defender of the faith | English royal title | Britannica.com Defender of the faith Alternative Titles: F.D., Fid. Def., Fidei Defensor Similar Topics bretwalda Defender of the faith, Latin Fidei Defensor, a title belonging to the sovereign of England in the same way as Christianissimus (“most Christian”) belonged to the king of France. The title was first conferred by Pope Leo X on Henry VIII (Oct. 11, 1521) as a reward for the king’s pamphlet Assertio septem sacramentorum adversus Martinum Lutherum (“Declaration of the Seven Sacraments Against Martin Luther”), written against Luther. When Henry broke with the papacy, Pope Paul III deprived him of his designation , but the title was restored to the king by Parliament in 1544 and is still used by his successors on the English throne. The abbreviation Fid. Def. or the letters F.D. have been regularly on the coinage from the time of George I .

Learn More in these related articles: in Henry VIII (king of England): The breach with Rome ...in his book Assertio septem sacramentorum adversus Martinum Lutherum (1521), he had attacked Luther and had expressed a profound devotion to the papacy and had been rewarded with the title of Defender of the Faith. Now he had turned against the pope; his act was equal to encouraging the Protestant Reformation, a thing attractive to Cranmer and Cromwell (and perhaps Anne Boleyn) but not to... More about defender of the faith 1 Reference found in Britannica Articles Assorted Reference Corrections? Updates? Help us improve this article! Contact our editors with your feedback. MEDIA FOR: You have successfully emailed this. Error when sending the email. Try again later. Edit Mode Submit Tips For Editing We welcome suggested improvements to any of our articles. You can make it easier for us to review and, hopefully, publish your contribution by keeping a few points in mind. Encyclopædia Britannica articles are written in a neutral objective tone for a general audience. You may find it helpful to search within the site to see how similar or related subjects are covered. Any text you add should be original, not copied from other sources.

At the bottom of the article, feel free to list any sources that support your changes, so that we can fully understand their context. (Internet URLs are the best.) Your contribution may be further edited by our staff, and its publication is subject to our final approval. Unfortunately, our editorial approach may not be able to accommodate all contributions. Submit Thank You for Your Contribution! Our editors will review what you've submitted, and if it meets our criteria, we'll add it to the article. Please note that our editors may make some formatting changes or correct spelling or grammatical errors, and may also contact you if any clarifications are needed. Uh Oh There was a problem with your submission. Please try again later.

Close Article Title: defender of the faith Website Name: Encyclopædia Britannica Date Published: July 20, 1998 URL: Access Date: January 14, 2017 Share Today in Catholic History – Henry VIII is declared the Defender of the Faith « Today in Catholic History – The Destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre » Today in Catholic History – Henry VIII is declared the Defender of the Faith On 17 October 1521, Pope Leo X declared King Henry VIII the Fidei Defensor or Defender of the Faith. This title was given to honor Henry for his book Defense of the Seven Sacraments which attacked the theology of Martin Luther and was dedicated to Leo. This title was added to the full royal title of Henry as “Henry the Eighth, by the Grace of God, King of England and France, Defender of the Faith and Lord of Ireland”. After Henry VIII broke with the Catholic Church, Pope Paul III excommunicated Henry and rescinded the grant of the title “Defender of the Faith” in 1538 but the English Parliament declared that the title remained valid.

Henry’s book was very popular and went through twenty editions in the sixteenth century. defender-of-the-faith - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com jump to other results a title used by all kings and queens of England since the 16th century. The abbreviation of the title's Latin form, Fidei Defensor, is FD or FID DEF, and this appears on every British coin. The title was first given to King Henry VIII by Pope Leo X after Henry's defence of the Roman Catholic faith against the teachings of Martin Luther. But the title was taken away when England left the Roman Catholic Church. King Henry then asked the English Parliament to give him the same title with a different meaning: defender of the Church of England. What’s In a Title : The Changing Royal Style | Unofficial Royalty What’s In a Title : The Changing Royal Style by Paul James October 29 2006 In 1953, every independent realm of Her Majesty passed an act concerning the royal title and style of the Queen.

This was the first time that separate acts and separate titles were adopted for the same monarch by different realms, but the practice of formally proclaiming or enacting a particular royal style and title dates back at least to the sixteenth century, and the practice of using a fixed style dates back roughly to the conquest. The Anglo-Saxon kings of England were more lackadaisical about titles : the substance of power was more important than the form, at least in this regard. Documents give a bewildering variety of titles for a single king, e.g. Athelstan was variously King of the Anglo-Saxons, King of the English, Monarch of all Britain, sometimes he was omnipotent, sometimes he was king by the Grace of God<, at others by the Providence of God. The one common feature throughout the Anglo-Saxon period is that the monarchs were kings of people rather than land, i.e. King of the English (Rex Anglorum), not King of England (Rex Angliae). This was common practice elsewhere in Europe too, and in Britain it survived until 1603 in the title King of Scots.

This style continued for a while after the Norman conquest, sometimes with the addition of “Duke of the Normans”. Henry II (reigned 1154-89) brought extra titles into the mix from his paternal inheritance, and was styled King of the English, Duke of the Normans and Aquitainians and Count of the Anjouvans. King John altered the style to refer to England, Normandy etc, and also added Lord of Ireland. John went on to lose Normandy and Anjou, but the titular claims to these territories weren’t given up until his son’s reign. The longest-lasting piece of fiction in the English royal styles was introduced by Edward III in 1340, when he lay claim to the crown of France by right of descent from his mother, Isabelle, daughter of Philippe IV. Edward’s new style was King of England and France and Lord of Ireland – he dropped the ducal title of Aquitaine since it would have been merged into the French Crown. As a result of the Treaty of Bretigny in 1360, he dropped the French claim but was recognized as Lord of Aquitaine by King Jean II of France.

The peace with France broke down again nine years later, and Edward resumed his French royal claim, and the title which, with one brief exception, was to remain the English royal style until the reign of Henry VIII. The French title was a fiction – English kings ruled parts of France, but never the whole country, and were never recognized as kings by most of the French. After the disastrous reign of Henry VI, England’s French possessions consisted of nothing but Calais, and this too was lost in 1558. But the title “King of France”, along with the shield of France in the royal arms, persisted until 1801, even while the real King of France was recognized by England. The one exception to this occurred, ironically, when an English king had the most realistic chance of actually becoming King of France! After his military successes at Agincourt and afterwards, Henry V secured recognition as heir to the throne of France from Charles VI, although this was not accepted by many of the French, and the war went on.

From the point of this recognition, which was given in the Treaty of Troyes in 1420, Henry styled himself by the Grace of God King of England, Heir and Regent of France, and Lord of Ireland. The two kings – Henry and Charles – died within two months of each other in 1422, so that, according to the treaty, Henry VI of England was also King of France, and resumed the pre-1420 royal style. Henry VIII went through four different royal styles, as a result of the English reformation, and the elevation of Ireland to the status of a kingdom in 1542. At the beginning of his reign, he used the same style which had first been adopted by Edward III in 1340, but in 1521 he incorporated the Papally-granted title Defender of the Faith. Following the break with Rome, his headship of the Church of England was also included, and he became by the Grace of God King of England and France, Defender of the Faith, Lord of Ireland, and of the Church of England on Earth the Supreme Head.

