And how would that work if the Muslim, the Sikh, the Catholic, and the Protestant were having a right old punch up.
And at the same time Prince Charles is walking past, what religion would he feel obliged to help. Name the one you think he would help.
2007-11-02 13:05:29 · 16 answers · asked by ? 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I'm a princess and I can tell you that no, he is NOT
2007-11-02 13:15:54 · answer #1 · answered by Love Yahoo!!! wannabe a princess 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Unless he's CofE he can't accept title of defender of the faith, but that's not a problem because "Defender of all faiths" would be a NEW TITLE.
As it would be new, it would need to be determined if he needed to be Monarch.
I think the only religion English monarchs can't be is Catholic. ( I do think Europe might well have something to say over this if ever became an issue....)
It would work just as well as interfaith does. I think he'd tend to help the one which was being most "reasonable" towards the others.
(I don't know if Britain is as "Christian" as many say as it depends very much on how you measure it. Churches are really empty despite many people putting Christian down on the census. Maybe they didn't realise that the census return affects things like how much "importance" Parliament pays to the CofE. It also has a bearing on funding.)
2007-11-02 19:27:09 · answer #2 · answered by Steve C 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The bishop of Rome, Leo X, showing a monumental lack of foresight, granted Henry VIII the Latin title, "Fidei Defensor" in 1521 in recognition of the king's treatise against the Protestant Martin Luther. So, rather ironically considering that Henry killed about 100,000 Catholic churchmen, monks and nuns in 1538, this title originally meant 'defender of the Catholic faith'. On the other hand, I believe it is still illegal under UK law, for the reigning monarch or the Prime Minister to be a professing Catholic. So, today this is all a bit of a muddle and perhaps we should move on and formally abolish the title, along with the other one, 'Governor of the Church of England'.
2007-11-02 21:51:45 · answer #3 · answered by Steven Ring 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think the actual phrase was that he wanted to be the "defender of faith" rather than the current title of the the British head of state (if he ever gets the job) of "defender of the faith" meaning Christianity, and even more specifically the Church of England.
But if Prince Charles thinks "faith", with the object or content of the faith unspecified is a good thing, then getting him to stand up for a sincere child-sacrificing Moloch-worshipper is going to be interesting.
Or less hypothetically, to defend those African variant faiths which believe in torturing children to cast out demons or foil witchcraft.
He might like to defend the Pacific island one which considers his father a god.
2007-11-02 13:21:02 · answer #4 · answered by Pedestal 42 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i don't think he would interveine on that level or be allowed to by security, but i see no reason why the wording can not be changed keeping defender of the faith but adding and the people or and the views of the people along with it or something else so all the citisent of the uk are encapsulated not just one part of the populus becouse the uk may be predominantly christian but that vow only takes care of anglicans not any other sect or religion.
the monarch can not be other than an anglican and as the answerer above rightly says henry was given the title by the pope but the anglican church is a catholic church just with a different head it is anglican catholic not roman catholic
2007-11-02 22:09:05 · answer #5 · answered by manapaformetta 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Defender Against Who? The Apostle Paul Wrote : “We have a wrestling, not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places.” (Ephesians 6:12)
What Help Will Charles be in this Situation?... Pray Tell.
2007-11-02 13:17:18 · answer #6 · answered by conundrum 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i think of that's him attempting to approximately-face to pass off the great defection of anglican conservatives in africa and usa. It would not rather in super condition him i think of, because of the fact he has a tendency to be reasonable-liberal in maximum of his perspectives. besides the fact that if he's on the main suitable area of this i think of, because of the fact anglicanism is a state church, and charles's stance could probable throw a great curve ball in britain approximately how the king may be the top of it and yet no longer also have a christian coronation.
2016-12-15 14:40:55 · answer #7 · answered by fuchser 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I suspect what Prince Charles means is that he wants to defend all faiths as long as they are not the right one.
.
2007-11-02 13:47:56 · answer #8 · answered by miller 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No he can't be 'Defender of all faiths' and be King of England, or at least he shouldn't be. The U.K is a Christian Country and therefore the head of state has to be Christian and defend that faith.
2007-11-02 13:19:56 · answer #9 · answered by translatorinspain 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. How can he when he appears to have no faith?
I believe he helps the religion of himself and the current religious trend of political correctness, with its leader 'Bishop distort truth'
2007-11-02 13:18:38 · answer #10 · answered by insert_ nickname_ here! 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no because he is a Protestant and Church of England like the rest of the royals that's part of our history dating back to Henry the eighth who changed the catholic faith in order to divorce his wives instead of killing them off to re marry so obviously he'd jump in on the Muslims side just because he would want to look p,c in the national news papers the head lines saying nice one Charlie nice one mate you joined in with the Muslims and kicked the rest out the gate
2007-11-02 13:14:18 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