King Charles may yearn to shed his ‘Defender of the Faith’ obligation, but it’s a profoundly unwise move

When the Royal Household published their 2025-6 Sovereign Grant Report last Thursday, it was always expected that there would be intense scrutiny of the tax affairs of the monarch and his family. The interest arose because King Charles is the first monarch to publish their tax bill, and the £12.9m bottom line tax payment he made for 2024-2025 has revealed him to be among the top 100 UK taxpayers. His son The Prince of Wales not far behind, having paid £7.76m in tax over the same period. Set against this public funding for the Royal Household is anticipated is increase steeply in the coming years to £100m a year.

With changes to a whole range of social attitudes and conventions shifting over recent decades, the calls for greater transparency and accountability for the monarchy have become impossible to ignore. Economic uncertainty and declining personal incomes have also cast their spotlight on an institution whose essence is privilege and wealth, and whose benefits to society are being challenged increasingly.

This public disconnect is demonstrated graphically in the flurry of press statements released over the past week in which the Prince and Princess of Wales voiced their parental nerves and angst over their eldest son’s upcoming September transition to secondary school. Whilst this seminal moment chimes with just about every parent in the land, the fact that young George is actually heading off to £63k a year exclusive Eton College – school to no less than 20 former prime ministers – because it just happens to be close to their family home (Windsor Castle) does blow more than a bit of ice over the PR effort.

The long-established wisdom pervading the Royal Household has been that Britain comprises a majority of relatively decent and rational people who are either active or latent monarchists, with just a small and largely irrelevant number of discontents and republicans whose presence rarely needed to be considered, let alone addressed. How far that has changed could be seen just a few weeks ago when Princess Kate and her children were openly booed by anti-monarchy protestors as they made their way along The Mall during the Trooping of the Colour parade. Whatever one made of the behaviour, a succession of Royal scandals and shifting societal attitudes – as well as the death of Queen Elizabeth II which brought a certain era of public convention to an end – have triggered increasing questions about the monarchy and its societal worth.

Perhaps it was with this in mind that a few other public relational comments were slipped into the 2025-6 Sovereign Grant Report. Following its publication, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, James Chalmers, was at pains to point  out that: “Just as previous reigns helped steady the nation through moments of profound change, so too does the role of the modern monarchy continue to adapt to meet the demands of our evolving world, one in which the soft power of the Royal Family plays an increasingly vital diplomatic role.

“In this and every aspect of his duty, His Majesty is guided by a singular purpose – to serve with constancy, devotion and unwavering resolve.”

In the Report itself, more detail is given about the Sovereign’s duties and responsibilities, including the functions of Head of State. Whilst most of this is just a reiteration of established duties, one subtle – but to many shocking – change has overtaken debates about Royal finances and has triggered a serious discussion about the function and limits of power of the British monarchy. Specifically, the Report states:

“As Head of State, His Majesty’s duties include the opening of Parliament, appointment of ministers and other key public officials, granting Royal Assent to legislation, convening the Privy Council and receiving the credentials of foreign Ambassadors and High Commissioners. His Majesty is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and protects the space for Faith within the multi-faith nation.”

To those familiar with it, this smacks of yet another attempt by the Sovereign to shake of one aspect of his royal duties that he has long been uncomfortable with. As far back as 1994 when he was Prince of Wales, Charles has pushed for interfaith inclusivity, which he has always stated was fundamental to building cohesion as Britain drifted increasingly away from a Christian country to one where many diverse faiths are represented.

“I personally would much rather see it as defender of faith, not the faith, because it means just one particular interpretation of the faith,” he said at the time.

However, in a BBC Radio 2 interview in 2015 he complained that this 1994 remark had been deeply misinterpreted.

“As I tried to describe, I mind about the inclusion of other people’s faiths and their freedom to worship in this country, he said.

“And it’s always seemed to me that, while at the same time being Defender of the Faith, you can also be protector of faiths.”

In the same interview he said that the Queen had said her role was “not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions. Instead, the Church [of England] has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country. I think in that sense she was confirming what I was really trying to say – perhaps not very well – all those years ago.”

