June 29 2026 - 7:00am
For hundreds of years, one of the central battlegrounds of British politics has been the role, powers and prerogatives of the Crown. From the Barons’ Wars to the Reformation and the Civil War, we have had a centuries-long argument over what the monarch is for, what they can and can’t do, and where they fit with the rest of the constitution. Various compromises and fudges have emerged in line with the changing social and political environment.
At present, the greatest challenge faced by the monarchy is its place in a country that is rapidly becoming more ethnically and religiously diverse. Before his coronation, there was much talk that King Charles would like to be officially regarded as Defender of Faith, rather than Defender of the Faith — the definite article being rather significant, as it was when Henry VIII was first granted the Fidei Defensor title by Pope Leo X in 1521. This did not happen in the end, of course, but a recent document from Buckingham Palace has resurrected the idea. The Sovereign Grant report includes the assertion that part of the King’s role is to protect faith “within the multi-faith nation”.
Some have seized on this as evidence of Charles’ surrender to contemporary multiculturalism and a repudiation of his role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. This might be over-dramatic, but the complacent voices insisting that this is all a storm in a teacup are also missing the point. The Sovereign Grant report might be a dry document largely written by accountants, but it will surely have been carefully checked by senior members of the King’s staff. The explicit declaration that Charles is a champion for a general religious perspective therefore bears a certain amount of weight, and we are entitled to conclude that the King has taken a side on highly contentious matters of identity and nationality.
We might also reasonably raise the question of when it was decided that this was part of the role of the British monarchy, and by whom. The country has a constitutional monarchy, grounded for over 800 years in the principle that the Crown does not just act as it wishes, but must instead be constrained by law and custom. The Firm cannot simply decide for itself what the role of the monarchy ought to be, especially at a time of rapid and controversial change.
The royals also need to tread carefully with measures that might irritate their supporters. Since the Diamond Jubilee only 14 years ago, support for the monarchy — as measured by YouGov — has fallen by 11 percentage points to 64%. In 2022, when the nation was supposedly united behind Queen Elizabeth II for the Platinum Jubilee, this figure briefly hit just 59% before recovering and then stabilizing under Charles. This decline appears to be permanent, and younger generations are significantly less enthusiastic than the general population.
Demographic change may well be a strong contributor to the monarchy’s uncertain position in the public affections. It stands to reason that many newcomers will simply not feel the instinctive affinity for the institution that many Britons retain, however much Charles and his advisers attempt to water down the distinctive aspects of his role as a Christian king of a particular people. There is a serious risk, therefore, in staking too much on an appeal to New Britain, while ignoring the reservations of the people who have traditionally been the Crown’s keenest advocates.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe