Gordon Brown's assault on the traditions of the monarchy.

At the risk of overly raising McFink's blood pressure:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...aditions-of-the-monarchy-is-preposterous.html

Andrew Roberts
Last Updated: 9:43AM GMT 28 Mar 2009

Gordon Brown's assault on the traditions of the monarchy is preposterous.


The news that Gordon Brown has opened talks with Buckingham Palace over altering the 1701 Act of Settlement, which bars members of the Royal family from succeeding to the throne if they marry Roman Catholics, has profound implications for the long-term future of this country. For the Act of Settlement is not the bigoted, irrelevant and obsolete law that Downing Street presents it as – it is one of the key pieces of legislation that has defined what Britain was and still is. For a Prime Minister who claims to care deeply about the concept of Britishness, the Act should be sacrosanct, rather than sacrificed in a gross bout of politically correct gimmickry.

Britain is a Protestant country today largely because of the Act of Settlement. It secured the Hanoverian succession 13 years after the Glorious Revolution replaced the Catholic King James II with the Protestant William III (of Orange) and Mary II. Since the only surviving son of their daughter, the future Queen Anne, had died, it settled the Crown after her upon the Electoress Sophia of Hanover, a granddaughter of James I, and her heirs – if they were Protestants, and married to Protestants, as indeed the four King Georges were.

Because it is a central tenet of the Catholic Church that the children of Catholics should be raised as Catholics, it was understood that marriage of a Royal opened up the possibility either of a Catholic one day sitting on the Throne, or a Catholic parent committing apostasy by allowing their child to be raised as a Protestant – neither of which were desirable outcomes politically, religiously or morally. Since the monarch is also Supreme Head of the (Protestant) Church of England, above whom there is no one in the Church hierarchy – including the Pope – the ban on Catholics makes further sense.

The Glorious Revolution, Act of Settlement and Protestant succession ushered in a long period of prosperity and order for Britain, and ended a lengthy period of bloodshed and civil war. Religious turmoil was over, and the knowledge that the head of state would always be of the same faith as the national, Established, Anglican Church greatly contributed to that. The emancipation of Catholics proceeded throughout the 19th century, and in 1926 all restrictions were abolished except that the Sovereign, Regent, Lord Chancellor and Lord Keeper could not be Catholics, and that Roman Catholic priests could not sit in the House of Commons. There is no law preventing Catholics marrying into the Royal family, merely from inheriting the Throne if they do. Prince Michael, for example, nobly and uncomplainingly gave up his right to the Throne when he married.

So there is a "discriminatory" ban on Catholics becoming monarch – but since only direct descendants of King George II can do that, 99.9 per cent of us are discriminated against on that basis, whatever our religion. Similarly, the proposals to "open up" the monarchy to women, by scrapping the laws of primogeniture, is another way in which Gordon Brown is treating our thousand-year-old monarchy as though it is just another public-sector job, like those advertised in the Guardian, subject to anti-discrimination legislation.

It is also worth looking at what Brown's proposals would have meant in the past. If they had been in place a century ago, it would have meant that Kaiser Wilhelm II – the only true psychopath to sit on the throne of a major country in recent history – would have become King of England, as the eldest child of the eldest child of Queen Victoria.

Of course, the proposal to have the eldest child inherit regardless of gender is itself just the kind of discriminatory ageism to which Mr Brown is supposed to be opposed. Perhaps there ought to be an examination among the children of the monarch, along the lines of the old civil service exams? Or maybe Mr Brown could set up an interview panel to see who was the best candidate? Why not award the Crown to whoever got the best GCSE results?

The obvious truth is that the whole concept of monarchy – with its coronations, anointings, ancient traditions and customs and usages – is simply not logical in the modern business sense. Attempting to legislate for it rationally leads to absurdities like Mr Brown's.

Considering that these proposed new laws are unlikely to come into practical effect for a couple of decades – assuming Prince William marries the Anglican Kate Middleton – one wonders why the Prime Minister should be bringing this up now? With New Labour's track record for "burying bad news", might this be merely an attempt to detract attention from what really matters?

With the world in a cataclysmic economic meltdown, Gordon Brown has chosen to put forward the proposal that the presently unmarried Prince William's as-yet-unborn children should be allowed to marry Catholics without losing their right to the Throne, and should themselves inherit on the basis of age rather than gender. Is this not a quite deranged set of priorities for our Prime Minister, quite apart from the inherent weakness of the arguments themselves?

