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?

but I do have an interst in your motivation to question the late queen,

Are you the defender of the former defender of the faith who appears not to have defended the faith adequately?

No one questioned the defender of the faith’s likely role in the census numbers on faith dropping dramatically (published recently). If it was any other firm it would be the CEO equivalent of ‘defender of faith’ who would need to answer questions why numbers fell.

Or, how it’s now Christmas time and many of the late Queen’s subjects don’t seem to make the link between Christ and Christmas. There’s a disconnect, as I said.

I am struck by the lack of questioning. Recent conversations about the press also got me thinking as well. People forget the press are not the judiciary; the press are interested in selling stories and are not interested in telling the whole truth. Blind faith in what the press say is not good.

In most faiths it’s believed that death is the time for appraisal. In life the late Queen was above the law, but in death she can not be above the law. Most faiths do say things about only god can judge in the end (that means not the press).

Especially when you say yourself you have done no reaserch yourself in the topic other than quote some deninitions.

I didn’t say I did no research whatsoever. I said I’d need to do more research and gather more information. I’m interested in being fair and that means knowing more to get the whole picture.

Definitions is a reasonable place to start any research or appraisal. And this is a discussion. Motivation is to discuss.

There's no questioning about this because very few people give a toss about this anachronism, OP. It's the answer to your question, in a way - her 'defence' or lack thereof was appropriate.

The Queen did nothing to defend the faith.
If Charles becomes the defender of all faiths that is a major constitutional change.

🙄Another one here who has already addressed this on previous thread and provided some contextual history.

Honestly, op, you've been posting a lot about the royals in the last week, is there really much left to say?

Why? Defender of the Faith title was given to Henry VIII for defending Catholicism. Nothing to do with Anglicanism. So it's the interpretation of the title that is important. Why would the constitution be affected? The monarch would still be the head of the Church of England.
I think its great that both the Queen and the King are welcoming and show inclusivity to other religions.

Someone's trying to get ideas for an article.

I can't see how,the question posed is illogical.

If it was any other firm it would be the CEO equivalent of ‘defender of faith’ who would need to answer questions why numbers fell

No it woudn't

Because you are utterly wrong about that the title is or what it means.

OP, you are taking the title of "Defender of the Faith" as having a literal meaning. This is evident in your statements where you ask how successful the Queen was in defending the faith.

There are two issues with your interpretation of the title:

1. The title was an honorary recognition granted by a Catholic Pope to Henry VIII. The reason for this was to acknowledge the defence that Henry had mounted, on the sacrament of marriage and the fact that the Pope is the supreme high priest of the Catholic church. However the interpretation of 'the faith' referring to Protestant Christianity and specifically Anglicanism, only came about as a result of a Parliamentary Act a couple of years afterwards, to apply the title and make it specific to the Church of England. Therefore if you are applying a strict literal interpretation, you should be expanding your query to clarify that the 'ask' actually exists in recognition of defence of Catholicism, even though this has not been the case since 1543!
2. The interpretation of the meaning of the title has necessarily evolved over the years, in recognition of the fact that the strict interpretation of the original title lasted less than a decade because Henry VIII was excommunicated. From then on (since 1543) it has gone through various interpretations and changes; it was a man-made title and has therefore gone through man-made changes. The latest iteration is Charles III's proposal to recognise that the monarch should defend all faiths - which from a practical perspective makes sense, as this is the interpretation that the Queen extolled (in her Jubilee address).

Or, how it’s now Christmas time and many of the late Queen’s subjects don’t seem to make the link between Christ and Christmas. There’s a disconnect, as I said.

Well the church weren't wild about Christmas festivities in the 1600s.

Or, how it’s now Christmas time and many of the late Queen’s subjects don’t seem to make the link between Christ and Christmas. There’s a disconnect, as I said

And under the circs (what with her being dead) there's not much she can do about that; if she ever could.

Or, how it’s now Christmas time and many of the late Queen’s subjects don’t seem to make the link between Christ and Christmas. There’s a disconnect, as I said.

Christmas as a festival has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus. It is originally a pagan festival celebrating the winter solstice, which was co-opted by Christianity.