When Ireland was raised to a kingdom in 1542, the title became : by the Grace of God, King of England, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, and of the Church of England and also of Ireland in Earth the Supreme Head. Edward VI and Jane Grey bore Henry VIII’s last style, but on her marriage to Philip of Spain, Mary and her husband adopted a long joint style : Philip and Mary, by the Grace of God, King and Queen of England and France, Naples, Jerusalem and Ireland, Defenders of the Faith, Princes of Spain and Sicily, Archdukes of Austria, Dukes of Milan, Burgundy and Brabant, Counts of Hapsburg, Flanders, and Tyrol. In 1556, the list of kingdoms increased on the abdication of Philip’s father, Emperor Charles V, and became King and Queen of England, Spain, France, both Sicilies, Jerusalem and Ireland. Obviously, Elizabeth I did not inherit Philip’s titles, but also, although she resumed the headship of the Church of England which Mary had relinquished (but as Supreme Governor, not Supreme Head), she did not put this back into the royal style.

Instead, she place a vague “etc” or “&c” at the end, producing by the Grace of God, Queen of England, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. James VI added Scotland (not Scots) to the title after England to give the official title until 1707 of by the Grace of God, King/Queen of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc.. However, James also issued a proclamation mandating the style King of Great Britain, France and Ireland … even though Great Britain was not a single kingdom at the time. It became a united kingdom in 1707, at which time both “England” and “Scotland” disappeared from the royal style forever, to give King/Queen of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc.. From 1707, the king’s German titles were also sometimes included (Duke of Brunswick-Lüneberg, Arch Treasurer, and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire). A second Act of Union brought Great Britain and Ireland together in 1801 as a single kingdom, necessitating a further change in the royal style.

The opportunity was taken to drop the meaningless claim to France, which, by this time, had abolished the monarchy altogether. George III became by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith. At the time of the union, George III rejected suggestions that he should assume an imperial title, but in 1876, Queen Victoria willing accepted the title, not in relation to Britain, but to India. Empress of India was added to the end of the 1801 style. This was the first reference in the royal style to Britain’s vast territories outside Europe, and the first time the royal title and style was authorised by an Act of Parliament, rather than made by proclamation solely under the prerogative. The second reference to overseas territories was added after Victoria’s death, when Edward VII became by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British dominions beyond the seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India. The phrase “British dominions beyond the seas” remained the only reference to the non-Indian territories, even after some of them became autonomous dominions equal in status to the United Kingdom.

However, the creation of the Irish Free State was acknowledged five years after the event when the phrase United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the British dominions … was replaced by Great Britain, Ireland and the British dominions …. Although all of Ireland was still subject to the Crown, most of it was no longer part of the United Kingdom. This ceased to be the case in 1949, when the Irish Free State became the Republic of Ireland, but it took another four years for the title to be corrected. Indian independence led to the removal of the title Emperor of India in 1948. At around this time, and especially when India opted to become a republic in 1950, the question of the inappropriateness of the royal style to current circumstances was raised. Countries such as Canada and Australia were fully independent nations, but their names appeared nowhere in their King’s title! In addition, the negotiations surrounding India’s wish to remain in the Commonwealth after becoming a republic had led to the agreement that the king would be recognized as “Head of the Commonwealth”, but this, too, was missing from the official title.

By the time Elizabeth II acceded to the throne in February 1952, there was general agreement on the nature of a new royal title, but the specific title or titles had not yet been decided upon. Consequently, her proclamation as Queen in the United Kingdom used a style which has never had official sanction and referred to no nation by name : Queen of this Realm and of all Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. Officially, though, her style remained the same as that of her father until final agreement on a change was reached and implemented in 1953. The agreed change stated that every dominion should adopt its own royal title, but that they should all contain the common phrases “of her other Realms and Territories” and “Head of the Commonwealth”. Some dominions chose to retain a reference to the United Kingdom in their title, as well as to themselves; while others did not. Some of those who did so (Australia and New Zealand) removed it in the 1970s. Today, therefore, the Queen is unique in possessing sixteen different titles.

Three refer to the United Kingdom (UK, Canada and Grenada), and only three retain the title Defender of the Faith (UK, Canada and New Zealand). In the UK, she is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, but in most realms the style is somewhat simpler, e.g. in Australia (since 1973) it is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. It is not yet clear what will happen to the title when the crown passes to Prince Charles. The title “Head of the Commonwealth” is not automatically hereditary, and Prince Charles himself would like to amend the title “Defender of the Faith” to “Defender of Faith”. However, since the title is established by statutory authority, any changes will require the consent of the relevant parliaments.

BBC - Religions - Christianity: Church of England Church of England Last updated 2011-06-30 An explanation of the Church of England, established or state church in England and part of the worldwide Anglican Communion; its structure, history and current issues. On this page History and role St Botolph's Church, Boston, England © The Church of England is the established or state church in England. It is divided into two provinces - Canterbury in the South of England and York in the North. Each province has a head or Primate - the Archbishops of Canterbury and York . The Church of England is part of the Anglican Communion, which is a worldwide family of churches in more than 160 different countries. On any one Sunday more than a million people attend Church of England services, making it the largest Christian denomination in the country.

The Established Church The Church of England is the established church, meaning, amongst other things: the Monarch is the the Supreme Governor of the church (theologically Jesus is the head), the Church performs a number of official functions, Church and State are linked History The Church of England traces its roots back to the early church, but its specifically Anglican identity and its links to the State date back to the Reformation. Henry VIII started the process of creating the Church of England after his split with the Pope in the 1530s. Henry was anxious to ensure a male heir after his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, had borne him only a daughter. He wanted his marriage annulled in order to remarry. In 1534 after several attempts to persuade the Pope to grant an annulment, Henry passed the Act of Succession and then the Act of Supremacy. These recognised that the King was "the only supreme head of the Church of England called Anglicana Ecclesia". Henry adopted the title given to him by the Pope in 1521, that of Defender of the Faith. In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed.

Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions Window in St Peter's, Hockwold, Norfolk © Role of the Monarch Today the Monarch retains the title Defender of the Faith and is still the Supreme Governor of the Church. He or she has to: approve the appointment of archbishops, bishops and deans (on the recommendation of the Prime Minister) formally open each new session (every five years) of the General Synod (the church's governing body) promise to maintain the Church in his or her coronation oath. Legislative role The Church of England also has a law-making role in Britain. Twenty-six bishops (including the two Archbishops) sit in the House of Lords and are known as the Lords Spiritual. They are thought to bring a religious ethos to the secular process of law. However, in an increasingly multi-cultural society, questions are being asked as to whether that role needs to be specifically fulfilled by Church of England Bishops. Future reform of the House of Lords could see the Lords Spiritual made up of a variety of Christian denominations and other faiths to reflect the religious make-up of Britain. Civic duties The Church of England, as the established church, fulfils a civic responsibility too.