Additionally: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...o-end-discrimination-in-Royal-succession.html

OK, Brown the Humourless was wound up by Evans the Pink and Fluffy and his Private Member's Bill. When the Nation's finances are in tatters, is trapped into 2 open, armed conflicts and the fabric of Society is disintegrating, isn't it an odd time for yet more tinkering with the Constitution? Is it a new attempt to show us firm leadership?
 
Passed-over_Loggie said:
At the risk of overly raising McFink's blood pressure:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...aditions-of-the-monarchy-is-preposterous.html

OK, Brown the Humourless was wound up by Evans the Pink and Fluffy and his Private Member's Bill. When the Nation's finances are in tatters, is trapped into 2 open, armed conflicts and the fabric of Society is disintegrating, isn't it an odd time for yet more tinkering with the Constitution? Is it a new attempt to show us firm leadership?

What constitution? We do not have one single document that can be classed as our constitution. It is a variety of different documents, available to "constitutional experts" for them to interpret. We as a nation and as citizens don't have access to one single document that we could call our constitution. 8O :?
 
Why do you think that is an issue T42? Would a written constitution make a difference to who we are as a people? Would it make us pledge allegance to the flag every morning like they do in American schools? How would it change things?

I am more concerned with the gradual eroding of our national sovereignty by the EU, although saying that, the general feeling amongst those who know apparently, is that the European Communities Act 1973 is one of those documents that you refer to.

Honestly, I do not know if it bothers me that (a) papists are not allowed to marry into the line of succession, there isn't one decent shaggable one amongst them! and (b) primogeniture - is that ever going to effect me?

No I think I shall stop waffling and get back to dreaming about the chocolate bunnies that are being held hostage in the shed until the end of lent!
 
Re: Gordon Brown's assault on the traditions of the monarchy

Ah the Monarchy

` The foundation stones of their Castle, are the Bollocks of Henry the Eighth`
 

Seaweed

RIP
Book Reviewer
The reason we don't have a written constitution is that it only consisted of three words: 'PARLIAMENT IS SOVEREIGN'. Sadly this is no longer true as we are ruled by an unelected bureaucracy in Brussels which thinks along a Napoleonic, centrist, statist, dirigiste, Socialist line which is utterly inimical to our freedom.

However our present Parliament is entirely happy with this as it thinks the same way. For instance, it is my right as a British Subject to come and go from this country like a cat through a cat-flap. Now it is proposed that I must give prior notice and in detail. It was also the case that my personal information used to be my private property. Increasingly I have to surrender personal information to a regime which will make it available to hundreds of thousands of apparatchiks, not all of whom are to be trusted nor, evidently, do they have the least technical idea how to keep private data secure.

So also my person: but it is now proposed that on death my carcass will become the property of the State to be carved up at will and my bits perhaps sold to foreigners (I actually carry a donor card, but that is MY decision not the Government's). Under Socialism I soon won't even own my own body!
 
rosinacarley said:
Why do you think that is an issue T42? Would a written constitution make a difference to who we are as a people? Would it make us pledge allegance to the flag every morning like they do in American schools? How would it change things?

I am more concerned with the gradual eroding of our national sovereignty by the EU, although saying that, the general feeling amongst those who know apparently, is that the European Communities Act 1973 is one of those documents that you refer to.

Honestly, I do not know if it bothers me that (a) papists are not allowed to marry into the line of succession, there isn't one decent shaggable one amongst them! and (b) primogeniture - is that ever going to effect me?

No I think I shall stop waffling and get back to dreaming about the chocolate bunnies that are being held hostage in the shed until the end of lent!

For me it's not an issue at all Rosie. I'm not a monarchist, so don't care a flying fig who gets the crown, who they shag or marry, it's all irrelevant to me.
I can understand the argument for not allowing the heir to the throne to marry a catholic when the heir will be supreme governor of the church of England and their issue should be raised in the catholic faith (by Papist laws :wink: ). If that's really such a problem, then disestablish the church and state. Personally I don't know which I find more outdated, the monarchy or the church. For me, they could both be abolished and it wouldn't change my life at all. :p
I only mentioned the fact that we don't have a written constitution because people often mention our constitution as though it is one single document like the Americans have.... :thumbright:
 

lesbryan

War Hero
Re: Gordon Brown's assault on the traditions of the monarchy

Traditions monarchy constitutions .well for me in the year of 2009 they do not mean a thing .When they were put in place .It was aided by thuggery killing because you happened to be something they were not .and they said that was wrong so they burned you cos of your beliefs it happened both ways not just one .these things happened when most people had nowt and were shit scared of these so called people who wrote all this bollocks in the first place . :D
 
type42stoker said:
rosinacarley said:
Why do you think that is an issue T42? Would a written constitution make a difference to who we are as a people? Would it make us pledge allegance to the flag every morning like they do in American schools? How would it change things?

