06-18-2010, 08:48 PM
Lately, I have been pondering whether or not I believe it is appropriate that our Sovereign bear the title "Defender of the Faith" in his formal style. I have expressed my thoughts privately to His Majesty, but I thought the topic might be an interesting one to post here in Ellicott Square.
I don't know precisely when the title "Fidei Defensor" was tacked on to the Royal Style and Titles, only that the decision to do so occured during the reign of Alexander, who was the first Hanoverian king to employ it. The reason for this addition was, presumably, to highlight the King's new role as Supreme Governor of the newly established Church of Hanover. Indeed, the title "Supreme Governor of the Church of Hanover" was also added to the King's full style.
James II had originally retained both of those titles in his style, but dropped "Supreme Governor of the Church of Hanover" from his formal style with the latest revision of the Royal Style and Titles. Fidei Defensor remains, however.
Most of us here are familiar enough with the history and traditions of the British Monarchy that we realize that our own king's style "Defender of the Faith" is taken directly from the style and titles of the British monarch. The kings and queens of England, and later of Great Britain and of the United Kingdom, have borne this appellation in their styles since the reign of Henry VIII, who received the title from the Pope in Rome (ironically enough as a reward for his defence of Roman Catholicism in the wake of the Reformation). The title was certainly not given to Henry by the Pope in celebration of the former's assumption of the style "Head of the Church of England on Earth".
But it was given to our king for that reason. Not by the Pope, of course, but by Parliament (I assume), which demonstrated that no matter how similar this kingdom is to Britain, she is at the same time her very own self.
The King of Hanover has not been the only monarch apart from Elizabeth II to bear the style Fidei Defensor in our times. Jason, Emperor of the Most Serene Empire of Ascalon, employed the style as well, and he did so well before Hanover was ever heard of. So even amongst other non-territorial realms, the title was not unique to our king.
The general feeling at the moment concerning the Church of Hanover seems to be that it ought to be de-emphasized or re-imagined if not altogether abolished. Personally, I would like to see the Church reformed rather than abolished, as I believe it lends greater dimension to our national culture and that it can, when deployed wisely, provide a source of satisfaction for those interested in recreating an ecclesiastical structure and government. When viewed correctly, the Church can also provide a venue in which religiously-minded persons can engage in a contained dialogue concerning various matters of faith and spirituality.
But is the King of Hanover and Sconeland really the "Defender of the Faith" in any meaningful way? I don't think it can be argued by anyone that he is, at all, or ever has been. That observation is by no means a reflection on the personal piety of either King Alexander or King James II, incidentally. I know that both men are sincere, practising Christian gentlemen. But as with so many such things about this Realm, the King's title "Defender of the Faith" exists more as an homage to the traditions of the British Monarchy which this community has always found itself attached to. For that reason, justification may be found for retaining it.
On the other hand, however, it may be argued that our veneration of the British monarchy should actually prevent us from presuming upon the use of the Queen's actual, present day styles and titles. It may be argued that the Royal Style and Titles of Elizabeth II are hers and hers alone, and that none of them ought to be pretended to by anyone else. It was to the King of England that the Pope gave the title, after all, and not to the King of Hanover. And if the King of Hanover can simply call himself "Defender of the Faith" at will, what is to stop him from borrowing any other style or title he or any of his successors happen to fancy?
Some years ago we witnessed in these very fora an eruption over the adoption of the papal style "Pontifex Maximus" by the monarch of another non-territorial kingdom. But really, if we look upon the styles and traditional appellations of other sovereigns and heads of state as nothing but easy pickings for our own use, there's nothing then to stop a future king of Hanover and Sconeland from styling himself as "Supreme Pontiff" or as "Leader of the Free World" or as "Most Catholic Monarch" regardless of the august personages who already hold those styles.
But wouldn't that really only serve to cheapen our monarchy? Does the use of the British style "Fidei Defensor" without any modification whatsoever make our king seem just an unimaginitive usurper? I think there is the risk that it may do.
Others may look upon this matter from a different perspective, and take an entirely different view. But from my own perspective, it would seem to me the wiser decision to make a change to the Royal Style and Titles by which Fidei Defensor is either dropped altogether, or at the very least modified to make it unique to our monarch.
A great deal of emphasis of late has been placed on the idea of the preservation of a certain and definite cultural atmosphere within these realms. Our traditions are what defines us as a community.
Could not our king, then, be regarded as the principal "Defender of Our Traditions", or as the "Defender of the Traditions of His Peoples" rather than the defender of an undefined faith? Our state church, such as it may be, is nothing like the Church of England. It isn't an old and recognized denomination of Christianity, but a recent contrivance established for the purpose of lending atmosphere to our community.