Its bishops and priests are responsible for performing state weddings and funerals, acts of remembrances, memorial services as well as grand occasions like the coronation. After events like the Gulf War or major disasters, the country 'comes together' to mourn under the spiritual guidance of the Church of England. In recent years, such occasions have become more ecumenical and multi-faith as the Church of England acknowledges Britain's changing religious landscape. Hierarchy Southwark Cathedral © There are 43 dioceses in England covering the two provinces of Canterbury and York, plus the Diocese in Europe, with chaplaincies from the Arctic Circle to the Canaries. Each diocese has a bishop and usually at least one suffragan or assistant bishop. Each diocese is split into archdeaconries run by archdeacons. They are responsible for the administration of that part of the diocese. Each archdeaconry is split up into deaneries, which is a collection of parishes. The parish is the heart of the Church of England. Each parish is overseen by a parish priest, usually called a vicar or rector. Sometimes they are assisted by a curate or deacon or parish worker. The latter is a lay post.

Parishes Each parish church is run by the priest in collaboration with the PCC or Parochial Church Councils. This group is usually made up of the congregation but is open to anyone on the electoral roll. It, along with the bishop or other patron, appoints the priest. It also decides on the style of services and maintains the church buildings. The parish structure means that the church is there for everyone. Ideally, everyone in England has a parish priest to whom they can turn. Everyone lives in a parish. This means it's an organisation for everyone, not just believers. Cathedrals Each diocese has a Cathedral which is the 'seat' of the bishop but is run independently of him. Deans are in charge of Cathedrals, assisted by Canons and supported by a Greater Chapter including lay appointees. A number of newer parish church Cathedrals used to be headed by Provosts until the Cathedrals Measure 1999. Governance The Church of England is described as being episcopally-led (there are 108 bishops in total) and synodically governed. This means it's led by bishops and its practices are decided by the General Synod.

All Saints, Horsey, Norfolk in the snow © The General Synod is elected from the laity and clergy of each diocese and meets in London or York at least twice a year. There are three houses: the house of bishops; the house of clergy; the house of laity. Each synod member is elected to serve for five years. Complex rules govern how church law is passed. Some has to go through Parliament and all must be given Royal assent. Beliefs and worship The Church of England is a broad church, representing a wide spectrum of theological thought and practice. However, as part of the Anglican Communion there are some distinctively Anglican ideas which can be identified in the Church of England.

They are: a belief that the Bible contains the core of all Christian faith and thought a loyalty to a way of worship and life that was first set out in the Book of Common Prayer celebration of the sacraments ordained by Jesus - that of Baptism and Eucharist or Holy Communion a system of Church order that stems from ancient times and is focused in the ordained ministry of Bishop, Priest and Deacon a firm commitment to the ministry of the whole people of God, lay and ordained together a way of Christian thinking that involves Scripture, Tradition and Reason held together in creative tension. Individual parishes can decide how many services they hold in the week, how often they conduct Eucharistic services and how they structure the service to include hymns/songs, readings, the Creed, a sermon and prayers. Despite this flexibility, each priest is expected to conduct a service which has been authorised by the church in the service book. Decline, ordination of women, homosexuality Current issues Purleigh Church, Essex © As the established church, the Church of England and the comments and decisions its leaders make frequently attract media attention.

These are just a few of the key issues facing the church at the beginning of the twenty-first century: Decline in church attendance The Church of England is responsible for more than 16,000 churches and 42 Cathedrals in England, yet the number of people attending services has been in decline in recent decades. In 2002 the average number of people attending church on Sundays declined by 4% to just over a million. If you include those who attended during the week, the number rises to approximately 1.2 million. Many of those attending are of the older generations, with statistics showing that few 15 to 30 year olds go to church. Despite the slow decline in average attandance, giving to parish churches continues to increase by more than inflation every year. Individual congregations themselves are responsible for the financial maintenance of the church, despite its national church status. The Church Commissioners are responsible for managing the Church's historic assets, paying clergy pensions earned up to 1998 and helping to support parish ministry. Since 1998, parishes have been paying into a fund to provide pensions earned by clergy from that date.

There are now more people claiming a clergy pension than there are ordained stipendiary (paid) clergy. This is putting even greater pressure on the parish system with more and more priests being asked to take on additional parishes. As ever, bald statistics obscure signs of hope for the Church of England: the Diocese of London has an increasing churchgoing population due to the rise in immigrants from Africa and the importance of the church in African and Caribbean communities. many people still attend church for major festivals like Christmas. A poll carried out in 2003 revealed that nearly 40% of adults attended a church service over Christmas Eve and Christmas Day in 2002. the Church of England has had to think of new ways of "doing church". Many parishes provide services during the week so as not to compete with leisure pastimes associated with the weekend. In one diocese, Oxford, an online parish has been established for those who want to opt out of the traditional parish structure. St Martin's in the Bullring, Birmingham © The ordination of women In 1992 when General Synod passed a vote to ordain woman not everyone in the Church of England was in agreement.

In 1993 it passed the Act of Synod setting up an official structure to enable parishes to refuse women's ministry. Male priests and their congregations could accept an alternative bishop known as a Provincial Episcopal Visitor or "flying bishop", who also rejected women as priests. This system, although criticised as institutionalising discrimination against women, has been credited with avoiding a split in the Church of England over the issue. Two other options were set up to allow male priests to reject women's ministry. Firstly, a scheme allowed men to leave the priesthood with appropriate financial support until they had resettled. Secondly, the Roman Catholic Church allowed married (and non-married) Anglican priests to join its priesthood. In 1994 in Bristol the first women priests were ordained. Now, more than ten years on, one in five Church of England licensed priests is female. Pressure is growing to now allow women to be Bishops. A working party, set up by General Synod, has published a theological study of women in the Episcopate and the impact such a move would have both on the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion. The Synod will debate it in 2005.

Homosexuality and the Church of England Many of the headlines regarding the Church of England since 2002 have regarded the rights of homosexual priests. The Church of England allows for the ordination of gay priests as long as they are celibate. In 2003 Canon Jeffrey John was appointed as Bishop of Reading. Despite his pro-gay views (he's written articles and pamphlets outlining why gay couples should live in faithful, permanent, stable relationships) he made it clear that he was celibate. His appointment, and the subsequent election of an openly gay bishop in America, prompted a national and international examination on the rights of homosexual clergy. Canon Jeffrey John stood down as Bishop-elect of Reading but has subsequently been installed as Dean of St Albans. Alongside issues of homosexual clergy, the wider Anglican Communion has been wrestling with whether to sanction same-sex blessings. Both these issues could cause divisions within the Anglican Communion with the provinces of the global south (Nigeria, South East Asia, South America among many others) threatening to split permanently from those sanctioning the blessing of same-sex relationships and the ordination of non-celibate gay clergy - mainly in North America.