I am more concerned with the gradual eroding of our national sovereignty by the EU, although saying that, the general feeling amongst those who know apparently, is that the European Communities Act 1973 is one of those documents that you refer to.

Honestly, I do not know if it bothers me that (a) papists are not allowed to marry into the line of succession, there isn't one decent shaggable one amongst them! and (b) primogeniture - is that ever going to effect me?

No I think I shall stop waffling and get back to dreaming about the chocolate bunnies that are being held hostage in the shed until the end of lent!

For me it's not an issue at all Rosie. I'm not a monarchist, so don't care a flying fig who gets the crown, who they shag or marry, it's all irrelevant to me.
I can understand the argument for not allowing the heir to the throne to marry a catholic when the heir will be supreme governor of the church of England and their issue should be raised in the catholic faith (by Papist laws :wink: ). If that's really such a problem, then disestablish the church and state. Personally I don't know which I find more outdated, the monarchy or the church. For me, they could both be abolished and it wouldn't change my life at all. :p
I only mentioned the fact that we don't have a written constitution because people often mention our constitution as though it is one single document like the Americans have.... :thumbright:

Me too. have you got any chocolate?
 
rosinacarley said:
type42stoker said:
rosinacarley said:
Why do you think that is an issue T42? Would a written constitution make a difference to who we are as a people? Would it make us pledge allegance to the flag every morning like they do in American schools? How would it change things?

I am more concerned with the gradual eroding of our national sovereignty by the EU, although saying that, the general feeling amongst those who know apparently, is that the European Communities Act 1973 is one of those documents that you refer to.

Honestly, I do not know if it bothers me that (a) papists are not allowed to marry into the line of succession, there isn't one decent shaggable one amongst them! and (b) primogeniture - is that ever going to effect me?

No I think I shall stop waffling and get back to dreaming about the chocolate bunnies that are being held hostage in the shed until the end of lent!

For me it's not an issue at all Rosie. I'm not a monarchist, so don't care a flying fig who gets the crown, who they shag or marry, it's all irrelevant to me.
I can understand the argument for not allowing the heir to the throne to marry a catholic when the heir will be supreme governor of the church of England and their issue should be raised in the catholic faith (by Papist laws :wink: ). If that's really such a problem, then disestablish the church and state. Personally I don't know which I find more outdated, the monarchy or the church. For me, they could both be abolished and it wouldn't change my life at all. :p
I only mentioned the fact that we don't have a written constitution because people often mention our constitution as though it is one single document like the Americans have.... :thumbright:

Me too. have you got any chocolate?

We've just raided Hotel Chocolate in Solihull, we have some very nice chocolate, white, milk and some with fruit in too.......when does Lent end? I'll save you some.
 
Re: Gordon Brown's assault on the traditions of the monarchy

lesbryan said:
these things happened when most people had nowt and were shit scared of these so called people who wrote all this bollocks in the first place .

FEAR GOD HONOUR THE QUEEN

Hmm; interesting.
 
type42stoker said:
We've just raided Hotel Chocolate in Solihull, we have some very nice chocolate, white, milk and some with fruit in too.......when does Lent end? I'll save you some.

Easter Sunday sweetie!! And no dead flies please they are just wrong.
 
Roberts says, The news that Gordon Brown has opened talks with Buckingham Palace over altering the 1701 Act of Settlement, which bars members of the Royal family from succeeding to the throne if they marry Roman Catholics, has profound implications for the long-term future of this country'.

He fails to explain in his opinion just what these implications might be? He then goes on to say it is not bigoted, well it is in my opinion when all it did was secure the future of the Germans Protestants on the throne.

Anyway you can expect nothing else from an article in the Torygraph and no doubt written by a right wing monarchist.
 
Top