British Republicanism

[Kirrig]

Doesn't specify what Faith, or indeed what the faith is in.

its a title. not a sentiment. it does specify which faith.

Where? I suppose one could assume that it was following convention, but I can't see the appendix to check.

[The UK in Exile]

the head of state is defender of the protestant faith. "L'Etat c'est a moi" its hard to get more established than ruling a bloody country.

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
This is the official title of the Queen of Canada so therefore you lose.

Are both of you fucking illiterate? I have already proven that Canada has no established church. The royal style does not override that.

"we have no established church. we're just ruled over by the head of the church of england, no law can be passed without her consent."

surrrrreeeee there isn't. the vatican isn't catholic either.

[Milks Empire]

"we have no established church. we're just ruled over by the head of the church of england, no law can be passed without her consent."
surrrrreeeee there isn't. the vatican isn't catholic either.

Apples and fucking oranges.

[Meowfoundland]

the head of state is defender of the protestant faith. "L'Etat c'est a moi" its hard to get more established than ruling a bloody country.

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
This is the official title of the Queen of Canada so therefore you lose.

Are both of you fucking illiterate? I have already proven that Canada has no established church. The royal style does not override that.

Not to mention that they style 'Defender of the Faith' is not for the Protestant Anglican faith. In Canada, it is for faith in general.

The question then arose whether it would be proper to have in the title we would use [for Elizabeth II as Queen of Canada], the traditional words, by the grace of God, sovereign. We felt that our people did recognise that the affairs of this world were not determined exclusively by the volition of men and women; that they were determined by men and women as agents for a supreme authority; and that it was by the grace of that supreme authority that we were privileged to have such a person as our sovereign. Then perhaps the rather more delicate question arose about the retention of the words defender of the faith. In England there is an established church. In our countries [the other monarchies of the Commonwealth] there are no established churches, but in our countries there are people who have faith in the direction of human affairs by an all-wise Providence; and we felt that it was a good thing that the civil authorities would proclaim that their organisation is such that it is a defence of the continued beliefs in a supreme power that orders the affairs of mere men, and that there could be no reasonable objection from anyone who believed in the Supreme Being in having the sovereign, the head of the civil authority, described as a believer in and a defender of the faith in a supreme ruler.

[Zwitterjiund]

Im British-English and would fight to the death for our monarchy, not just to keep the much better flag but also because I'm British and it is my duty to do so

[Tagmatium]

Ok - you've been saying that monarchy plays a part in the reason as to why those counties are democratic without truly proving as to why.

That help?

Okay, now I'm going to ask you to fault my argument first. Or, more accurately, fault my proof.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't your proof a link to a dictionary definition of "democracy" and then a link to the British monarchy's website?

[Kirrig]

Okay, now I'm going to ask you to fault my argument first. Or, more accurately, fault my proof.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't your proof a link to a dictionary definition of "democracy" and then a link to the British monarchy's website?

Yes it was. Why should it be anything more? I was trying to prove that the fact there are seven constitutional monarchies in that list can be partially attributed to the fact that they are constitutional monarchies.

Not very complicated.

[The UK in Exile]

Are both of you fucking illiterate? I have already proven that Canada has no established church. The royal style does not override that.

Not to mention that they style 'Defender of the Faith' is not for the Protestant Anglican faith. In Canada, it is for faith in general.

The question then arose whether it would be proper to have in the title we would use [for Elizabeth II as Queen of Canada], the traditional words, by the grace of God, sovereign. We felt that our people did recognise that the affairs of this world were not determined exclusively by the volition of men and women; that they were determined by men and women as agents for a supreme authority; and that it was by the grace of that supreme authority that we were privileged to have such a person as our sovereign. Then perhaps the rather more delicate question arose about the retention of the words defender of the faith. In England there is an established church. In our countries [the other monarchies of the Commonwealth] there are no established churches, but in our countries there are people who have faith in the direction of human affairs by an all-wise Providence; and we felt that it was a good thing that the civil authorities would proclaim that their organisation is such that it is a defence of the continued beliefs in a supreme power that orders the affairs of mere men, and that there could be no reasonable objection from anyone who believed in the Supreme Being in having the sovereign, the head of the civil authority, described as a believer in and a defender of the faith in a supreme ruler.

interesting if true. i'd like to know the context.

[Snorris]

Such a thing cannot exist, 'Britishness' is fundamentally linked with monarchy, One cannot simultaneously be a Briton and a republican, the last time there was such an upheaval in British society the pilgrims left for the new world (because the laws in England meant they were not allowed to prosecute those who did not follow puritanism).
Anyway how are elected leaders any less incompetent than monarchs, all the greatest leaders were not elected, Churchill was arbitrarily appointed prime minister with no vote and he is one of modern histories greatest figures. Everyone who runs a nation will most likely screw it up, so at the end of the day why not make them wear a crown and carry a scepter, it's just a lot more traditional.

