By “educated”, what was the curriculum of said “education”?
Changing “defender of the faith” to “defender of faith” indicates a character flaw, with all due respect to his Highness—and there are a lot more examples of bad character besides. He would have a lot more of the anti-left on his side if he would stop pandering to the left.
Largely educated at one of the top private schools in Scotland, with some education at Australia's top private school (which I also attended, and where I met him). Deeply conservative and traditional schools in those days, although both have slipped left since. He then took a degree in history at the University of Cambridge, regarded as one of the best universities in the world (Bachelor of Arts with lower second class honours which I think is an accurate reflection of his ability - he's not a brilliant scholar, but he did more than just scrape through (third class honours and ordinary degrees are below what he got) He now has a Masters because Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin traditionally hand them out to all their students a few years after they get their Bachelors without further formal study). After that he went into the Royal Navy and completed his education at the Royal Naval College Dartmouth, Britain's naval academy.
Changing “defender of the faith” to “defender of faith” indicates a character flaw, with all due respect to his Highness
He mentioned this idea once in one interview over twenty years ago, and what he was talking about was his desire to be a King for all his people. He's made it clear more recently that he has no intention of actually changing the title (which he actually can't do just because he might want to - Parliament would have to do it anyway).
He would have a lot more of the anti-left on his side if he would stop pandering to the left.
He really doesn't pander to the left - it's just that the media only tends to report comments he makes on certain issues and largely ignores those he makes on others.
How much publicity did it get when he said this in a speech at Christmas a year and a half ago:
For myself, I have for some time now been deeply troubled by the growing difficulties faced by Christian communities in various parts of the Middle East. It seems to me that we cannot ignore the fact that Christians in the Middle East are, increasingly, being deliberately targeted by fundamentalist Islamist militants. Christianity was, literally, born in the Middle East and we must not forget our Middle Eastern brothers and sisters in Christ. Their church communities link us straight back to the early Church, as I was reminded by hearing Aramaic, Our Lord's own language, spoken and sung a few hours ago.
Yet, today, the Middle East and North Africa has the lowest concentration of Christians in the world – just four per cent of the population and it is clear that the Christian population of the Middle East has dropped dramatically over the last century and is falling still further.
This has an effect on all of us, although, of course, primarily on those Christians who can no longer continue to live in the Middle East: we all lose something immensely and irreplaceably precious when such a rich tradition dating back two thousand years begins to disappear. It is, therefore, especially delightful to see such a rich panoply of church life here to-day, including the Antiochian, Greek, Coptic, Syrian, and Armenian Orthodox Churches, the Melkite, Maronite, Syrian Catholic, Chaldean, and Roman Catholic Churches, as well as the Church of the East, and Churches established, dare I say it, somewhat more recently, including the Anglican Church!
In saying all this about the difficulties facing the Christian churches in the Middle East I am, of course, conscious that they are not the only faith community in this region suffering at the moment, nor is the Middle East the only part of the world in which Christians are suffering, but, given the particularly acute circumstances faced by the church communities in the Middle East to-day, I felt it worthwhile to draw attention to their current plight.
How many other 'world leaders' have made statements like this recently? And how much publicity was it given? This is what he means by defending faith - not just Anglicanism, and probably not just Christianity. But freedom of religion. I will note, that in the same speech, he also did have some praise for some Muslims - the few who are trying to protect the rights of Christians in the Middle East.
There are a couple of issues - like environmentalism - where he does have views that coincide more with the left than the right, but overall, he's a conservative, and he does talk about conservative values as often as he can. He is limited to some extent, by the fact he has to be careful not to say things that are opposed to British government policy.
The media will publicise anything he says on the environment. They tend to ignore as much as possible, when he talks about veterans and their issues, and do everything they can to drown out anything he says about Christianity. It gives a warped view of the man and who he is and what he believes in. He's not perfect - but speaking as a conservative, overall he is on the right side. He'd fit in reasonably well here if he had that type of freedom. He's a Christian patriot who believes in gun rights (very controversial in the UK - but he doesn't hide the fact he shoots and hunts), in the value of a strong defence - and a lot of other conservative ideals as well.