A commission set up by the Archbishop of Canterbury and headed by Dr Robin Eames, Primate of Ireland made recommendations on the matter in autumn 2004. Charles agrees to be 'Defender of faith' - The Christian InstituteThe Christian Institute Christian Heritage Prince Charles will embrace ‘multiculturalism’ when he becomes King by dropping “the” from the historic title “Defender of the Faith”, press reports say. The title has been given to each English monarch since Henry VIII in 1521. Although it was first given by the Pope, it quickly developed to reflect the monarch’s status as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Several years ago the Prince of Wales controversially floated the idea of taking the title “Defender of the Faiths [plural]” but according to reports in today’s press has now settled on “Defender of Faith”. A senior source told the Daily Telegraph: “There have been lots of discussions. He would like to be known as the Defender of Faith which is a subtle but hugely symbolic shift.” The move could pave the way for the disestablishment of the Church of England. Last month immigration minister, Phil Woolas, gaffed by saying that a split between church and state was inevitable.

“Disestablishment – I think it will happen because it’s the way things are going,” he told The Times. “Once you open debate about reform of the House of Lords, you open up debate about the make-up of the House. It will probably take 50 years, but a modern society is multi-faith.” The Government was quick to distance itself from his comments, saying disestablishment was not on the agenda. Colleagues said Mr Woolas was speaking “off message”. It did, however, spark a small media debate about the Church of England’s role. In The Times, the Rt Revd Christopher Herbert (Bishop of St Albans) defended establishment. He wrote: “First of all, it is misinformation to say that Britain is a secular society. “The evidence that we have from the 2001 census is that more than 72 per cent of people under no pressure whatsoever described themselves as Christian and 6 per cent as belonging to another faith. “Even roughly one in five worship monthly – a huge number – but the Church of England exists not simply for those who come to church, but for every single person who lives within our parish system.

“The vicars of our parishes are there not only to offer worship with their congregations; they exist to offer pastoral care, social care, community care with their churches in every bit of England. That’s a very significant part of social, cultural and community life.” But Dr Sean Gabb (Director of the Libertarian Alliance) said he was in favour of cutting the state’s link to the church. He said: “Nowadays, priests and bishops seem to be less interested in preaching the Gospel than in preaching an embarrassingly naïve socialism.” He continued: “Now, the problem here is not that so many Anglican spokesmen appear to be of the Left, but that they seem wholly unaware of any other theological perspective on economics and politics. “With this, I regret, goes their almost casual rejection of the Authorised Version of the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer in favour of new versions that are devoid of literary merit. “The Church should be disestablished because it has, in a sense, disestablished itself. It has made itself an object of derision if not of contempt.

It should not be allowed to continue representing itself as England at prayer.” More on this topic Frequently Asked Questions | Britroyals Frequently Asked Questions When did the last British King fight in a battle? George II was the last British King to lead his army in person, during the War of the Austrian Succession, at the Battle of Dettingen in Bavaria, 27th June, 1743. The last English King to die in battle was Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field in Leicestershire on 22 August 1485 defeated by Henry Tudor who became Henry VII ending the Wars of the Roses between the Houses of York and Lancaster and starting the Tudor dynasty. The last British King to die in battle was James IV of Scotland killed at the Battle of Flodden Field in Northumberland on 9 September 1513 when the Scots invaded England hoping to take advantage of Henry VIII's absence in France, but were defeated by English forces under Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey. How far back can the British Royal Family trace their roots? Is Queen Elizabeth II really directly descended from Alfred the Great?

She is the 32nd great granddaughter of King Alfred who 1,140 years ago was the first effective King of England. He ruled from 871 to 899. I thought that American Independence was in 1776. Why is it quoted as 1783? The Continental Congress of the 13 American colonies declared independence in 1776. However, the war continued and independence from Britain was not achieved until the Treaty of Paris in 1783. Was George III really mad? For most of his reign King George III was an astute king and politician with a strong sense of duty. Later in his reign he suffered from recurrent and eventually permanent mental illness. This baffled medical science at the time, although it is now generally thought that he suffered from the inherited blood disease porphyria. He suffered his first attack in 1788 and by 1810 was unfit to rule. In 1811 his son George, Prince of Wales, became Regent for 9 years until his father died in 1820. Who would now be King or Queen if Edward VIII had not abdicated?

Edward VIII abdicated in 1936 less than a year after becoming King to marry Wallis Simpson. His younger brother Bertie became King George VI and was the father of the present Queen Elizabeth II . He died in 1952, and Edward who had no children died in 1972. So even if Edward had not abdicated Elizabeth would now be Queen. She would have come to the throne in 1972 instead of 1952. Why did Edward VIII have to give up the throne to marry a divorcee but Prince Charles is still in line to the throne? Royals who are divorced or marry divorcees do not lose their position in the line of succession. Edward VIII had a number of affairs with married women including Wallis Simpson who was already divorced and still married to her second husband. His parents King George V and Queen Mary did not approve and refused to meet her. When George V died Prime Minister Baldwin made it clear that the Government, popular opinion in the country and the oversees Dominions (now the Commonwealth nations) did not approve of his plans to marry Wallis.

Social attitudes towards divorce and a women looking for a third marriage were considered scandalous at the time, and if Edward married against the advice of his Ministers it would have caused the Government to resign and a constitutional crisis. Edward chose to abdicate. The 1772 Royal Marriages Act requires members of the Royal Family to obtain permission from the Sovereign to marry. Queen Elizabeth II gave her permission for Prince Charles to marry Camilla, and more recently for Prince William to marry Catherine Middleton. Would Princess Diana have become Queen? If Prince Charles had become King during their marriage then she would have been his consort with the title Queen Diana. They divorced in 1996 and she died in a car crash in Paris on 31st August 1997. Although popularly known as 'Princess Diana' this was not her title - because she became a princess by marrying Prince Charles her title was Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales, or more simply Diana, Princess of Wales. Who is Prince Henry shown as fourth in line to the Throne? What about Prince Harry? Prince Harry's name is Henry Charles Albert David . Harry is his nickname Is Kate Middleton the first commoner to marry an heir to the throne?

The Queen's husband Prince Philip is a direct descendant of Queen Victoria, Diana's family had titled ancestry and Camilla is the granddaughter of a baron. Prince William's wife Catherine (Kate) nee Middleton comes from a middle class background with no aristocratic or titled connections. She is not however the first commoner to marry a future king. Notably Anne Hyde first wife of King James II, and Elizabeth Woodville, who married King Edward IV in 1464 and became a key figure in the Wars of the Roses were commoners with no direct connections to nobility. Edward VIII married Wallis Simpson but had already abdicated as King. Why are William and Harry referred to as Wales when their name is Windsor? Members of the Royal Family who are titled His (or Her) Royal Highness do not traditionally need or use a surname. Windsor is the name of the Royal House to which they belong. Their titles are HRH Prince William of Wales and HRH Prince Henry of Wales . During their tours of duty with the Armed Forces, the Princes chose to show their surname as Wales.

