The title ‘Defender of the Faith’ was conferred upon King Henry VIII in 1521 by Pope Leo X for Henry’s defence of Catholic teachings against the Protestant Reformation. However, after the English Reformation of 1534, the Pope revoked the title, and Parliament reconferred it upon the King in 1544. The monarch held a constitutional role as well as a religious role. The former required his protection of all subjects. The latter made him ‘Supreme Head’ (1534), a title later changed to ‘Supreme Governor’ of the Church of England (1558). In 2026, that title has been morphed by the Palace (not Parliament). It has no constitutional authority. We are told in the Sovereign Grant Annual Report and Accounts 2025-26 that King Charles III is ‘Supreme Governor of the Church of England and protects the space for Faith within the multi-faith nation. ’What does this mean, and is it problematic?
From Defender of the Faith to Defender of Faith?
Before becoming King, Prince Charles said in 1994 that he wanted to see himself as ‘Defender of Faith’ rather than ‘Defender of the Faith’, so that he could be protector of all faith communities within the nation, not just the Anglican Church.
While his intentions were ‘ecumenical’, his comments created a constitutional crisis and vigorous theological debate within the Church of England. More important, this move had not been called for by faith communities. It eventually died out as Queen Elizabeth did not show any public support of her son’s view, although in 2012 she expressed the view that the Church of England has a duty to ‘protect the free practice of all faiths.’ Even faiths that would suppress the freedom of the Christian faith?
There were three main objections to Charles’ views in the 1994 debate – all of them rekindled. Under the Act of Settlement of 1701, the Coronation Oath requires the monarch to uphold the Protestant religion. Only parliament can change that. ‘The faith’ is specified. Second, the fundamental union of Church and State would unravel with the proposed title if the Church became a vacuous term. In fact, it would undermine his own influence in promoting a religiously pluralist society if he severed that union. Third, some Anglicans argued that it would require the head of the Anglican Church to contradictorily hold to the truth of the Anglican faith while at the same time defending truths contrary to that faith.
Charles, in response, made it clear that he did not wish to disavow his role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. However, Charles’ separation, divorce and remarriage (2005) to his long-term mistress, Camilla Parker Bowles, created a shadow not dissimilar to Henry VIII’s actions. The monarch in waiting was acting contrary to his own Church’s teachings.
The King is in danger of conflating his two constitutional roles by wanting to extend his role as ‘Supreme Governor of the Church of England’, whereas his role as ‘Head of State’ provides him a perfect platform to support and build a multi-faith pluralist society.
In reigniting this debate, King Charles clearly wants to protect the public space as a multi-faith arena. The report notes his ‘special role in bringing communities and faiths together.’ These are important sentiments when segments of the British public are becoming hostile towards certain faiths (especially Jewish and Muslim – and Christian), and the majority of the public define themselves as of having no faith. The nub of the problem lies in how the king could justify his goals as head of the Church of England rather than as head of State, without crashing into the second and third problems outlined above.
The Second Vatican Council and the Freedom of Religion
One might recall the way in which Nostra Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae were separate documents at the Second Vatican Council - and for good reason. Nostra Aetate outlined the Church’s theological attitude to other religions. Dignitatis Humanae presented, not without controversy, the Church’s attitude towards religious freedom in the public square. Together they showed how one could hold to a view that the Catholic faith was the true faith, without questioning freedom of religion in the public square (‘within due limits’, as DH 2 so wisely stipulated).
The King is in danger of conflating his two constitutional roles by wanting to extend his role as ‘Supreme Governor of the Church of England’, whereas his role as ‘Head of State’ provides him a perfect platform to support and build a multi-faith pluralist society. He could sidestep the three problems in that way.
Some conservative Anglicans complain that he is abandoning his coronation oath as defender of the faith in now promoting his role as facilitator of multi-faith dialogue, rather than demanding the preaching of the gospel in the public square.
King Charles is resistant to this as he has come to this conviction as a man of faith. Ironically, rather than being more inclusive through this move, he may well end up claiming a representational role with no constitutional or theological authority to do so. Only 12% of the population are Anglican. Humanists are perplexed why their King wants to bring only ‘faiths’ together in the public square, thereby ignoring most of his subjects. Some conservative Anglicans complain that he is abandoning his coronation oath as defender of the faith in now promoting his role as facilitator of multi-faith dialogue, rather than demanding the preaching of the gospel in the public square.
They are not advocating intolerance, but they see the head of the Church’s role to avoid confusingly signalling a parity of faiths. This echoes Pope Francis’s problems when signing a document with a Muslim leader that said God wills the diversity of religions, when his Church, in Dominus Iesus, stipulated this was not the case. He later glossed: permissive will is what he meant.
The next monarch is not a regular Church goer, like his father. This may even deepen the underlying constitutional crisis. However, it does raise the serious question about the theological or ideological basis of a multi-religious society – a pressing problem for most nations.