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?

Which bit?

I‘m glad I’m not the only one who’s confused.

If someone’s title is “gardener” I expect them to do some gardening. Is that really an unreasonable expectation?

If they’re not a gardener because of some quirks of history, then drop the title “gardener” because it’s misleading.

“I think they felt there would be less protection for their own faiths.”

That point is interesting. Is that because they’re capable of defending their faiths by actually talking about faith?

It's a bit tough blaming QE2 for the decline in the number of Christians in the UK. Christianity is on the decline globally.

As societies develop from agrarian to industrial to knowledge-based, growing existential security tends to reduce the importance of religion in people's lives, and people become less obedient to traditional religious leaders and institutions.

It's not the queen's fault.

It's not the queen's fault.
Yeah, it's God's fault for not actually existing. Though if he did, presumably he wouldn't need a monarch to defend the faith for him.

The fact that the Catholic Church felt the need for the title “Defender of the Faith” indicates that the faith does need defending; there’s a job that needs doing. Seems unlikely the Catholic Church gave that strongly worded title lightly.

Faith is like entropy (gradual decline into disorder). So faith needs protection.

Faith can move mountains (idiom for those who aren’t familiar with that means: if someone's beliefs and confidence are strong enough, they can achieve something that is very difficult). This means faith is worth defending and protecting, especially in hardship (a concept that may be unfamiliar to monarchs).

Have we forgotten the value of faith because we’ve normalised and accepted the meaningless of the title and a title holder who does nothing meaningful to defend the faith? If that’s so, that doesn’t make it right imo.

Have we forgotten the value of faith because we’ve normalised and accepted the meaningless of the title and a title holder who does nothing meaningful to defend the faith?

No.
Very few people give this title one moments thought. It's irrelevant, doesn't matter either way.
We don't all value 'faith' because we don't all need supernatural explanations and props.

The monarch wants god to save them, so why shouldn’t god require the monarch to do something in return like defend the faith?

Why should god do all the work? Why not delegate tasks? Delegating work is a great way to manage things and also get people involved too.

You don’t think god exists. That doesn’t mean god doesn’t exist. Maybe you just haven’t been delegated a task yet? 😝

If that’s so, then drop the title ‘defender of the faith’. If it’s redundant, as you suggest then why does it matter if it gets dropped?

We don't all value 'faith' because we don't all need supernatural explanations and props.

Sorry that shows real ignorance about how faith and people can work. There is nothing wrong with faith, because faith can move mountains (that’s an idiom for a reason, btw).

Why not protect the faith for those who may need it in times of difficulty or just in general? Why are you afraid of faith?

I'm not afraid of faith. I used to have one ... just found it to be baseless.
I'd be more than happy for this anachronistic, divisive title to be dropped but really it's just not important enough for anyone (except you, apparently) to make a fuss about.

QEII is not blameless either. Globally, she was well known, very popular and had potential. Why should holding the title “Defender of the Faith” not come with some responsibility?

“As societies develop from agrarian to industrial to knowledge-based, growing existential security tends to reduce the importance of religion in people's lives, and people become less obedient to traditional religious leaders and institutions.”

I find it interesting that not once did you use the word faith there. Or recognised the flexibility of what faith can offer and do.

If Christianity numbers were falling globally, then I see no reason why QEII as title holder “defender of the faith” couldn’t start a discussion about faith to understand what was going on. She was passive and therefore did not live up to being a “defender of the faith”.

Truth, integrity and fairness are important to a lot of people. If the truth of the matter is that the title “Defender of the Faith” is meaningless, then it’s only fair the title is dropped. What is achieved by holding it?

Is the reason they keep the title because the royal family in a constitutional monarchy have no other way to justify their claim to the crown? They can’t say divine right of kings, so next best thing is “defender of the faith”. But if they’re doing no defending or protecting then it’s a lost cause by default.

Are you saying that “defender of the faith” does not mean “defender of the faith”?

That’s like saying “gardener” does not mean “gardener”. Is it just wrong to assume a gardener does gardening?

That’s like saying “gardener” does not mean “gardener”. Is it just wrong to assume a gardener does gardening?

That's not equivalent. It's more like someone having the title 'Gardener in Chief', in which case, no, you might not assume they were out digging flower beds.

Your posts are strange OP, it's hard to make sense of what your point is. I think you might be arguing the Queen should have engaged in active defence / campaigning on behalf of the Anglican faith. I've no idea why you feel that's a role for the monarch, or why the title suggests such an active task.

Catholicism and Anglicanism both share the same faith source: Christianity. You’re behaving as if they’re two completely different faiths. It’s like how Burger King and Gourmet Burger Kitchen are different companies but both serve burgers; they just have different ways of making burgers.