Members of the royal family who are not HRH (for example Prince Edward's children Louise and James) use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. Why are Prince Andrew's daughters princesses when Prince Edward's daughter is not? Also why do Princess Anne's children Peter and Zara not have titles? You become a prince by being the son of a prince, or princess by being the daughter of a prince or by marrying a prince. So Prince Andrew's daughters are Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. The Queen's daughter Princess Anne has the title Princess Royal, but her children Peter and Zara do not have titles. It is traditional that they would have been made a Duke and Duchess or Earl and Countess, but it is understood that Princess Anne asked the Queen not to give her children titles so they could live as private individuals. Prince Edward declined to be made a Duke on his marriage and became Earl of Wessex, so that his wife Sophie is Countess of Wessex. The Royal Family is descended directly from the Anglo-Saxon Kings of Wessex. On their marriage is was anounced that their children would not be titled Prince and Princess but as the children of an Earl, so they are Lady Louise and James Viscount Severn.

Why are Roman Catholics excluded from the Line of Succession to the British throne? In 1534 Henry VII I broke with the Church of Rome over his divorce from Catherine of Aragon and made himself Head of the Church of England. Every King or Queen since Elizabeth 1 has held the title 'Supreme Governor of the Church of England' and 'Defender of the Faith'. As it is a Protestant Church all those in the Royal line of succession and their spouses have to be Protestants. The Act of Settlement (1701) laid down that only Protestant heirs of Princess Sophia, granddaughter of James I, may succeed to the British throne. Neither Catholics, nor those who marry a Catholic, nor those born out of wedlock, may remain in the line of succession. Prince Charles has let it be known that when he becomes King he will take the title 'Defender of Faith' instead of' 'Defender of the Faith' to include faiths other than the established Church of England. In Aprl 2013 the Succession to the Crown Bill 2013 changed the succession laws so that a person is not disqualified from succeeding to the Crown as a result of marrying a Roman Catholic .

They will however not be allowed to become a Roman Catholic as the British Monarch is head of the Protestant Church of England. Why are younger brothers higher in the line of succession than their older sisters? The line of succession to the British throne used until recently the system of male primogeniture whereby younger sons have precedence over their older sisters. So Prince Andrew and Prince Edward are above their older sister Princess Anne in line of succession, and Prince Edward's son James is above his sister Louise. While male precedence may now be considered to be out of line with current 'equal-rights' thinking and is proposed to be changed, it has not prevented some of the most successful and longest reigning British monarchs from being queens including Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II. It does allow the succession to inherit through the female line, so the children of daughters can succeed to the throne as is the case with the current Queen. The French and German monarchies used a system of Salic law whereby females had no right to inherit and could not pass it to their offspring. The last time that the British throne passed to a son in precedence to a first born daughter was when Queen Victoria's son Edward VII inherited the throne over his older sister Princess Victoria.

Had she become queen she would have been Queen Victoria II and her son Kaiser Wilhelm II would have also been King William V and ruled over a huge combined British and German Empire. This could have significantly changed 20th century European history with the 1st World War unlikely to have happened as it did but replaced with other nationalist, republican and fascist struggles leading possibly to the downfall of both monarchies and a changed map of Europe. In Aprl 2013 the Succession to the Crown Bill 2013 changed the succession laws so that a person is able to marry a Roman Catholic and remain in the line of successsion, and the right of male primogeniture no longer applies to children born after 28 October 2011. It meant that if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's first child had been a girl and their second a boy, male primogenture would no longer have applied and he would not have had precedence over his older sister. However, their first child born on 22 July 2013 was a boy Prince George so it did not apply. Their second child Princess Charlotte will not lose her place even if she has a younger brother.

This current line of succession is shown at Line of Succession. King William IV was 64 years old when he became king in 1830 and succeeded his elder brother George IV. Prince Charles the current heir to the throne became 68 on 14th November 2016 and is now the longest waiting heir to the throne. Edward VII became king after the death of his mother Queen Victoria in 1901 when he was 59 years and 2 months old. Kings & Queens by age of accession to the throne . Could the Queen choose to pass the throne directly to Prince William? The Queen cannot choose. Prince Charles as her eldest son and Prince of Wales is next in line to the throne and will become King as long as he is living when the Queen dies or should she abdicate. It would require a change to British constitutional law for this not to happen. Will Charles become King George VII? Charles can choose to rule as King Charles III or take another name. Kings often take a different regnal (ruling) name from their first given name.

Charles' grandfather George VI was Prince Albert ("Bertie") before he became king, and his great great grandfather Edward VII was also Prince Albert. King Charles I was beheaded in 1649 after the English Civil War, and Charles II was popularly known as the 'merrie' monarch as he had so many mistresses. Charles Edward Stuart (Bonnie Prince Charlie) the Stuart pretender to the throne styled himself Charles III before he was defeated at Culloden in 1746. It is thought possible that Prince Charles may choose to become King George VII after his grandfather. Will Camilla become Queen? Prince Charles and Camilla were married on 9th April 2005. She was given the title Duchess of Cornwall because of sensitivity following the death of Diana. As the wife of the Prince of Wales her title should be Princess of Wales and, although before the marriage it was announced that she would take the title Princess consort, she is expected to become Queen consort when Charles becomes King. Is there a royal connection between Camilla's family and the royal family? In 1889 Camilla's great-grandmother Alice Keppel was the mistress of Edward VII when he was Prince of Wales.

Edward VII was the great-great-grandfather of Prince Charles the current Prince of Wales. Why is the Queen's husband Prince Philip not King Philip? The husband of a queen is known as a Prince consort and does not become King. Queen Victoria's husband was Prince Albert, and Queen Elizabeth's husband is Prince Philip The Duke of Edinburgh . The wife of a king is a Queen consort and does take the title Queen although she does not rule as the monarch. The only exceptions were William III and Mary II who ruled jointly from 1689 until Mary's death in 1694. Were Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip related before their marriage? The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh are both great great grandchildren of Queen Victoria . The Queen is a direct descendant of Queen Victoria’s eldest son King Edward VII and the Duke of Edinburgh is a direct descendant of Queen Victoria’s daughter Princess Alice. What relation is Queen Elizabeth II to King George III ? George III was her 3rd great grandfather.

If you you follow the line of succession on her grandfather's side - George VI (father), George V (grandfather), Edward VII (great grandfather), Victoria (2nd great grandmother) , Edward Duke of Kent (3rd great grandfather), George III (4th great grandfather) - then he was her 4th great grandfather. However her grandmother Queen Mary of Teck was also descended from George III - she and George V were 2nd cousins once removed. If you follow Queen Elizabeth's line through her grandmother - George VI (father), Queen Mary (grandmother), Mary Adelaide (great grandmother), Adolphus of Hanover (2nd great grandfather), George III (3rd great-grandfather) - he is more closely related as her 3rd great grandfather. You can see this on the Royal Family tree . How rich is Queen Elizabeth? Her estimated personal fortune is around £350 million (US $435M). The Duchy of Lancaster estate, a portfolio of land, property and assets, is held in trust for the monarch and worth around £348 million.

