For King and Country

Have the freedoms we fought for been lost?

Historically, ‘For King and Country’ has been a patriotic battle cry expressing absolute loyalty, duty, and the willingness to lay down one’s life in service to the British monarchy and the nation.

The concepts of patriotism, duty and sacrifice were deeply understood by the generations who fought in the two great wars of the 20th century. British people in the main believed that they had been blessed to live in a peaceful and relatively well governed society, built on Judeo-Christian foundations. They believed themselves to be part of a British society in which they would submit to legitimate authority as valued stakeholders who had a part in choosing how they would be governed through a democratic process. When their way of life was threatened, in both cases by a great European power, they believed that it was absolutely necessary and right to fight to preserve it.

The Four Freedoms

4 Freedoms The same was true in the United States. One of the most iconic Second World War posters and one of the enduring images of 20th-century American art is Norman Rockwell’s Four Freedoms series – very probably his most famous artwork. Rockwell produced four oil paintings in 1943, each referring to one of the freedoms President Roosevelt had outlined in his 1941 State of the Union address: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want, and Freedom from Fear. Each presented an idealised vision of part of American life.

Representing an America worth fighting for, four million posters of these paintings were printed during World War II. The Four Freedoms are among the most reproduced artworks of all time and the U.S. government used these images to raise $132 million in war bonds at that time.

The loss of these freedoms

It is astonishing to consider that some eighty years after that great conflict, those same freedoms are being lost. In the case of Britain, which stood alone against the might of Nazi Germany shortly after the outbreak of war, it could be argued that we are in a worse position now than if Hitler had defeated us in the epic Battle of Britain, even though we would have become a vassal state of the Third Reich.

It is just two months since the passing of Alec William George Penstone (23 April 1925 – 28 May 2026) a British World War II veteran who served in the Royal Navy. He appeared on ITV’s Good Morning Britain in November last year and was asked by host Kate Garraway what Remembrance Sunday meant to him. He emotionally described how it felt as though winning the war was “not worth the sacrifice” because of how the country had turned out today.

Alec said: “My message is, I can see in my mind’s eye those rows and rows of white stones and all the hundreds of my friends who gave their lives, for what? The country of today?” To the astonishment of the presenters, he went on, almost in tears; “No, I’m sorry - but the sacrifice wasn’t worth the result of what it is now.” He continued: “What we fought for was our freedom, but now it’s a darn sight worse than when I fought for it.”

King Charles – Protector of the Space for Faith

So, what of our present King, our country, and the state of the Nation in the summer of 2026?

In a little-noticed change to his official accounts, King Charles III appears to have revised his pledge to “defend the faith.” It seems he surreptitiously slipped into the document a quite momentous change. In a few amended lines in the Sovereign Grant Annual Report, the duties of the monarchy have been covertly changed. The King’s title as “Defender of the Faith” has been replaced by “Protector of the Space for Faith within the Multi-faith Nation.” Our beloved late Queen Elizabeth must be turning in her grave. Her former Chaplain, Gavin Ashenden, certainly questions whether this goes against his oaths.

A final encouragement

It is now forty years since ministry founder Dr Clifford Hill was part of a prophetic gathering at Mount Carmel in April 1986. The prophecy given by the late Lance Lambert is worth re-examining in the context of current world events.

We are living in times of great turmoil, but the final paragraph of Lance’s prophecy should be an encouragement to us all:

“Do not fear for these days, for I have purposed that you should stand with Me and serve Me in them. Fear not, for I love you and I will protect you and equip you. I, the LORD, will anoint you with a new anointing and you will work My works and fulfil My counsel. You shall stand before Me, the LORD of the whole earth, and serve Me with understanding and with power, and you shall reign with Me during these days. Above all I call you to be intercessors.”

Nick Szkiler, 09/07/2026

Feedback:

