Is The Archbishop Of Canterbury Right To State That Prince Charles Should Not Be 'Defender Of The Faiths'

Question

The Archbishop of Canterbury has stated that Prince Charles should not refer to himself as 'defender of the faiths' when he becomes king but should remain exclusively the 'defender of the faith', ie. the christian faith.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6996112.stm

Is the Archbishop right to claim that the Church of England should remain the dominant religion in the UK or should other faiths also be defended by our beloved and noble monarch?

Answer 1

After the Queen, maybe you brits should abolish the whole monarch stuff. He can't much of a defender given the choices in his life.

Answer 2

I like the Arch Bishop of Canterbury he is a straight forward and caring man who doesn't beat about the bush with his opinions this article doesn`t do him Justice he was against invading Iraq and said so in public before the invasion ,he also wrote to the government when he found out that the American Academies which Tony Blair insisted on having were teaching creationism and told them it shouldn`t be allowed
The King/Queen is the head of the Church of England which is our official religion and Crowning the new Monarch is a religious ceremony and so i think the archbishops well in his rights to insist on Defender of the Faith
i`m all for people being allowed to follow there own beliefs but this shouldn`t mean to the detriment of ours

Answer 3

As the spiritual leader of the Anglican faith, of which the monarch is the titular head, the Archbishop does have a point. Unfortunately, he is hopelessly behind the times, as are all organised religions that say that 'their' way to God is the only way. For once Prince Charles is exactly right in his views. If he is to be the leader of a multicultural society, then it is only right that he looks to defend the rights and beliefs of all faiths, not just one. The good Archbishop should take a close look at Sikh faith to see how they are prepared to defend the rights of all peoples, not just those who follow their own religion.

Answer 4

Great question Pag. I actually think that it would be utterly contradictory for Prince Charles to be in any way connected with the established Church. What's the point if he doesn't agree. I see it as all or nothing. And I hope that he will do nothing that is hypocritical.

The Monarchy is directly connected to the Church of England (which is an organisation) But if the monarch doesn't agree then it should disassociate its self.

By the way I don't actually think the Church is an organisation made by man, but I do think the church of England as an organisation has people in it that are part of the Church that belongs to God. Just so you know exactly where I stand.

Answer 5

Could you explain to me how a man who had an ongoing affair with a married woman, married himself and continued the affair and after 30 years of this finally married her be considered the protector of anything involving moral turpitude? I recently saw the results of a poll of the British and a huge percentage don't think he should ever be king. They would like to skip right over him and crown one of the princes who are much more intellegent and probably more moral. If Diana was alive, they'd just crown her queen and leave Charles to shine her shoes but in her absence, one of her boys will do. Funny thing is that the poll showed the spare is more loved than the heir. Go figure.

Answer 6

Yes, he's right, but it's impossible. And Henry VIII was made Defender of the Faith by the Bishop of Rome for what he wrote about the "7 sacraments", which was wrong. There are only 2 sacraments.

Answer 7

It would be wrong if Briton was secular but as it isn't and the Church Of England is the state religion, Charles should remain Defender Of The Faith until the Government makes Briton Secular.

Answer 8

the monarch is the head of the anglican church so the monarch defending other faiths is a bit out of ballance but i think the oath should be changed to be inclusive to all subjects faiths so it could be defender of the people, defender of the faith, and defender of the land. or something along those lines

Answer 9

The church is loosing membership fast even the catholic church. The CofE look to be heading for a split over gay bishops and probably also because there are several factions forming.

The Archbishop has repeatedly tried to dictate to the ordinary people of the country that Christianity should be to the fore. Sadly he is so blinkered he cannot see that even Christians do not like dictators!!!

The church is getting desperate and the more desperate they become the more they drive people away!!!

There is far more humanity and humility in Prince Charles than there appears to be in the Archbishop!!

Answer 10

There is an error in your question in that the defender of the faith is not trying to defend the Church of England.

The title was given to Henry VIII when he wrote a pamphlet (actually written by Thomas More) defending catholicism against the Lutheran protestants. The irony is that Henry split from Rome a few years later and set up the Church of England so that he could marry his mistress Anne Boleyn. However he kept the title.

To answer your question. Of course he should not be the defender of the faith(s). He should be defending us against the faiths!

Religion like the monarchy is finished!

Answer 11

I am surprised if he says the "defender of the faiths". My understanding is that originally the title was applied to Henry VIII as he assumed the role of head of the Church of England. Technically I would assume that the title doesn't mean that he defends the Methodists for example. He will be the Head of the Church of England and his title indicates that he should defend that faith.

Did I misunderstand my historical studies?

Pastor John

Addendum: Norman, the title doesn't mean that they won't protect the rights of all people. It means that his job is to defend orthodoxy within the Church of England.