She also owns properties privately that have never been valued, including Sandringham House, Balmoral Castle reputedly worth £160 million and the Castle of Mey. Her investment portfolio in blue-chip British companies is around £110 million, her personal art collection is worth at least £2 million, and she owns personal jewellery and a large stamp collection built up by her grandfather George V. Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, the Crown Jewels and the Royal Art Collection are held in trust for the nation. The Crown Estate, which manages on behalf of the monarch the property and land owned by the Crown, including properties in Regent Street and St James in London, offshore wind farms around Britain's coast and rural estates in Scotland, is worth around £11 billion and generates £285 million (2014/15) income a year. This income is given to the national Treasury for use in public finances, in return for a grant (£38 million in 2012) for the cost of running the monarchy. This arrangement dated from 1760 when George III gave up the right to the income from the Crown's estates in return for a Civil List paid to members of the Royal Family.

In 2013 this changed to a Sovereign Support Grant based on 15% of the income from the Crown Estate. This means that for the year from April 2016 the nation will keep £242.2 million of the Crown Estates income, and the monarchy will receive £42.7 miilion towards the cost of the Royal household, their travel, attending formal functions and repairs to buildings including Kensington Palace which is the home of Prince William, the Duchess of Cambridge and their children Prince George and Princess Charlotte. Does the Queen pay taxes? Yes, in 1992 The Queen offered to pay income tax and capital gains tax on a voluntary basis. Since 1993, her personal income has been taxable as for any other UK taxpayer. Does the Queen rule or does Parliament? The British Monarchy is a constitutional monarchy in which the King or Queen reigns as Head of State but with limits to their power, and the day-to-day government is carried out by Parliament. The political party with the most elected seats in the House of Commons elects a Prime Minister who is invited by the monarch to form a government.

A new Parliament is opened by the monarch in an official ceremony, and the Prime Minister during his or her term in office regularly meets with the King or Queen to discuss political matters and events. How many British Prime Ministers and US Presidents have there been during the Queen's reign? Queen Elizabeth II has worked with 13 different Prime Ministers since she became Queen: Winston Churchill (1951-55), Anthony Eden (1955-59), Harold Macmillan (1959-63), Alec Douglas-Home (1963-64), Harold Wilson (1964-70 & 1974-76), Edward Heath (1970-74), James Callaghan (1976-79), Margaret Thatcher (1979-90), John Major (1990-97), Tony Blair (1997-2007), Gordon Brown (2007-2010), David Cameron (2010-2016) and Theresa May (2016 - present).

There have been 12 US Presidents during her reign: Harry Truman (1945-1953), Dwight Eisenhower (1953-61), John Kennedy (1961-63), Lyndon Johnson (1963-69), Richard Nixon (1969-74), Gerald Ford, (1974-77), James Carter (1977-81), Ronald Reagan (1981-89), George Bush (1989-93), William Clinton (1993-2001), George W Bush (2001-09), Barack Obama, (2009-present). There have been 7 Archbishops of Canterbury and 7 Popes during her reign. Which King or Queen reigned for the longest time? The longest reigning British monarch is Queen Elizabeth II who including today has reigned for 64 years, 11 months, and 13 days which is the longest reign in over 1,200 years of British History.

On 10th September 2015 she surpassed her great great grandmother Queen Victoria who reigned for 63 years, 7 months and 2 days from 1837-1901. See Kings and Queens by length of reign . Which King or Queen reigned for the shortest time? Edward VI named his cousin Lady Jane Grey as his successor and she was proclaimed queen on July 10, 1553 by her father-in-law the Duke of Northumberland. She was 16 years old. Meanwhile Edward's half sister Mary eldest daughter of Henry VIII was also proclaimed queen. The situation was resolved 9 days later on July 19 1553 when Mary arrived in London and was proclaimed as the rightful queen. Mary was crowned Queen on Oct 1, 1553. Lady Jane Grey was executed on February 12, 1554. Another who was not crowned was Edward V . His father Edward IV died on April 9, 1483, but he was usurped by his uncle Richard III who proclaimed himself king 2 months later on June 26 and crowned on July 6, 1483.

The date that Edward died is unknown - he was presumed murdered with his brother in the Tower of London at sometime in September that year. The shortest reigning crowned king was Edmund II for 7 months from 25 April - 30 November 1016. Kings and Queens by length of reign . Which King had the most illegitimate children? Henry I is purported to have had 20-25 illegitimate children by at least six women, but few details are known. Charles II famously fathered numerous illegitimate children, of whom he acknowledged fourteen. His mistresses included Lucy Walter (2 children), Moll Davis (1) , Nell Gwyne (2), Louise de Keroualle (1), Barbara Villiers (6), Elizabeth Killigrew (1), Catherine Pegg (1), Frances Stuart (became the face of Britannia on coins), and at least five others. William IV had 10 illegitimate children born between 1794 and 1807 by his mistress actress Dorothea Bland (known as Mrs Jordan). Is David Cameron descended from royalty? How close would he be in line to the throne?

David Cameron, the previous British Prime Minister, is the great, great, great grandson of Elizabeth Fitzclarence (Jan 17, 1801 - Jan 16, 1856) who was an illegitimate daughter of William IV and his mistress Irish actress Dorothea Bland who was known by her stage name as 'Mrs Jordan'. They lived together for 20 years when he was Duke of Clarence and had 5 sons and 5 daughters. When he became heir to the throne William married Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen but they had no surviving children so when he died having no legitimate children his niece Victoria became Queen. David Cameron is the 5th cousin, twice removed of Queen Elizabeth II, but illegitimate lines have no claim to the throne. The Royal Marriage act of 1772, instigated by William IV's father George III, requires members of the royal family to obtain permission from the monarch to marry. So William and Dorothea would have had to get permission from his brother George IV to marry and it would also have required ratification by Parliament.

She was Catholic and would have had to renounce her Catholic faith for William to remain in the line of succession to the throne. In the very unlikely event that they had been allowed to marry and had done so before their children were born then their eldest son George Augustus would have had a claim to the throne. His great grandson Geoffrey Fitzclarence, 5th Earl of Munster, was a Conservative politician in Winston Churchill's government. David Cameron's line through their 3rd daughter Elizabeth would have had only a very remote claim. How big was Henry VIII? When Henry VII I came to the throne in April 1509 he was 17 years old, 6ft 2in tall, and had pale skin, blue eyes and auburn hair. He was physically active and enjoyed sport, hunting and jousting. A Venetian visitor described him as 'His Majesty is the handsomest potentate I ever set eyes on, a vigorous player of tennis, rider of horses, and skilled wrestler'. However he became fatter with age and gluttony.

His suits of armour show that in 1512 he had a 32 inch waist , which increased to 35 inch by 1520s, and then grew to an enormous 54 inch by 1545. He suffered increasingly of ill health, swelling of the joints and an ulcerated leg claimed to have been caused by a jousting accident. His pain added to his mood swings and unpredictable temper. In 1544 his portrait shows him puffy and bloated. By 1546 he could hardly walk and was carried around on a wooden chair . He had to be winched on to his horse and his armour cut open to accommodate his swollen legs. He is estimated to have weighed 25 stone (350 lbs or 158kg) when he died in January 1547 Why was Queen Mary I known as Bloody Mary? Queen Mary's father Henry VIII split with Rome over his divorce from her mother Catherine of Aragon and made himself head of the Protestant Church of England. When she became queen, Mary sought to re-establish Roman Catholicism as the official religion and carried out persecution of Protestant clergy and followers.

