Queen Elizabeth

[hauslern]

Queen Elizabeth II was head of state for Australia. She was on the throne for over 70 years I was able to see her as a small boy in Toowoomba Australia in her visit to the city of Toowoomba. She was a great lady who dedicated her life to service even when some of her family members gave her grief (eg Prince Andrew and Epstein). She was officially the head of the Church of England.

[hauslern]

Charles wanted his position in future as king to have a different approach to all faiths.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... -of-faiths

[Physics Guy]

On UK coins with the monarch's face there are cryptic letters around the rim, some variation of "D G REG [or REX] FID DEF". This is abbreviated Latin for "by the grace of God, Queen [or King], Defender of the Faith". In one of ecclesiastical history's best ironies, the title "fidei defensor" was granted by Pope Leo X to Henry VIII, because Henry had written (or at least promulgated) a book against Martin Luther. After Henry decided he no longer cared what the pope said and set himself up as head of his own national church, the next pope revoked the title, but British monarchs blithely went on using it because they no longer cared what the pope said.

Through most of that time they took the title quite seriously. When British coins mentioned India, "FID DEF" still came before "IND IMP" in the string. The numismatic detail represents an official entanglement between church and state in Britain that has survived from Reformation times until now. A certain number of Anglican bishops are automatically members of the House of Lords, where they in principle have some say in framing the law of the land; no other religious leaders have that privilege.

Disestablishing the Church of England seems like an obvious step at this point. Plenty of keen supporters of the church would even approve, because the political entanglement cuts both ways. Many decisions that would be purely internal matters of faith for a normal church have to be approved for the Church of England by Parliament, so that MPs of other faiths, or of none, get to vote on church policy. The C of E does not receive government funding to operate, though many of its historic churches are maintained with some public funds. With sharply falling attendance and donations, the church is struggling to recruit and pay staff, but with billions of pounds of investments and property, it could probably survive fine as an independent denomination that didn't have to try to cover the whole country as a national church.

Years ago, at least, Charles used to make statements that sounded like hints that he would support Disestablishment if he were king. He'd keep the old Latin title but revise its English translation to delete the definite article, and be a "Defender of Faith". Perhaps in a few years that will actually happen.

[MeDotOrg]

Thanks for the history, Physics Guy.

After my mother died my father remarried a Mormon woman, but before then I was raised Episcopalian, which is sort of Church of England outside England. As long as a religion is predicated upon a relationship with the state, on what basis do they claim to be the purveyors of universal spiritual truths?

[Chap]

Thanks for the history, Physics Guy.

After my mother died my father remarried a Mormon woman, but before then I was raised Episcopalian, which is sort of Church of England outside England. As long as a religion is predicated upon a relationship with the state, on what basis do they claim to be the purveyors of universal spiritual truths?

I am an atheist, but I know the organisation of which you speak quite well. The religion of the Church of England, and of the other churches around the world related to it (often called 'Anglican') is not 'predicated on a relationship with the state', although the Church of England, for historical reasons, has had a close relationship with the state. Other Anglican churches outside England do not, and an association with the state forms no part of their religious doctrine.

If you read the 39 'Articles of Religion' in the Church of England Prayer Book (agreed at a congregation of archbishops, bishops and clergy held in 1562 under Elizabeth I), you will find nothing that suggests that religious belief is in any way based on 'a relationship with the state'. Article 37 'Of Civil Magistrates' specifically says that the monarch of England (and not any foreign power such as the Bishop of Rome) has ultimate power over all affairs in the realm, 'Ecclesiastical or Civil' but denies that the monarch has any role in 'the ministering of God's Word, or of the Sacraments', merely stating that the job of the monarch is to rule 'all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal'. So in England, the monarch was said to be the ultimate political authority over everything, including the church - the point of saying so being to exclude the Pope from any control of the English church.