STAMPED on every British coin, next to the monarch’s head, are the letters FD.

If memory serves, the larger of our pre-decimal coins expressed the meaning in abbreviated Latin: Fid Def or Defender of the Faith.

Bowing to multiculturalism, Prince Charles, the heir to the throne, perceives the role as “defender of faith”, presumably, any and every faith. But for now the faith in question is the Christian faith, Britain’s “official” religion.

So perhaps it is time the reigning monarch started doing a bit of defending.

Under her nose, her Government is going to the European Court of Human Rights to argue against the right of Christians to wear a cross at work. It wants the law to allow employers to sack any worker insisting on wearing a cross.

The Government has chosen to challenge an action brought by two women, one a nurse, the other a British Airways worker, who, as you will remember, were banned from wearing crosses at work.

The Government could have stood aside from their bid to establish that the ban breached their human right to ‘manifest’ their religion. Presumably, as the Government of a Christian nation, it could have put in a word of support.

But no –- the full power of the Government’s legal apparatus is pitched against these women.

At issue is the meaning of Article Nine of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

This right includes the freedom to change his (no mention of her) religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others, and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”

Seems pretty watertight. But the Government argues that because wearing a cross is not actually a requirement of the Christian faith, Article Nine does not apply. It’s hard not to think that if the architects of the European Convention had intended to confine this human right to what a faith itself demanded they would have made this abundantly clear.

No doubt lawyers for the two women will bring out the point.

But the Government is extraordinarily bullish in its opposition. Declaring the application “manifestly ill-founded,” it goes on: “In neither case is there any suggestion that the wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was a generally recognised form of practising the Christian faith, still less one that is regarded (including by the applicants themselves) as a requirement of the faith.”

Of course, a chief reason why the Queen is regarded as having done a good job over the last 60 years is that she has scrupulously avoided any expression of opinion on any public issue. But the fact remains that she is Defender of the Faith – which suggests a readiness to take up arms if necessary.

The cross is the Christian symbol. Without naming any political party or the Government, the Queen could influentially speak up for those who choose to wear it.

The other day, in ceremonial regalia, she attended a church service to celebrate the Order of the British Empire – a meaningless exercise to most eyes. Meanwhile the faith she is supposed to be defending is increasingly being pushed aside, with the strongest weight from her Government. Time to act, Ma’am.