[The UK in Exile]

Such a thing cannot exist, 'Britishness' is fundamentally linked with monarchy, One cannot simultaneously be a Briton and a republican, the last time there was such an upheaval in British society the pilgrims left for the new world (because the laws in England meant they were not allowed to prosecute those who did not follow puritanism).
Anyway how are elected leaders any less incompetent than monarchs, all the greatest leaders were not elected, Churchill was arbitrarily appointed prime minister with no vote and he is one of modern histories greatest figures. Everyone who runs a nation will most likely screw it up, so at the end of the day why not make them wear a crown and carry a scepter, it's just a lot more traditional.

"Such a thing cannot exist, 'Britishness' is fundamentally linked with monarchy" tell it to cromwell.

the pilrgrims left from the netherlands. good riddance.

the real question is how are monarchs more competent than elected leaders? elected leaders can be removed, what do you do with an incompetent monarch?

what happen to churchill? oh he was voted out. for clement atlee. an even greater man, and a much lesser figure.

might not be back for a while.

[Kirrig]

Such a thing cannot exist, 'Britishness' is fundamentally linked with monarchy, One cannot simultaneously be a Briton and a republican, the last time there was such an upheaval in British society the pilgrims left for the new world (because the laws in England meant they were not allowed to prosecute those who did not follow puritanism).
Anyway how are elected leaders any less incompetent than monarchs, all the greatest leaders were not elected, Churchill was arbitrarily appointed prime minister with no vote and he is one of modern histories greatest figures. Everyone who runs a nation will most likely screw it up, so at the end of the day why not make them wear a crown and carry a scepter, it's just a lot more traditional.

"Such a thing cannot exist, 'Britishness' is fundamentally linked with monarchy" tell it to cromwell.

the pilrgrims left from the netherlands. good riddance.

the real question is how are monarchs more competent than elected leaders? elected leaders can be removed, what do you do with an incompetent monarch?

what happen to churchill? oh he was voted out. for clement atlee. an even greater man, and a much lesser figure.

might not be back for a while.

Can the people be trusted to know what is best for them? No.
Can the politicians be trusted to know what is best for the people? No.

It is much better to have idols than false leaders.

[Bokaya]

Not to mention that they style 'Defender of the Faith' is not for the Protestant Anglican faith. In Canada, it is for faith in general.

Sorry to get all semantic, but it's not "Defender of Faith" it's "Defender of The Faith". In this sense, The Faith refers to the Anglican Church. Have none of you heard the word "faith" used as a synonym for "religion"? Well, it can be. So it makes sense in this case to look at the title as "Defender of The Religion". Which religion? Anglicanism, of course, since she's the head of the Anglican Church.

So no, the title is not referring to "faith in general" or some other such ridiculous, numinous concept. It's referring to one very specific faith.

[Kirrig]

Not to mention that they style 'Defender of the Faith' is not for the Protestant Anglican faith. In Canada, it is for faith in general.

Sorry to get all semantic, but it's not "Defender of Faith" it's "Defender of The Faith". In this sense, The Faith refers to the Anglican Church. Have none of you heard the word "faith" used as a synonym for "religion"? Well, it can be. So it makes sense in this case to look at the title as "Defender of The Religion". Which religion? Anglicanism, of course, since she's the head of the Anglican Church.

So no, the title is not referring to "faith in general" or some other such ridiculous, numinous concept. It's referring to one very specific faith.

The Faith refers to the religion of the state, nothing more. As it is all religions teh Faith refers to all religions.

[Tagmatium]

Sorry to get all semantic, but it's not "Defender of Faith" it's "Defender of The Faith". In this sense, The Faith refers to the Anglican Church. Have none of you heard the word "faith" used as a synonym for "religion"? Well, it can be. So it makes sense in this case to look at the title as "Defender of The Religion". Which religion? Anglicanism, of course, since she's the head of the Anglican Church.

So no, the title is not referring to "faith in general" or some other such ridiculous, numinous concept. It's referring to one very specific faith.

The Faith refers to the religion of the state, nothing more. As it is all religions the Faith refers to all religions.

It doesn't.

It really doesn't.

Britain has a state religion, the Church of England. "Defender of the Faith" refers, specifically, to the Anglican Faith. Not all religions.

[West Failure]

Not to mention that they style 'Defender of the Faith' is not for the Protestant Anglican faith. In Canada, it is for faith in general.

Sorry to get all semantic, but it's not "Defender of Faith" it's "Defender of The Faith". In this sense, The Faith refers to the Anglican Church. Have none of you heard the word "faith" used as a synonym for "religion"? Well, it can be. So it makes sense in this case to look at the title as "Defender of The Religion". Which religion? Anglicanism, of course, since she's the head of the Anglican Church.

So no, the title is not referring to "faith in general" or some other such ridiculous, numinous concept. It's referring to one very specific faith.

Prince Charles has publicly stated he will change it to Defender of Faith as king.