Over 200 died including Thomas Cranmer and several bishops who were burnt at the stake between 1555 and Mary's death in 1558. She was succeeded by her half sister Elizabeth I , daughter of Ann Boleyn, who re-established Protestantism as the official Church of England. How many British monarchs have been killed while they were king or queen? - King Edmund I was killed in 946 during a feast at Pucklechurch, Gloucestershire, by an outlawed robber. - King Edward The Martyr was murdered by members of Aethelred's household at Corfe Castle in 978 - King Edmund II Ironside was assassinated in London in 1016 - King Harold II was killed by an arrow in his eye at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. - King William I The Conqueror suffered a fatal internal injury in 1087 after being thrown against the pommel of his saddle near Nantes in France. - King William II Rufus was killed in 1100 with an arrow while hunting in the New Forest.

Supposedly an accident, it has been suggested that he was shot deliberately on the instructions of his brother Henry. - Richard I The Lion Heart was killed by a crossbow bolt while besieging Châlus-Chabrol in France in 1199. - Edward II was murdered in 1327 at Berkeley Castle on the orders of his wife, Isabella - Richard II was starved to death in 1400 while imprisioned in Pontefract castle. He had been forced to abdicate in 1399 by his cousin Henry IV Bolingbroke. - Henry VI was murdered in the Tower of London in 1471 during the 'Wars of the Roses' between the Lancastrians and Yorkists. - Edward V and his younger brother were imprisoned in the Tower of London in 1483 and never seen again. Their fate remains a mystery but the two princes are believed to have been murdered on orders from their uncle Richard III. - Richard III was killed in 1485 at the Battle of Bosworth Field. - Henry VIII executed two of his six wives, Anne Boleyn in 1536 and Catherine Howard in 1542.

- Charles I was executed by Parliament in 1649 following the Civil War. Scottish Kings killed include James II at Roxburgh in 1460 when a cannon exploded, James III in battle near Stirling in 1488 by supporters of his son, James IV by Henry VIII's forces at Flodden in 1513, and Mary Queen of Scots executed in 1587 on orders from her cousin Elizabeth I. Why was Edward I not Edward IV as he followed Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr & Edward the Confessor? The practice of using Roman numerals to distinguish kings and queens started only after there had been several with the same name, and particularly when there was a succession of father, son, grandson like Edward I, Edward II, and Edward III. Before then it was common for chroniclers and historians to use sobriquets such as Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr, Edward the Confessor, Edmund Ironside, Aethelred the Unready, Alfred the Great, Harold Harefoot etc before this became impractical. It would be interesting to consider how the present Queen would be known if she were to be referred to in this way.

'Elizabeth the Great', 'Elizabeth the Steadfast ', 'Elizabeth the Dutiful', have been suggested, as well as 'Elizabeth the Diplomat' for her work and visits to so many countries, 'Elizabeth the Survivor' referring to her reign as the longest in British history,'Elizabeth the Wise', 'Elizabeth the Magnificent', 'Elizabeth the Supreme', 'Elizabeth the Faithful' for her untiring service over 60 years to her people and the Commonweatlh, 'Elizabeth the Enduring', 'Elizabeth the Correct', 'Elizabeth,the Benevolent', 'Elizabeth,the Tolerant', 'Elizabeth the Stalwart', 'Elizabeth the Beloved' and 'Elizabeth Britannia'. If you have a suggestion please contact us . What about King Arthur of the knights of the round table and Camelot? King Arthur is a legend and folklore of a Celtic king who fought to defend Britain from Saxon invaders in the 6th century. There is no historical evidence that he existed. Interestingly, Henry VII sought to revive the legend naming his eldest son Arthur. Unfortunately Prince Arthur died in 1502 aged 15 before he became King. His younger brother Henry followed his father instead and became Henry VIII .

Why was there no king or queen between 1649 and 1660? The English Civil War (1642-1649) was fought between the royalist forces loyal to King Charles I and the parliamentarians led by Oliver Cromwell. The Royalist were defeated at the Battle of Naseby in 1645 and following attempts to organize a Scottish invasion, Charles was caught and executed on January 30, 1649. It was the first time a British monarch had ever been publicly executed in recorded history. After the execution of the King, a republic was declared known as the Commonwealth of England (1649-1653) and then the Protectorate (1653-1658) with rule by parliament under Cromwell. Following his death in 1658, Cromwell was succeeded briefly by his son Richard before the monarchy was restored and Charles II became king in 1660. What is the Stone of Destiny? The Stone of Destiny is a symbolic stone that was used in the crowning of Kings of Scotland at the Palace of Scone in Perthshire, Scotland.

It is a block of sandstone which measures approximately 26 inches long x 16 wide x 11 high which rested beneath the throne. According to legend it was brought to Scotland by Fergus Mor from Ireland, where it had reached by way of Spain and Egypt from the Holy Land. It was used in the crowning of kings from Kenneth MacAlpin in 841 to John Balliol in 1292. In 1296 King Edward I of England took the stone to London where it was kept in Westminster Abbey for use in coronations. In 1950 a group of students stole the stone and took it back to Scotland in two pieces which were repaired by a Glasgow stone mason. They left it at Arbroath Abbey from where it was returned to Westminster Abbey. In 1996 the British Government decided in response to calls by Scottish nationalists to return it to Scotland. It arrived back on St Andrews Day 30 November 1996, almost exactly 700 years after it had been removed by Edward, and is now in Edinburgh Castle. When did Wales become part of the United Kingdom?

Wales became incorporated into England under the Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284, after it had been annexed by Edward I of England in 1282. Edward dubbed his eldest son Edward Prince of Wales, since which time the eldest son of each English monarch has borne the same title. In the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542, Wales became legally part of the Kingdom of England, and subsequently part of the United Kingdom. When did Scotland become part of the United Kingdom? The Crowns of England and Scotland were united in 1603 when James VI King of Scotland became James I King of England. In October 1604, one year later , he decreed that the Royal Title would use the term Great Brittaine to refer to the "one Imperiall Crowne" made up of England and Scotland. However despite James' wishes political union between Scotland and England did not take place until 1707 in the reign of Queen Anne. See union of the United Kingdom . When did Ireland become part of the United Kingdom?