But our tradition of contriving such things as established churches and royal styles for the purpose of maintaining this community on a certain cultural path is something that the king is and should be the defender of. And perhaps that role of his ought to be included in his formal style.
I don't know precisely when the title "Fidei Defensor" was tacked on to the Royal Style and Titles, only that the decision to do so occured during the reign of Alexander, who was the first Hanoverian king to employ it. The reason for this addition was, presumably, to highlight the King's new role as Supreme Governor of the newly established Church of Hanover. Indeed, the title "Supreme Governor of the Church of Hanover" was also added to the King's full style.
James II had originally retained both of those titles in his style, but dropped "Supreme Governor of the Church of Hanover" from his formal style with the latest revision of the Royal Style and Titles. Fidei Defensor remains, however.
Most of us here are familiar enough with the history and traditions of the British Monarchy that we realize that our own king's style "Defender of the Faith" is taken directly from the style and titles of the British monarch. The kings and queens of England, and later of Great Britain and of the United Kingdom, have borne this appellation in their styles since the reign of Henry VIII, who received the title from the Pope in Rome (ironically enough as a reward for his defence of Roman Catholicism in the wake of the Reformation). The title was certainly not given to Henry by the Pope in celebration of the former's assumption of the style "Head of the Church of England on Earth".
But it was given to our king for that reason. Not by the Pope, of course, but by Parliament (I assume), which demonstrated that no matter how similar this kingdom is to Britain, she is at the same time her very own self.
The King of Hanover has not been the only monarch apart from Elizabeth II to bear the style Fidei Defensor in our times. Jason, Emperor of the Most Serene Empire of Ascalon, employed the style as well, and he did so well before Hanover was ever heard of. So even amongst other non-territorial realms, the title was not unique to our king.
The general feeling at the moment concerning the Church of Hanover seems to be that it ought to be de-emphasized or re-imagined if not altogether abolished. Personally, I would like to see the Church reformed rather than abolished, as I believe it lends greater dimension to our national culture and that it can, when deployed wisely, provide a source of satisfaction for those interested in recreating an ecclesiastical structure and government. When viewed correctly, the Church can also provide a venue in which religiously-minded persons can engage in a contained dialogue concerning various matters of faith and spirituality.
But is the King of Hanover and Sconeland really the "Defender of the Faith" in any meaningful way? I don't think it can be argued by anyone that he is, at all, or ever has been. That observation is by no means a reflection on the personal piety of either King Alexander or King James II, incidentally. I know that both men are sincere, practising Christian gentlemen. But as with so many such things about this Realm, the King's title "Defender of the Faith" exists more as an homage to the traditions of the British Monarchy which this community has always found itself attached to. For that reason, justification may be found for retaining it.
On the other hand, however, it may be argued that our veneration of the British monarchy should actually prevent us from presuming upon the use of the Queen's actual, present day styles and titles. It may be argued that the Royal Style and Titles of Elizabeth II are hers and hers alone, and that none of them ought to be pretended to by anyone else. It was to the King of England that the Pope gave the title, after all, and not to the King of Hanover. And if the King of Hanover can simply call himself "Defender of the Faith" at will, what is to stop him from borrowing any other style or title he or any of his successors happen to fancy?
Some years ago we witnessed in these very fora an eruption over the adoption of the papal style "Pontifex Maximus" by the monarch of another non-territorial kingdom. But really, if we look upon the styles and traditional appellations of other sovereigns and heads of state as nothing but easy pickings for our own use, there's nothing then to stop a future king of Hanover and Sconeland from styling himself as "Supreme Pontiff" or as "Leader of the Free World" or as "Most Catholic Monarch" regardless of the august personages who already hold those styles.
But wouldn't that really only serve to cheapen our monarchy? Does the use of the British style "Fidei Defensor" without any modification whatsoever make our king seem just an unimaginitive usurper? I think there is the risk that it may do.
Others may look upon this matter from a different perspective, and take an entirely different view. But from my own perspective, it would seem to me the wiser decision to make a change to the Royal Style and Titles by which Fidei Defensor is either dropped altogether, or at the very least modified to make it unique to our monarch.
A great deal of emphasis of late has been placed on the idea of the preservation of a certain and definite cultural atmosphere within these realms. Our traditions are what defines us as a community.
Could not our king, then, be regarded as the principal "Defender of Our Traditions", or as the "Defender of the Traditions of His Peoples" rather than the defender of an undefined faith? Our state church, such as it may be, is nothing like the Church of England. It isn't an old and recognized denomination of Christianity, but a recent contrivance established for the purpose of lending atmosphere to our community.
But our tradition of contriving such things as established churches and royal styles for the purpose of maintaining this community on a certain cultural path is something that the king is and should be the defender of. And perhaps that role of his ought to be included in his formal style.