Defender of (the) faith?
Theo Hobson 3:38pm
Prince Charles has re-announced his desire to be 'Defender of Faith'- to drop the definite article that ties this title to a particular church (or indeed a particular religion). He first announced this in 1994, in that embarrassing interview with Jonathan Dimbleby. Of course this title is not the only thing that ties the monarchy to the established Church: he would still be 'supreme governor of the Church of England.' (Or maybe he wants to be known as 'the supreme governor of faith'?)
Why does this definite article bug him so? Is it because he disapproves of the monarchy's role in the establishment of the Church of England? It seems that he is indeed uneasy about it, or aspects of it. He has also come out as an advocate of repealing the Act of Settlement that bars Catholics from the throne.
Charles wants the connection between the monarchy and the Church of England to be a bit looser, more flexible: but not—of course—to be scrapped. That would be a serious constitutional change.
What Charles desires is a cosmetic change that removes some of the air of anachronism from the constitution, and makes him seem well disposed towards minority faiths. The monarch will retain a special role in the established Church, but Charles wants this to seem less objectionably monocultural and medieval. It might be his birthday, but even so he should decide whether he wants to have his cake or eat it.
If anyone else tried to tamper with constitutional formulae in this way, imagine the outcry. A particularly interesting question is whether Charles has discussed this with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and if so what the latter thinks.
In 2003, having just started in the job, Rowan Williams was asked what he thought about Charles' desire to tamper with this title. He was not impressed. 'There is an historical, constitutional framework for [the title] which you don't just change by fiat. Unless something really radical happens with the constitution he is, like it or not, Defender of the Faith and he has a relationship with the Christian Church of a kind which he does not have with other faith communities.'
Did Charles subsequently convince Williams that the title should be changed? If so, should Williams not tell us? If not, it is rather cheeky of the prince to ignore the Archbishop, and keep advertising his semi-modernising desires.
The irony is that Williams is himself keen to pose as the defender of faith – hence his sticking up for sharia law, and his repeated attacks on secularism. We don't need a lay version of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The role ain't big enough for the both of them.
If it comes to pass, 'Defender of Faith' will be the most pretentious title ever coined. Faith is not something that can be defended by a head of state. The attempt to defend faith will naturally be seen as an attack on secular liberalism. King Charles should learn from his eponyms to keep his head down.
Previous
P O'Tatoes
November 14th, 2008 3:56pm Report this commentWell, Charlie boy, it's not for you to change the wording, since the title was granted to one of your (putative) ancesters by the then Pope. But I don't expect an ignorant minor German aristocrat like you to know this. May God preserve us from this shallow buffoon.
Forlornehope
November 14th, 2008 3:59pm Report this commentThe difficulty with this is that the monarch is defender of the protestant faith. Fifty closer claimants were excluded "when George in pudding time came o'er" because they were catholics. If Charles is not prepared to accept this then he is being a little inconsistent in expecting to ascend the throne at all.
He is certainly not defender of my faith!
Austin Barry
November 14th, 2008 4:12pm Report this commentGiven that the Caliphate is on its way, Prince Charles is simply hedging his bets. Having seen the recent TV paean to this befuddled, self-regarding anachronism, a man marooned from reality in a sea of braying deferential sycophants and obsequious, snaggle-toothed assistants, I can only wish Her Majesty a very long life.
Joseph
November 14th, 2008 4:15pm Report this commentWhile I support the idea behind Prince Charles' reasoning, I'd sooner see him ask the government when he is King to disetablish the CofE completely and have nothing to do with the institution it has become.
Andre
November 14th, 2008 4:17pm Report this commentThe reason HRH does not want to be the defender of the faith is simple enough. He is not a Christian. He sees his role as defending the right of his subjects to practice religion - what ever one they happen on, not to defend the good news of Christ. Britain urgently has to decide what it stands for - we can expect no lead from the successor to the throne.
Archbishop Cranmer
November 14th, 2008 4:21pm Report this commentIt is a curious coincidence that Cranmer was contemplating only yesterday the plans afoot to introduce multi-faith prayers into Parliament, and today it is revealed that the Prince of Wales is ‘planning a symbolic change when he becomes King by taking the title Defender of Faith to reflect Britain's multicultural society’.
‘Defender of Faith’ is a theological world apart from ‘Defender of the Faith’. It is nice to profess to be a fusion of the cherry-picked best bits of all religions, to be perfectly in accord with the postmodern multi-faith zeitgeist. But it is not possible to defend a generalised faith when that faith is a plurality of mutually-exclusive theological propositions and conflicting dogmata. And does he not also feel obliged to be King to those of an atheist persuasion? In what sense are they accommodated in his new 'inclusive' and 'unifying' title?
Of course, the idea of a multi-faith coronation has been floated before, and it was utterly rejected by the Archbishop of Canterbury (yes, he said something that was comprehensible, orthodox and dogmatic). He spoke of the ‘integrity’ of the Coronation ceremony, and the uniquely Christian moment of the anointing with holy oil.
It is not remotely likely, therefore - at least for as long as Rowan Williams is Archbishop of Canterbury - that Prince Charles would be permitted to do as he pleases with the Coronation ceremony. After all, it is Parliament that chooses the Monarch; it is no longer the Monarch who makes demands upon Parliament to change the law to accommodate his or her idiosyncrasies. If King George VII is not happy with the titles he shall inherit, he is welcome to abdicate in favour of King William V.
And Cranmer would like to respectfully remind Her Majesty the Queen that she swore at her Coronation in 1953 to uphold ‘the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel, maintain the Protestant reformed religion established by law and maintain and reserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England’.
So if your Majesty would care to nip this multi-faith profanity in the bud, Cranmer would be most appreciative. And if there is any more talk of the Church of England accommodating the next King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in his desire to swear his Coronation Oath upon the Qur’an, the Guru Granth Sahib and the Bhagavad Gita, then Anglican Orders shall indeed be 'absolutely null and utterly void'.
Oh, and Happy Birthday, Your Royal Highness.
Tiberius
November 14th, 2008 4:26pm Report this commentIf he has a conscientious objection the being Defender of the Faith, he should abdicate.
He could of course fudge the issue and force the Russian language on to his subjects, since it has articles neither definite nor indefinite, and Tovarishch Putin might cut the gas price for us into the bargain.
Chris
November 14th, 2008 4:28pm Report this comment>Why does this definite article bug him so?
Because he's a twat. Next question.
Recusant
November 14th, 2008 4:29pm Report this commentSupreme Governor as part of the constitutional settlement I can understand, but 'Defender of the Faith'? That was a title given to Henry VIII by the Pope for defending the Catholic faith against what Henry then perceived as Martin Luther's protestant heresy. The anachronism lies in monarchs after Henry believing it still to be an appropriate title with which to adorn themselves.
The real point, constitutionally, is that it is not a constitutional title and therefore he is entitled to do as he will with it. His Catholic subjects might even thank him for ceasing to flaunt what might seem to them a monumental cheek.
strapworld
November 14th, 2008 4:30pm Report this commentSimply he cannot be King! It is not his choice. He is the defender of the Church of England. Not the Church of Politically Correctness.
I believe this is so important that we should be demanding an assurance.
He should recall our history. Crowns have been lost for less!
Where is the House of Stuart? Lets have a fight for the crown.
That will take the minds of people off the economy and that awful fellow Broon!
Ray
November 14th, 2008 4:42pm Report this commentLet us pray that Her Majesty doesn't pop her clogs for a good while yet.
Archbishop Cranmer
November 14th, 2008 4:58pm Report this commentMr Recusant,
Parliament bestowed the title upon Edward VI in 1544. Since copyright does not reside with the Pope, and since Parliament is omnipotent in all save the power to destroy its own omnipotence, each successive Supreme Governor of the Church of England has been legally perfectly entitled to the title.
Herod the Magnificent
November 14th, 2008 5:05pm Report this commentIf he has doubt rather than faith, let it flourish. Thomas was the only one of the Gang of Twelve with a grain of common sense.
Aidan
November 14th, 2008 5:05pm Report this commentThe Stuart claimant is the Duke of Bavaria. Seems a nice enough chap. Although he probably supports Bayern Munchen http://sarejess.blog.co.uk/2007/04/15/stuart_claimant_to_the_throne~2097575
David Lindsay
November 14th, 2008 5:06pm Report this comment"That was a title given to Henry VIII by the Pope for defending the Catholic faith"
And taken away again.
The present title was conferred by Parliament on his son and successor, Edward VI.
Kevyn Bodman
November 14th, 2008 5:22pm Report this commentI wouldn't want a Bayern Munich supporter on the throne. Can't we find a claimant somewhere who admires the aesthetics and artistry at Arsenal?
