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?

"alluding only to the monarch's belief in a higher power"

It doesn't mean that.

It means that the monarch's ancestor was granted a papal honour.

You have taken the quote out of context which is why you badly cropped the rest out.

In Canada and other Commonwealth nations, all Defender Of The Faith means is the Monarch's belief in a higher power since those nations do NOT have an established church.

You have taken the old British meaning since we have an established church and wrongly implied it extends to the Monarch's other territories. It does not.

@Inspecto
I have been on MN since 2007. There have been a number of eccentric posters in that time. You are the strangest. Why?

1. Your preoccupation with the monarchy and justice/religion is very niche. It’s not something that 90% of people ever think about. And yet, it doesn’t seem to have occurred to you how peripheral it is. Everyone has niche interests but most people realise which ones are not really of interest to most people and they keep them to themselves or make a joke about them if they bring them up. You don’t seem to be able to read the room on this.
2. The vast majority of responses on this thread point out that you have an odd, anachronistic understanding of constitutional monarchy. You don’t really bother to respond to people who point this fact out, with evidence.

Your inflexibility and inability to pick up on how other people feel about this and your lack of genuine response to facts and evidence point to some issues you may have.

I am backing out of this thread.

OK so flip this round then. Provide some examples of what the Queen could have done to 'defend the faith'.

You've stated that the faith was secure at the start of the Queen's reign, and that it is now tenuous and insecure at the end of it. There are various factors which have led to the decline of Anglicanism in the UK; one is our changing population.

In 2001 there were 1.5m Muslims, in 2021 that had increased to 2.7m in 2011 and up again to 3.9m in 2022.

This also stands for most other religions apart from Christianity. Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism all saw small increases in their numbers between 2001 - 202, with Judaism holding steady.

Anglicanism is largely a white dominated religion. In 2001 there were 48.2m describing themselves as "white". This has reduced to 48.7m in 2022 - on the face of it this sounds like an increase, but when you take into account population growth (56m in E&W to 59.5m) then "white" as an ethnic description has reduced from 86% to 81.7% as a population share.

So against the backdrop of an increasingly educated population and an increasingly diverse society, what exactly do you think the Queen should have done? Stood at Dover and announced that British citizenship was contingent upon joining the CoE?

I find the fascination with the literal interpretation of this title to be really odd. When someone introduces themselves to me as the Chair of a meeting, I don't look at them and expect them to assume a position as a piece of human furniture.

Literal interpretations
inability to read the room
inflexibility
fixation on a particular special interest
lack of response to other people

Do you see what I am getting at OP?

No. There are 9 major basic religions to look to (Buddhism being one of them). And I did specify the ‘reasonableness’ point, which you ignored. You picked 1 of many major world faiths to show your own biases.

More rambling nonsense.

Speak for yourself. Constitutional blah blah. With little understanding of how faith works.

It is amusing that you think god will distinguish between constitutional monarchy or any other. If they’re using god’s name to justify monarchy and their claim to the crown then it’s god’s jurisdiction, like it or not.

The third of the ten commandments (also used in Judaism): “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain” (Exodus 20:7)

Ah.....a devoutly religious individual here!

Yep.....your real annoyance is the whole "using God's name in vain" thing! Christ.......🤦‍♂️

There is no debate here.

Understanding how faith works is much less relevant than understanding how a Constitutional Monarchy works. But thanks for your rambling religious claptrap!

I have been responding to other people - I just didn’t always agree, but you don’t understand that I don’t always have to agree. That doesn’t mean I’m inflexible, it means I’m not convinced by their arguments (there’s an undertone of apathy towards faith in many responses - and that suggests they may not fully understand faith well enough themselves). I am allowed the courage of my convictions and allowed my opinion, whether or not the majority agree, because I have my reasons.

And it’s not just the literal interpretation. The symbolic interpretation doesn’t work either because people, as other posters have agreed, don’t have faith as much as they once did. The one good thing about the census and modern faith is that people are honest about it now in ways they weren’t before.

@User787878787878

I think this will be a good read for you
Will religion ever disappear? (www.bbc.com/future/article/20141219-will-religion-ever-disappear)

I don’t know anymore if what the coulda, woulda, shoulda the late Queen have done is helpful. But I do think it’s helpful to have any honest conversation that faith was not protected during her reign. As that article discusses, faith is system 1 and it’s not going anywhere, so being apathetic and ignorant about faith won’t help anyone, least if all society as a whole.

Thank you all for discussing. Merry Christmas.

*of

@Byfleet “the monarchy and justice/religion is very niche.” And “it doesn’t seem to have occurred to you how peripheral it is.”

I think it’s interesting that it hasn’t occurred to so many people that monarchy, justice and religion are all connected through the coronation oath. The late Queen used her oath to justify staying on the throne until her dying breath. So why now should the oath be treated as niche and peripheral?

@DownNative ”Understanding how faith works is much less relevant than understanding how a Constitutional Monarchy works.”

Faith is primordial to constitution. So that’s why you have to start there; constitution is built on the foundations of faith, not the other way around.

This article helps explain how faith is core to human nature; faith is system 1 while constitution is system 2.

“Will Religion Ever Disappear?”
www.bbc.com/future/article/20141219-will-religion-ever-disappear

Constitutional monarchy can disappear but it’s less likely that faith can or will. This is why it’s worth paying attention to faith and not being apathetic.

Caught up replying to the posts that needed responses.

Merry Christmas. OP

But I do think it’s helpful to have any honest conversation that faith was not protected during her reign.

You haven't answered my question. I asked you to provide examples of what the Queen could have done to "protect the faith" during her reign, given her role as a constitutional monarch.

If you are now widening this to "faith" as a general concept, then that takes the discussion beyond religion altogether, as faith is not exclusive to religious belief.

OP Human societies evolve and change. George vi was crowned Emperor of India. Why do you think that his successor Elizabeth wasn’t ? Was it because George was negligent and apathetic about India? No, it was because the world changed and the monarch’s role changed accordingly.

Things change. Always. The world in 2022 is hugely different to 1953. People are not lax or apathetic about religion but their priorities are different.

OP, another example. When my parents married in 1960 my mother promised in church to obey my father. And did she obey him all her married life? Of course not! Would anyone (including the vicar who married them, or God!) judge her for breaking that part of her vow? Of course not! She wasn’t a lax or negligent wife who could not be bothered to uphold her marriage vows. It’s simply that society evolved.

All oaths including the coronation oath are written by human beings in particular contexts. Contexts change and evolve. They always have and always will.

Next up, an analysis of whether Kate Winslet has done anything to effectively command the British empire in the decade that she's held her CBE...

Exactly

The historical name of an honour is unrelated to modern performance appraisals

Especially when it was conferred over 500 years ago!

I see you’ve been taken in by the con in constitutional.

But I’ll answer your coulda, woulda, shoulda question:

The late Queen was very popular across the globe, so she could have taken more opportunities to comment on faith where it mattered. I see no reason why a constitutional monarch who is defender of faith cannot comment on faith where it counts. Examples.

Releasing a statement or speech in response to serious issues of faith, such as, Christian persecution 'at near genocide levels' If the Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, could speak about this then why not the defender of the faith? If anything the late Queen’s comments could have been viewed as adding gravitas because she held the defender of the faith title.

When the census results on faith were released, then why has the defender of the faith not commenting? You’d think it was something that was theirs to comment on. At least then the penny might drop for people who support the monarchy but are apathetic about faith - and they have a chance to think about it more.

*commented

Ok, this is bonkers.

Oaths are not hard and fast rules. Agreed. But it’s in the spirit in which the oath has been sworn. Oaths are written by people but they’re sworn to god, so there’s the faith bit again.

The late Queen made it clear she wasn’t abdicating before her dying breath because of her coronation oath; there were many who felt she should have abdicated earlier. It’s unlikely that when she swore her coronation oath at age 27 that she knew she’d be living until 96. For the late Queen, her coronation did not change and evolve, even when the context changed and she was still claiming the crown aged 96.

It will be interesting to see if the next coronation oath by King Charles III differs much from the late Queen’s oath. Why do you think the head of state, head of church and defender of the Faith no longer have a coronation oath that connects the monarchy with justice, faith and religion?

George vi was crowned Emperor of India. Why do you think that his successor Elizabeth wasn’t ? Was it because George was negligent and apathetic about India?

