Replies

I think Charles is playing 'em. A few years ago, there was a question of whether he should be "Defender of the Faith," the nominal head of the CoE, with his divorce and his documented adultery -- now he's got 'em down to arguing over a definite article.

Adultery used to be part of the job description for kings--where else did all those royal bastards (like Diana's ancestor, one of Charles II's illegitimate children) come from? In fact, the royal dynasties of England since the Norman Conquest of 1066 all trace back to William the Conqueror, who was previously called William the Bastard.

The title of "Defender of the Faith" was first bestowed on Henry VIII by the pope, because of his defense of the Catholic view of the Eucharist against Martin Luther. Henry VIII later had Sir Thomas More and Bishop John Fisher executed because of their loyalty to the Catholic Church. It seems ironic that the non-Catholic monarchs of England have continued to use a title which came from the pope.

Since Latin doesn't have either a definite or an indefinite article, Defensor fidei could mean "defender of a faith"--so whatever faith the heir apparent has, he can be the defender of that.

Of course, if Henry VIII had not had the bad habit of divorcing or beheading his many wives, there would be no soi disant "Church of England." Whatever his drawbacks and failings, Prince Charles has shown an admirable reluctance to claim the title of Defender of the Faith which was a papal honor granted to Henry VIII for funding published defenses of Roman Catholicism before Henry decided to put away Catherine of Aragon in favor of Anne Boleyn.

It was most certainly not an hereditary title but Elizabeth I acted as though it were while maintaining her major hobby of causing Roman Catholics to be hanged, drawn and quartered before being disemboweled for saying Mass in Great Britain. Just another case of grand theft ecclesiastical.