Verity
November 14th, 2008 5:25pm Report this commentBritain is not a "multicultural" society, much as the socialists wish it so. There are around 4m or 5m (no way to get the correct number as the Labour Government are liars) immigrants from other cultures. Pakistanis, Somalis (for some reason I cannot fathom) and something else has poured in recently but I can't remember from which country. All islamics, though and all from primitive countrie. This is the sum total of the "multicultural" meme. It may not look that way in the cesspit that is London, but those are the figures. There is no "multicultural" society in Britain. The Poles and almost all Europeans living and working in Britain are Christian and share similar European values.
Charles is as stupid as he looks if he really believes Britain has become "multicultural". It's a white Christian society with immigrants from some time back of Jews, who share our values and are part of our culture, and Hindus, likewise.
Larry Factor
November 14th, 2008 5:31pm Report this commentThe Earl of Loudon, a good, down-to-earth Aussie type, has a far stronger claim through the Plantagenets than this vainglorious mediocrity.
Diversity
November 14th, 2008 5:34pm Report this commentHis Grace and Mr Lindsay are right about the origin of the title. However, it is agreed that the title was taken from the Vatican's term Fidei Defensor (which used to be F.D. on our coins). It is quite possible that Prince Charles feels that leaving out the definite article offers a better translation.
WJ
November 14th, 2008 5:59pm Report this commentFaith IN WHAT? Does that mean that Prince Charles will uphold all faiths equally? Faith in a flat earth? Faith in the inferiority of some races? Given the diversity of belief, the term "defender of faith" is really meaningless. How about "Defender of Whatever?"
Drew
November 14th, 2008 7:17pm Report this commentIf HRH-as-HM wants to be truly multi-culti his title should of course be:
"Defender of Wo'-EV-ah, mah face look like I'm bovvered?"
(worked for St Tony...)
Ben Elford
November 14th, 2008 9:31pm Report this commentDiffering faiths are mutually contradictory, but there is grave doubt as to the Prince of Wales's ability to understand this.
Given his history of unwise choices of wives and mistresses, his outlandish idiosyncrasies and his disconnection from the lives of ordinary people (remember his complaint about people's obsession with cheap food?) his succession to the throne threatens to be a real embarrassment to us all.
Long live the Queen.
Herbert Thornton
November 15th, 2008 1:59am Report this commentCharles and Rowan William both should be shipped of to somewhere far away and told not to come back. Afghanistan or Pakistan would do nicely.
Fergus Pickering
November 15th, 2008 4:05am Report this commentHe is not a twat. He is just unsound on religion. Cathlics are just the same. Nice enough people, don't you know, but not suitable for the post on offer. He can either shut up about it,or withdraw in fvour ofone of his sons. Harry would do nicely. Brave. Looks good in uniforms. Doesn't worry his pretty head about difficult stuff. Like his grandmother in this last respect. Just what we Protestants require.
St George
November 15th, 2008 12:31pm Report this commentThe Archbishop of Canterbury has attempted the same impossible feat. All he's succeeded in doing is to insult Christians every time he opens his mouth.
Verity
November 15th, 2008 1:41pm Report this commentBen Elford - "(remember his complaint about people's obsession with cheap food?)" I never read that! It's hilarious! Doesn't he have five eggs boiled every morning for his breakfast, then they take the tops off and he chooses the one he want to eat? What a wonderful comment! I'm still laughing as I type this!
Fergus Pickering - I couldn't agree more about Harry. I cannot stand the fatuous-faced William. Although I also couldn't stand Diana, I think she had a moment of glancing intuition when she insisted that Harry be christened Harry and not Harold. I don't know if she knew the quote, "For Harry, England and St George!" but I think she intuited that this son was going to be king. I think he would make a fine fist of it. And he's a handsome fellah with a bit of the rogue about him.
I'm still laughing at that quote about the people's obsession with cheap food. Maybe it's because I haven't had my first cup of tea to steady me yet.
SAREJESS
November 15th, 2008 5:55pm Report this commentAs far as I am concerned Charles should not be allowed to mount the throne he should step aside and allow his son to rule. The weighty issue of defender of the faith well that is another story where he should not involve himself come on the first in line to the throne since Henry the 8th to be divorced seriously where are the man's morals
Back to top