	(Guest)	14/07/2026 19:58
Jesus is King of Kings. Lord of Lords!
	(Guest)	13/07/2026 10:22
Revelations 19:16 "On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: king of kings and lord of lords."
	Peter Morrow (Guest)	12/07/2026 19:35
Cherry, hi, I'm not even sure I should reply, but in terms of our spiritual covering I understand it in this way. Our covering relates entirely to Jesus and to our forgiveness, redemption and sanctification found in Him, in His life, death, resurrection and ascension. It is given by grace, and we know it through faith. It is Jesus Who governs and rules His people; He will not fail; He cannot fail; the victory of sin and death has already been won and we can rest assured in His completed work, and in the sure and certain knowledge that He will bring us home. That is our covering, it was always our covering and nothing has changed. And it is the best of good news!
	Cherry (Guest)	12/07/2026 15:16
What about our National covering spiritually is it now wide open.??
	Peter Morrow (Guest)	11/07/2026 19:32
Yes, Michael, that argument can be made, and has been made and enacted in various form by Rome and by the Reformers, and there is some substance to it. But what interests and concerns me, and I think should concern every faithful Christian believer, relates to the implications of and the out-working of such theologies in practical cultural and national terms. It is very difficult to escape the consequence that as the Church informed the state/nation, and the state reflected, or even at times informed the Church, that membership of the Church became synonymous with membership of the nation, and vice versa, and many in state and Church power benefited from both established and quasi-established religion. And I'd suggest that this led to nothing other than a shallow root of Christian faith among our 'home' nations. Modern Ireland is a good example of this, where national adherence to the Catholic Church disappeared almost overnight. Similarly in Britain, the seeds of the 1960's cultural revolution flourished within a decade with Christian adherence being thrown off and discarded like a worn and ancient gown (indeed in some cases this may have been quite literal!). It has happened in my part of the UK as well, where the end of 40 years of conflict has not resulted in reconciliation between the Churches and an outpouring of thanks to God, but declining congregations, and increasingly secular and polarised communities. We made have an absence of violence, but the old hatreds remain. None of the current developments surprise me - but they really ought to concern us - because they are the fruit of a version of Christianity, which, in the end, was enforced not by law but by the prevailing public mood and accepted cultural norms. All of which is fine when the weather is fair, but when the winds of culture and of war blow and the rains fall, the house is swept away. And what we desperately need is a new house, not the old one rebuilt on the same old foundation.
	Michael Petek	11/07/2026 12:29
I would aver, Peter, that a nation can be said to be constitutionally Christian if its judges recognise that they are but the final judges of the law of the land, while the Church is both a sovereign power and the public teacher and the final judge of the law of God, including questions of the compatibility of the law of the land with the law of God - so that the nation's judges must disapply all that is incompatible.
	Peter Morrow (Guest)	11/07/2026 11:24
Again, and speaking as a Reformed Christian, I tend to agree. And it is one of the reasons that I refuse to describe Britain as a Christian nation. Culturally, of course, the establishment and its citizens spoke and thought that way, but Christian means: 'follower of/those who have put their faith in Jesus', and that simply cannot be true by culture, by act of parliament or by the statement of a king. For the sake of balance, though, I'd say the same thing about the 'Catholic Ireland', and 'Protestant Scotland' - they were similar things in terms of culture and the prevailing mood, it was just worked out differently. And it is very difficult to this day for believers to disentangle themselves from the history of these isles. But maybe the time has come to stop using these descriptions, those like: Christian Europe, Christian Britain, the Christian West, Catholic Ireland. If they were ever true, they are inaccurate now. "they dragged Jason and some other believers before the city officials, shouting: “These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here, 7 and Jason has welcomed them into his house. They are all defying Caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus.” 8 When they heard this, the crowd and the city officials were thrown into turmoil." Acts 17: 6-8
	Michael Petek	11/07/2026 08:41
I don't agree with any of these sentiments. King Charles is not the author of the apostasy of the Church of England and the nation. Under the settlement of 1689 he is the creature of Parliament, which is constitutionally supreme. The courts apply Acts of Parliament as the supreme law of the land, whether or not they are compatible with the law of God. The Protestant Reformed Religion which Charles swore to uphold is whatever Parliament says it is at any given time. Today contraception is abominated. Tomorrow it is approved. Today only men can be ordained. Tomorrow a woman can become a bishop. The King has no power in law to remove, on his own authority, laws which are offensive to God, nor to correct doctrinal errors or to remove an errant bishop. Since he must respect the lawful right of all his subjects to religious liberty, he has no power to repress false religion. This is what happens when you establish the state as supreme in public religion.
	Bill Grimke-Drayton (Guest)	11/07/2026 06:59
It grieves me to say that Charles has broken the solemn oath which he took at his coronation to uphold the Protestant faith. This was his intention all along. He is not and never has been a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. A Moslem is allowed to use deceit to hide his true intentions. The God of Abraham, Usaac and Jacob knows where the heart of this man lies. I hope it is not true that he has embraced the Islamic faith, as rumoured from way back. If that is the case, he also lied to the US Congress on his recent visit. He and I were born in the same year that Israel was reborn. We all need to continue to pray for this man who has lost his way and needs the Saviour to bring him home into His Heavenly Father's family as His adopted son, redeemed through the sanctifying blood of Calvary, and through repentance, forgiveness and cleansing.
	Carol Bignall (Guest)	10/07/2026 20:37
Totally agree with all of the above sentiments - Charles should be de-throned - if we as a Nation do not stand up for the truth of the Gospel we are no longer a Nation of integrity and should hang our head in shame!!
	Richard Miller (Guest)	10/07/2026 16:55
He has committed sin of Solomon.. All religions are equally valid. Unless there is genuine repentance we can only expect judgement. It is dreadful no senior church leaders are saying anything.
	David Baines (Guest)	10/07/2026 16:41
Charles Mountbatten-Windsor swore before Almighty God that he would be the Defender of the Reformed faith of the Church of England. He has now repudiated that oath and has chosen friendship with the world which is enmity with God (James 4:4). As such he has forfeited the right to be called King. I renounce any and all allegiance to him