Prince Charles Dispenses With "Defender of The Faith" Title

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/more/moreaccount.html

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/more/moretrialreport.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/3454271/Prince-Charles-to-be-known-as-Defender-of-Faith.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261908/Hes-future-Defender-Faith--does-Prince-William-church-handful-times-year.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-18056322


The ruling family of the UK, Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, better known by the assumed name Windsor, has become a disaster for the people of Great Britain. Having ruled at the height of the power of the British Empire, and once defiantly remaining with their subjects in the darkest hours of WWII, they have since then been complicit in its destruction.  In our era, they have stood idly by while their nation has been purposefully been inundated with what amounts to hordes of Muslim immigrants, many of which have no intention whatsoever of integrating and have made repeated calls to, once there are enough of them, transform that nation into an Islamic state. Members of this family have become bosom buddies with the radical Socialist/environmentalists such as those of the Club of Rome, calling for, among other things,  forced reductions in population. They seem to look upon their own people as ignorant and needful of marginalization.

Prince Charles, who by his lifestyle and lack of morals has exemplified the decline of this family, has taken steps to hasten the fall of the people and the nation of the UK.

One of the titles of the British Monarch is Defender of the Faith. Not-so-Bonny Charlie, if he is able to gain the throne, would rather drop "the" from that title, rendering it "Defender of Faith". He will assume the responsibility of defending all faiths, which of course in practice will mean every faith except that of the Church of England.

His rationale? Implying that there is one true faith is insulting to people who are not Christian.

If I were to smoke enough opium to make Samuel Taylor Coleridge appear unimaginative, I could not come up with a move that both smacks of more hubris and offers a greater insult to a people.

When I was speaking with our contributor Scipio about this, he brought up a valid point for which I could not think of any argument  to the contrary. If the King or Queen takes it upon him or herself to change a required title, then is he or she not violating the oath that was administered and taken at one's coronation? And, if one wants to change the title and/or oath prior to the assumption of the throne, is that not also a violation or a proof of being unfit for the throne?  Scipio referred to the comments made by Thomas More just prior to the reading of the findings (I couldn't bear to the write "verdict" due to the meaning of its root word) of the jury at his trial. More asserted that, by Henry VIII's actions, he had violated both his obligations under the Magna Carta and the coronation oath.

-What brings me to a serious point.

If a monarch has clearly violated or wrongfully changed the oath (Or arbitrarily mangled a royal title) which provided one with the authority to rule, then does Parliament, specifically the House of Commons, not have, not the authority, but the obligation, to depose that monarch?

The House of Commons would not be charting new territory here; in the Glorious Revolution it took the very same option, declaring James II Stewart (Stuart) deposed and inviting his daughter Mary and her husband William to rule England (Not yet Great Britain).

Charlie may turn up his nose at Christianity and many centuries of English/British history and tradition; he may also fancy himself the champion of Islam, voodoo, santeria  what have you, but if he wants to do that he can do so honorably by imitating  Edward the VIII and abdicate. There is a reason why those crosses are in the Union Jack.

A monarch is, as is a government , bound by the Law just as are his subjects/citizens. Both the Magna Carta and the successful civil lawsuits that followed the issuance and executions of general arrest and search warrants in 18th century Britain attest to this fact. He does not have the authority to change things as he pleases.

Great Britain is at a crossroads. The identity and survival of this nation and its people as recognizable entities are clearly at stake. The House of Saxe Coburg and Gotha/Windsor must have its collective feet held to the fire. If they want to continue in their cozy arrangement, then they must choose to stand for their people and their nation. If not, the people, by act of Parliament, must assert their authority and choose either one from that same house who vows to rule within the boundaries of the law, invite a more appropriate family to rule, or dispose of the monarchy altogether.