Wasn’t the title Emperor of India about colonialism?

The Emperor/Empress of India title was relatively new since Queen Victoria, who never once set foot in India. I’d say it’s arrogant to impose oneself on another country as their Empress (having got rid of the native royalties) and never ever visit.

So the point you’re making is that these royal titles are hyperbole.

There have been calls to rethink the honours titles.

After 100 years, is it time to remove ‘empire’ from UK honours system? https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/21/after-100-years-is-it-time-to-remove-empire-from-uk-honours-system

Bonkers because it made you think outside your box?

I was asked to answer a woulda, coulda, shoulda question and I did using a source that is neither niche nor on the periphery (‘Christian persecution 'at near genocide levels' www.bbc.com/news/uk-48146305.amp). Why is it bonkers to suggest the defender of the faith could have said something in response to this? It wouldn’t have been against constitution because the Foreign Secretary had also spoken about it too.

Ah I think we have finally arrived at what your obsession is about. Your posts make more sense now, because I wondered why on earth you were fixated with this topic. So, you believe Christians are persecuted and that the Queen should have done something about it?

Christians are not persecuted in this country. If there are commonwealth countries where they are persecuted the Queen would have risked getting involved in political matters. The foreign secretary has a different role. Above all OP, very few people are concerned about this because religion is a peripheral matter to most people.

@Byfleet “So, you believe Christians are persecuted and that the Queen should have done something about it? Christians are not persecuted in this country.”

Christianity is under insidious threat of apathy in this country - I see no evidence that the late Queen cared about solving this problem.

At a time when Christianity is under global threat due to persecution, I feel it puts greater responsibility on the head (crown) of defenders of faith in countries where Christianity is not openly persecuted. Christianity is about the unity of the whole global faith community, not just the ones in our own country (it’s not about selfishness and I’m alright Jack attitudes). It’s interconnected with all Christians (that’s why there’s charities like Tearfund and Christian Aid supporting global causes) and cooperation with other faiths too.

Charity and faith starts at home. If the countries where Christianity is the official religion cannot and will not defend the faith well, then what chance do Christians have in countries they are persecuted in? What message does the UK send to global Christianity?

In times of global persecution there should be greater solidarity coming from countries where Christianity is the official religion. And yes, I maintain that the late Queen failed the faith because she chose the cowardly line to never complain and never explain. So she does not deserve the praise she has so far had - it’s like the message in the idiom story about the Emperor’s New Clothes.

@Byfleet ”very few people are concerned about this because religion is a peripheral matter to most people.”

The worst people are those who want the monarchy but not the faith that monarchy professes to defend. Why should religion be on the periphery when the monarchy is at the centre?
Faith is primordial to constitutional monarchy. If the monarch claiming the crown won’t or can’t defend the faith then god might end up taking the crown and defending himself - and that might not be the materialistic pomp and ceremony that you want, but the faith (and fear of god that comes with divine power) you may need.

Faith being on the periphery for most people means they are clueless and spiritually illiterate when there are some very clear signs and messages coming from god. It is about interpretation, and so it differs like with all languages. But being a spiritually illiterate country means we can’t read well at all. Do you think being (spiritually) illiterate is a good thing? I say, spiritual illiteracy is an awful thing like any other form of illiteracy.

A lot of people with faith have quietly wondered if Corona (which means crown in Latin) pandemic was sent by god (we don’t know why, but starting at a place that it might have been god makes us question why? What is god trying to say?). If there’s anyone capable of sending a global pandemic to shut the world down it is god who has that capability. Yes, I know the virus was called corona because of the spikes that made it look like a crown. But god is aware of the power of language (literacy) - I believe god made sure the virus was called Corona and the faithful recognise this means Crown so we can investigate and explore what’s really going on.

I’m not convinced the late Queen will do as well in her appraisal with god as people assume and the press has led us to believe. As you say, faith is on the periphery for most people in the country the late Queen claimed the crown; her subjects are spiritually illiterate so the penny hasn’t dropped yet.

This is a spiritual literate article by Symon Hill: ‘Not My King!' Why, as a Christian, I am willing to be arrested for opposing the monarchy