I've been wondering same for a while.

Like the monarchy of which this title is an appropriately mildly embarrassing and anachronistic component. the queen 'defended' both faith and institution almost entirely via never uttering anything other than carefully-vetted platitudes, and performing her functions with an air of tight-lipped dutifulness (in case people were prompted into an awareness of the appalling inequality of the UK by her looking like she was knocking out a gay old time).

She could in fact have been a robot with a handbag and hat her impact was pretty much entirely a visual one based on looking much the same, always and looking like an icon of conformity and duty compared to her less emotionally-continent family.

Argh! Unintentional strikethrough.

The Monarch is head of the Church of England so people's comments are really only relevant if the posters are Anglican.

Why? The OP has said she wants to discuss this as a general question; anyone can comment on this as the subject-matter doesn't require specialist knowledge of the Church of England. The OP's question was also regarding the title of Defender of the Faith (which is rooted in Catholicism), rather than being the head of the Anglican Church.

Religious leaders in both Northern Ireland and Eire disagree.

Apparently some years ago, Charles was talking about changing it to Defender of Faiths. During the resulting discussions, from what I remember, representatives of either/both hindu and muslim religions felt that thé change would dilute what it represented and were against any change. I think they felt there would be less protection for their own faiths.

He talked, about a few years ago in an interview. I actually think he's a thoughtful man trying to modernise and be inclusive. Anyway I think this is maybewhat you were referring to....?

During the recording of ‘The Sunday Hour’, which aired on BBC Radio 2 in February 2015, interviewer Diane Louise Jordan reminded The Prince that he had been described as ‘faith’s defender’ and pointed out that he had once described himself as ‘a defender of faith’. The Prince clarified he would in fact be 'Defender of The Faith', saying:

No, I didn’t describe myself as a defender: I said I would rather be seen as ‘Defender of Faith’, all those years ago, because, as I tried to describe, I mind about the inclusion of other people’s faiths and their freedom to worship in this country. And it’s always seemed to me that, while at the same time being Defender of The Faith, you can also be protector of faiths. It was very interesting that 20 years or more after I mentioned this – which has been frequently misinterpreted – the Queen, in her Jubilee address to the faith leaders, said that as far as the role of the Church of England is concerned, 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. I think in that sense she was confirming what I was really trying to say – perhaps not very well – all those years ago. And so I think you have to see it as both. You have to come from your own Christian standpoint – in the case I have as Defender of the Faith – and ensuring that other people’s faiths can also be practised

The whole idea of God preordaining the rule of any monarch and any personal responsibility for defending the faith has been obsolete since the Restoration Of The Monarchy.

Before this period of history, we had Absolute Monarchs deciding pretty much everything within the country. After this period, Parliament reigned supreme and still is today.

I'm not sure what anyone really expects a CONSTITUTIONAL monarch can actually do about the levels of believers. In contrast, an Absolute Monarch could demand it via harsh laws as well as literally waging war.

The only thing our Monarchs have been able to do post-Restoration is to actively practise their own faith to the best of their abilities and pass it on to the next generation. But they cannot demand the public do since they're not the Supreme Authority or Legislator.

Today, "Defender of the faith" is just a historical title. We have a habit of featuring nods to obsolete history, e.g. referring to England, Scotland and Wales as though they're sovereign countries when they haven't been for about 3 centuries or so.

Disagree with what?

That she...never uttering anything other than carefully-vetted platitudes, and performing her functions with an air of tight-lipped dutifulness. She could in fact have been a robot with a handbag.

Is that because the people who don’t give a toss also don’t have faith? See how the two are linked?

Would you also say that it is appropriate if someone with the title “gardener” does no gardening?

If the title defender of the faith is meaningless, then it’s appropriate to drop it. Even a monarch can’t have their cake and eat it.

Jesus said, “Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil” (Matthew 5:37, KJV).

And so have you… end of year review time and it has been a big year for the royals: jubilee, Queen’s death and other royal news.

Your contextual history helps but it’s not the full picture. History, as you will know, is complicated.