So the meaning ‘defender of the faith’ was still the same when Henry VIII transferred it over from Catholicism to Anglicanism. The common faith between the two was still Christianity. Main difference was the non-faith pragmatic side because of his personal life desire for divorce.

I agree that ‘faith’ used in the broader sense would be great. I see no reason why ‘faith’ in its wider sense cannot be defended.

My point is that I find it weird that QEII was celebrated for being “defender of the faith” when I see no evidence of her doing any defending, to the contrary the census shows that faith numbers dropped. There are many reasons. Why was it not a lack of protection of faith by the defender of the faith?

The idiom says ‘faith can move mountains’. The odium would have a different meaning if it specified one particular religion.

Anyway that’s me all caught up I think.

*idiom

Christianity was the official religion of the UK when the Queen took the crown and it was still the official religion of the UK when she died. Therefore, she defended the faith. That part of the monarch's title literally means to defend the country's official religion. That's not to say other religions cannot be practiced in the country or are not welcomed. It has nothing to do with complaining, explaining or justice.
The Queen before, and now Charles, do not use that part of their title in countries where they are the monarch but where there is no official religion. Australia, for example.

That official faith was secure when the late Queen took the crown. When the crown was taken off her coffin that official faith’s position was precarious and insecure. The official faith went from secure to insecure, like entropy, in a 70-year reign.

This is not a sign of success for the former Defender of Faith’s 70-year reign: Calls grow to disestablish Church of England as Christians become minority

“It has nothing to do with complaining, explaining or justice.”

Nothing? Are you sure.

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is that good people do nothing.

“The Queen before, and now Charles, do not use that part of their title in countries where they are the monarch but where there is no official religion. Australia, for example.”

That is an interesting point. I’m surprised they didn’t act as missionaries exporting the faith. But I didn’t know that so thank you for sharing.

If someone was ‘Gardening in Chief’ I would expect a few things: they are experts in gardening, care about gardening, enjoy gardening and can talk about gardening confidently. This is why I feel ‘defender of faith’ title holders should have studied theology as a basic requirement. Otherwise it’s all a bit shallow. All style for show but no substance.

I’m just struck by discrepancy that the late Queen is celebrated as “defender of the faith” and yet at the same time there are news articles that the faith is disappearing. Something isn’t adding up there.

Say the faith were tulips. The Gardening in Chief is celebrated for their tulips. Except there is a report that there are in fact half as many tulips in the garden than when the Gardening in Chief took the role (and the tulips that are there look like they’re on their way out). Does the Gardening in Chief then deserve praise for the tulips?

Maybe not the best example but my point is why isn’t anyone really questioning the obvious… how can we celebrate someone as having been defender of the faith when the census shows the faith numbers have fallen? Or are we blindly accepting poor tulip care because we like the idea of the Gardening in Chief?

The Queen did nothing to defend the faith.

So when people celebrate her as defender of the faith, shouldn’t we also question how well she did or did not do?

I feel we have all taken it at face value that she was the late Queen and ‘defender of the faith’. It’s like any other case of taking something at face value: we need to be more vigilant and sceptical.

Why not step back a bit? Ask if what we are fed by the press is the whole truth?

Why does defender of faith mean a specific religion. The queen defended the right of people to choose a religion and have respect for it.

I can't understand your obsession with this or why you think this title should equate to some active role in faith promotion. Your posts are hard to understand, even from a language point of view.

You've developed some strange interpretation of the term which doesn't accord with how it would usually be understood.

It's such an odd thing to be obsessed with.

I guess by similar logic you think the queen also shouldn't have been colonel of whatever regiments it was as she didn't get involved in military strategy or go on manoeuvres? She was probably a more 'active' Anglican than soldier.
(Unless there's something we don't know about. The princess royal is the Colonel in Chief of the Intelligence Corps ....is she into cyber or more of a field agent?)

Faith can be taken in the general sense. But the specific religion comes in because she’s head of the Church of England. But sure, faith in general works too.

Is there evidence for her being a defender of freedom of faith?

The royal family are an odd thing to care about. And yet here we all are on the royal family board with posters who are care about them (this includes you).

I’m not obsessed: I’m just annoyed at everyone praising her as ‘defender of the faith’ in all the end of year reviews (by people and media) when we have just had the abysmal census numbers on faith come in. Are people so brainwashed that they don’t make the obvious link?

I don’t like it when someone has unearned praise for something. The late Queen was good at many things, but defender of the faith was not one of them. Let’s just be honest about it. Why is that so hard?

They’re different things actually. Defender of the faith is about the people; faith casts a wider net and is more general. And this particular annoyance arose from the fact the faith is under threat, which suggests he has been neglected not defends.

Her main title was “Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith”

No colonel in there. Can we stop going off on a tangent now?