[Ularn]

Sorry to get all semantic, but it's not "Defender of Faith" it's "Defender of The Faith". In this sense, The Faith refers to the Anglican Church. Have none of you heard the word "faith" used as a synonym for "religion"? Well, it can be. So it makes sense in this case to look at the title as "Defender of The Religion". Which religion? Anglicanism, of course, since she's the head of the Anglican Church.

So no, the title is not referring to "faith in general" or some other such ridiculous, numinous concept. It's referring to one very specific faith.

Prince Charles has publicly stated he will change it to Defender of Faith as king.

It's still a title bestowed by the Church of England and them alone. And apart from anything else, if we take "Defender of the Faith" to mean all faiths than that would make the Queen Defender of Islam and a whole host of other religions which, as well as being a nonsense since the Queen is not a Muslim, would also be quite offensive to many practitioners of those faiths.

[Kirrig]

The Faith refers to the religion of the state, nothing more. As it is all religions the Faith refers to all religions.

It doesn't.

It really doesn't.

Britain has a state religion, the Church of England. "Defender of the Faith" refers, specifically, to the Anglican Faith. Not all religions.

I'm waiting for a response to an earlier post of mine.

I don't know enough about this bit, but the title only has ceremonial value in Canada.

[Tagmatium]

It doesn't.

It really doesn't.

Britain has a state religion, the Church of England. "Defender of the Faith" refers, specifically, to the Anglican Faith. Not all religions.

I'm waiting for a response to an earlier post of mine.

I don't know enough about this bit, but the title only has ceremonial value in Canada.

Ok - then:

It might well be, at least partially, attributable to the fact that they are constitutional monarchies. I'm going to concede, to a point, 'cos I can't be fucked to dig around doing this during my last day off.

I still don't believe that it entirely proves casuation, however.

[West Failure]

Prince Charles has publicly stated he will change it to Defender of Faith as king.

It's still a title bestowed by the Church of England and them alone. And apart from anything else, if we take "Defender of the Faith" to mean all faiths than that would make the Queen Defender of Islam and a whole host of other religions which, as well as being a nonsense since the Queen is not a Muslim, would also be quite offensive to many practitioners of those faiths.

...and the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, senior to the Archbishop of Canterbury, will be Prince Charles so he will change it. How is it a nonsense to wish defend the religious freedoms of all his supposed subjects rather than of just some of them?

[Alyakia]

The poor are always disadvantaged in that money allows access to many more things (like banks). That being said, the poor are not in a situation where they cannot become wealthy. I mean if they play football well enough, they could get within a division of the Premier League.

i don't know if you're joking or not but in any case i'm not sure you understand the difference between "rich" and "wealthy"

"Such a thing cannot exist, 'Britishness' is fundamentally linked with monarchy" tell it to cromwell.

you really like cromwell, don't you?

Britain has a state religion, the Church of England. "Defender of the Faith" refers, specifically, to the Anglican Faith. Not all religions.

the church of england is only established in england. the church of scotland and the church of ireland kinda exist. (and iirc, aren't established)

[The Republic of Greenland]

Swedish supporter of Monarchy, they don´t happen to do much other than being a nice represant abroad and symbol of our history. Thats enough for me. Besides if the monarch don´t act much (like in britain) then why bother with republicanism? Its not a huge cost to keep them.

[Alyakia]

Swedish supporter of Monarchy, they don´t happen to do much other than being a nice represant abroad and symbol of our history. Thats enough for me. Besides if the monarch don´t act much (like in britain) then why bother with republicanism? Its not a huge cost to keep them.

because it sounds nice

*ignores or outright defends more serious flaws in government*

[Tagmatium]

Swedish supporter of Monarchy, they don´t happen to do much other than being a nice represant abroad and symbol of our history. Thats enough for me. Besides if the monarch don´t act much (like in britain) then why bother with republicanism? Its not a huge cost to keep them.

I'm personally opposed to the idea that they're ruling over me because, to paraphrase Terry Prachett, their ancestors were bigger murdering bastards than mine were.

[Alyakia]

Swedish supporter of Monarchy, they don´t happen to do much other than being a nice represant abroad and symbol of our history. Thats enough for me. Besides if the monarch don´t act much (like in britain) then why bother with republicanism? Its not a huge cost to keep them.

I'm personally opposed to the idea that they're ruling over me because, to paraphrase Terry Prachett, their ancestors were bigger murdering bastards than mine were.

So, why are they ruling over you?

[Kirrig]

I'm waiting for a response to an earlier post of mine.

I don't know enough about this bit, but the title only has ceremonial value in Canada.

Ok - then:

It might well be, at least partially, attributable to the fact that they are constitutional monarchies. I'm going to concede, to a point, 'cos I can't be fucked to dig around doing this during my last day off.

I still don't believe that it entirely proves casuation, however.

Why? Although it could be better if I had more explanation. (Don't bother answering if you don't want to.)