Ireland became part of the United Kingdom in 1800 when the Act of Union with Ireland was passed by both the Irish and British parliaments Why is Northern Ireland part of the United Kingdom when Southern Ireland is a different country? Northern Ireland, predominantly Protestant, and Southern Ireland, Catholic, split in 1920 with 6 of the 9 counties of Ulster remaining within the United Kingdom, and the remaining 26 counties being given home rule under the Government of Ireland Act. In 1922 the Southern counties became the Irish Free State and then since 1949 the Republic of Ireland. Supremacy and Survival: The English Reformation: Henry VIII, Defender of the Faith!! Monday, October 11, 2010 Henry VIII, Defender of the Faith!! Pope Leo X conferred the honor and title of "Defender of the Faith" upon King Henry VIII on October 11, 1521! Henry VIII sought the title and wrote his Assertio Septem Sacramentorum (Defense of the Seven Sacraments) as a refutation of Martin Luther's teaching to obtain it.

Henry further wrote to Pope Leo X that it was part of his duty as King of England to defend the teachings of the Catholic Church: No duty is more incumbent on a Catholic sovereign than to preserve and increase the Christian faith and religion and the proofs thereof, and to trans­mit them preserved thus inviolate to posterity, by his example in preventing them from being destroyed by any assailant of the Faith or in any wise impaired. He went on to comment on his efforts to eliminate the heresy of Luther's teaching: But convinced that, in our ardour for the welfare of Christendom, in our zeal for the Catholic Faith and our devotion to the Apostolic See, we had not yet done enough, we determined to show by our own writings our attitude towards Luther and our opinion of his vile books; to manifest more openly to all the world that we shall ever defend and uphold the Holy Roman Church, not only by force of arms but by the resources of our intelligence and our services as a Christian.

For this reason we have thought that this first attempt of our modest ability and learning could not be more worthily dedicated than to your Holiness, both as a token of our filial reverence and an acknowledgment of your careful solicitude for the weal of Christendom. We feel assured that our first fruits will be enhanced in value if it be approved by the wholesome judgment of your Blessedness. May you live long and happily! From our Royal Palace at Greenwich, the twenty-first day of May, 1521. Your Holiness' most devoted and humble son, Henry, by the grace of God King of England and France, and Lord of Ireland. Pope Paul III stripped Henry of the title in 1538 when he excommunicated the former "devoted and humble son" after the break from Rome. Parliament restored the title for Edward VI and again after the Restoration in 1660. Queen Elizabeth II swore an oath to defend the Church of England at her coronation and she is known as the Defender of the Faith. If Charles, the Prince of Wales, is crowned, he plans to be called the Defender of Faith (omitting the article).

That might mean that this oath is somehow revised: The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?" Posted by Is British Monarch 'Defender Of The Faith' Or 'Faiths'? | The Huffington Post Is British Monarch 'Defender Of The Faith' Or 'Faiths'?

10/11/2012 08:57 am ET | Updated Oct 15, 2012 Trevor Grundy Religion News Service LONDON (RNS) As Britain awaits the appointment of the next archbishop of Canterbury to lead both the Church of England and the far-flung Anglican Communion, there's renewed attention on the woman who officially gets the final say: Queen Elizabeth II, the "Defender of the Faith." The current archbishop, Rowan Williams, ends his 10-year tenure in December. A Church of England committee is sifting through candidates -- two of whom will be submitted to Prime Minister David Cameron, whose top choice will be submitted to the queen for final approval. When he announced his retirement last March, Williams, 62, famously said his successor will need "the constitution of an ox and the skin of a rhinoceros." Politicians and religious leaders say the next archbishop will need those qualities and more to handle deep divisions in the British church over female bishops and North/South divisions among his 77 million-member global flock over sexuality.

But he'll also need something else: the ability to envision life when Elizabeth -- who turns 87 next year -- is no longer on the throne, and when Britain is no longer a Christian-majority country. At her coronation in 1953, Elizabeth swore to "uphold the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel, maintain the Protestant reformed religion established by law and reserve the settlement of the Church of England." Her son and heir apparent, Prince Charles, has said he's planning a symbolic change if and when he becomes king by taking the title "Defender of Faith" or "Defender of the Faiths" to reflect Britain's multicultural and multifaith society. That change would mean Charles would be the first monarch to not be the standard-bearer for Protestantism for the first time since Henry VIII famously broke from Rome to start his own church. Britons may be on Charles' side: A recent BBC poll found that 73 percent favor Elizabeth remaining "Supreme Governor," but about 50 percent would favor Charles' idea for a title change to Defender of Faith.

The royal title "Fidei defensor," usually translated "Defender of the Faith," was bestowed by Pope Leo X on Henry VIII in 1521 in recognition of the king's defense of Roman Catholic teaching against the Protestant ideas of Martin Luther. But after Henry VIII broke with Rome and attacked the pope, the title was later revoked. Henry was excommunicated, but the title was bestowed again on Henry's only son, Edward IV, by Parliament in 1544. Charles caused considerable controversy in 1994 when he first floated the idea in his attempt to embrace the other religions that have become more visible since his mother came to the throne in 1952. "The Queen came to the throne at a time when the Church of England was really the only Christian faith in the country," former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey said in a 2006 television interview. "And there were no Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus around to be in any way evident in the life of the country," he said. "Now it's a completely different world.

Prince Charles put his finger on it and there's no way in which the sovereign can be the defender of one faith." A recent study conducted by the British Parliament showed the number of Christians in Britain has dropped 8 percent, to 69 percent, since 2004. The number of nonbelievers, meanwhile, jumped 49 percent over the same period. At the same time, England's Hindu population rose by 43 percent, and Buddhists by 74 percent. "If these populations continue to shrink and grow by the same number of people each year," the study said, "the number of people with no religion will overtake the number of Christians in Great Britain in 20 years." Vernon Bogdanor, a leading constitutionalist who teaches at Oxford University, said society has changed, and perhaps titles should, too. "In 1952," he said recently, "when the queen came to the throne, it was very much an Anglican society. The Prince of Wales will become head of a nation which is multi-denominational." Williams, however, isn't so sure.

"Unless something really radical happens with the constitution, he is (like it or not) Defender of the Faith and he has a relationship with the Christian Church of a kind which he does not have with other communities," Williams declared in 2003. More recently, Bishop Alan Smith of Saint Albans in southern England told the BBC that he wasn't entirely sure what was going through Charles' mind. "If you want to start having some general faith position, how does he fulfill that?" he asked. "After all he, as is his mother, is a practicing Christian." Leaders of minority faiths in Britain, meanwhile, said they would welcome the change. "It's all rather different from 1953, isn't it?" said Jonathan Romain, a leading member of the Jewish Reform movement in the U.K. "At the next coronation there'll almost certainly be representatives from all the major faiths in the U.K.

The next coronation will be the time to revise all of this and acknowledge the fast changing nature of British society." Anil Bhanot, a spokesman for the Hindu Council of Great Britain, said "the leading religions" share "similar values and they deserve equal defense." But Ibrahim Mogra, deputy general secretary of the Muslim Council of Great Britain, cautioned that there's more than mere symbolism in the words. "The first thing we need to do is define'faith' and then ask how you are going to set about defending faith without interfering in free speech," he said. "Unless we do that, the phrase 'Defender of Faith' or 'Defender of the Faiths' could mean very little."

Question: Who was the first English king given the title Defender of the Faith?
Answer: Henry VIII