak of them in the future. Appraisals are done of historical figures all the time

Gosh, really? that'll be what the biography section in the bookshop is, then. Who knew?

I imagine, from what I've read of her, that QEII was perfectly happy with the legacy she was leaving. Her faith was very important to her but she was presumbly pragmatic enough to know that not everyone shared it. As her diaries won't be opened until long after most of us are dead, we'll never really know.

If you're so concerned about the state of the Anglican church in the UK, you might want to look at how a series of increasing ineffective Archbishops of Canterbury has had an impact.

@User787878787878 ”One does not have to be religious to believe (or support) the concept of justice.” Discuss.

That would be a brilliant essay question.

Faith comes into it because of a belief that “Our sense of justice is imparted to us by our Creator God.”

😂

I'd also argue that the Anglican church has to take responsibility for its own part in diminished membership. Whilst the Queen could - and did - make it clear that her faith was an important part of her life, her day-to-day influence on the church's activities was zero. The heartbreaking cases of child abuse which were covered up, and the issues around ordination of women and same sex marriage have been extremely damaging.

The Anglican church is out of step for a large part of the population who would notionally describe themselves as Christian if they had to choose a religion. It's therefore the church's responsibility to react, adapt and move on.

I don't think you can hold the Queen personally responsible for the decline in British anglicans. That is complex and impacted by a huge number of other factors.

@MrsDanversGlidesAgain ”As her diaries won't be opened until long after most of us are dead, we'll never really know.”

Historians will have a field day when that day comes. As you say, we’ll be probably be gone by then.

Are we certain that she will have diaries? Do all monarchs have them?

OP I have noticed your preoccupation with justice and the monarchy on other threads. It’s so terribly esoteric. I am picturing you perhaps as part of a team advising Charles on his future position in relation to the church. You have been charged with finding out the public mood on this and you have somehow found yourself on mumsnet. Honestly the amount of time that most people think about this stuff is minuscule. 99.9 % of the public think of the royal family as a posh soap opera. They make no connections whatsoever between them and the church, or justice.

Faith comes into it because of a belief that “Our sense of justice is imparted to us by our Creator God.”

Only if you believe in God - which I don't. I like the idea of there being a divine someone. I like the idea of there being some greater meaning behind our lives and the world in which we live. But I don't believe in God - I have tried, but I just don't. I find religion fascinating - but that's in the same way that a car engine is interesting, or wanting to understand photosynthesis, or how to cook a steamed pudding.

So on the basis of the above, I find it quite mad that apparently my sense of justice is present purely because of the intervention of a magical deity in whom I have no belief!

The argument also doesn't stand up when you consider those who commit the most horrendous acts in the name of their belief in God. I don't think it's just to shoot people because they are different. I don't believe it's just to bomb doctors who provide healthcare I don't agree with. I don't believe it's just to cut the hands from thieves as punishment, or that it's just to forbid women from being educated or leaving the house to go to a park to play with their children.

In the UK (as is the case in many other countries) our justice system was created, and is maintained and upheld and exacted by human beings. Does a judge have to be religious to pass sentence? Would the punishment decreed by an atheist be less just because they don't believe in God?

In the UK (as is the case in many other countries) our justice system was created, and is maintained and upheld and exacted by human beings. Does a judge have to be religious to pass sentence? Would the punishment decreed by an atheist be less just because they don't believe in God?

This exactly

@HappyOnions ”Um, not at all. She had a strong personal faith, that's it as far as I can see. I don't see her as having done anything at all to defend (in the sense of uphold) the Anglican faith in this country, nor would I have wanted her to.”

Were you not curious what her strong personal faith was?

For all we know, her faith was blind and without questioning. Good faith (in whatever form it comes) is one that questions as well.

@Inspecto
Why are you so preoccupied by this very esoteric point?

With the idea that “Our sense of justice is imparted to us by our Creator God” I don’t think it means that the judge or whoever has to believe in god themselves. They’re a vehicle through which god works, whether they are aware or oblivious to it themselves.

We have all inherited our sense of justice from centuries of faith based ideas such as the 10 commandments. It’s hard to say we act without influence from those faith ideas because we don’t.