It was an irritation that surfaced again at his coronation, when Charles pushed to be described as “defender of Faith” (in the plural) rather than “the faith” as his Christian predecessors had been. In the end he was advised – very heavily – to stick with the historic wording, lest it trigger fundamental questions about the future relationship between the monarchy and the Church of England, with all the constitutional implications that might have.

For many critics, the Coronation climbdown put the debate to bed, but clearly the King and the Palace have felt the time is now right to impose this long-demanded change upon both the legislature and the country – whilst still holding on to the role of Supreme Governor of the Church of England. It’s a move that has outraged many commentators, and for a number of reasons.

At the constitutional level it’s being challenged as a betrayal of his coronation oaths, and thereby of his office, his subjects and the Christian faith – with some calling for him to abdicate as a consequence.

At a more theological level there’s a whole raft of doubts about whether a monarch whose primary pledge and commitment is to the Church of England can actually represent all faiths as being equal, when it’s blatantly clear to everyone that all faiths are not equal, nor have some any intention of being so. For those of this viewpoint, Charles’ fixation with reducing all faith traditions to a level conformity ignores numerous fundamental dynamics – and actually attempts to redefine the concept of truth itself. In the new monarchical multi-faith space, it is recognised that not all faiths are equally true or ‘valid’, but nonetheless the redefined role of the Sovereign is now going to be to ensure that all faiths, however constructed or misdirected, will be guaranteed equal respect, legal protection and freedom of expression in modern Britain.

Whilst the broad concept of religious toleration is a worthy aspiration, especially given that historically so many wars and conflicts have a religious origin, it remains a dangerous strategy to run a country on the basis that all faiths are absolutely equal. As Catholics our community of believers has always been at the very forefront of defending every person’s freedom to believe and worship – or not so – without coercion. However, if we move to a position where all faiths are equal, and God is just a mountain up which any path is valid and of equally salvational value, then there really is little point at all in preaching about Christ to others – nor anyone of any other faith evangelising their creed.

The foundational centrality of Christianity comes from Christ himself: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” [John 14:6]. You can choose to believe that or not, but you cannot change the claim, nor its fundamental importance to Christian believers. More importantly for our Sovereign, you simply cannot diminish or negate this premise and still hold fast to your role as Head of the Church of England. In fact, neither can you claim to claim to represent other faiths who also hold to a primacy of truth. Frankly, it’s dishonest and disrespectful to all to assume that profoundly-held beliefs can be reduced to a kind of homogenous consent that there’s definitely some kind of deity out there, but no-one ought to claim preferential insight as to what it comprises, and what its purpose might be. At the most basic level, this is not faith at all, but a catastrophic naive lovefest that eventually ends up diminishing everyone’s faith.

A far better strategy for religious tolerance and unity would be to reiterate that Britain is a Christian construct that also happens to embrace and respect other faiths and cultures, but within its established Judeo-Christian construct. Back in 2014, when Pope Francis visited the predominantly Muslim Balkan nation of Albania he was amazed at its position on religious tolerance, even saying it should serve as an example to the world. In Albania, the predominant religions are Islam and Christianity, with Muslims making up more than half the population but there exists a common unity between the people of the country. Here you’ll often find churches and mosques on the same streets, and interfaith marriages are widely accepted. By engaging with one another frequently and in such meaningful ways, Albanian Muslims and Christians have created a strong community founded upon understanding and respect, yet neither faith community has had to dilute its commitment to its foundational truths. What has been learnt in Albania is that difference and theological disagreements don’t have to be the basis of division and war, they can be mechanisms of dialogue, mutual respect and even shared civic growth.

Apparently, King Charles has never visited Albania but – before he shrugs off his burdensome historic Christian mandate – it might just be worth him taking a trip.

Joseph Kelly is Catholic writer and public theologian

Pic: King Charles III meets faith leaders after the signing of the Muslim-Jewish Reconciliation Accords (The Drumlanrig Accord) at Buckingham Palace, London, Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2025. (Andrew Matthews/Pool Photo via AP)