Friday, August 03, 2007

The Act of Settlement Must be Amended

Religious discrimination is illegal. If I were to discriminate against someone because they were Catholic I would (quite rightly) be had up in court. So at the risk of irritating His Grace, is it right that Peter Phillips faces having to renounce his claim to the throne (he is tenth in line) if he marries his Canadian fiancee, who happens to be a Roman Catholic. The alternative is for her to renounce her religion.

Isn't it about time someone tried to amend the 1701 Act of Settlement, which bans monarchs and their heirs from marrying Catholics?

52 comments:

Alastair Stuart said...

I was in the Commons public gallery a couple of months ago when a Tory MP (sorry, can't remember who) introduced a ten minute rule bill to do precisely this.

dizzy said...

This sia question of soveiregnty. Who rules, Britain? The British or Rome? A Catholic Monarch would be subjugate to the Pope on matters of ethics and morality. The same is true on the issue of Prime Minister. That is what the Act of Settlement settled. You are talking about Disetablishment if you talk about amending the Act of Settlement.

dizzy said...

antidisestablishmentarian - that's me!

Letterman said...

Surely you're asking the wrong question. Isn't it unfair to be born into a job you don't necessarily want?

Anonymous said...

How could a Roman Catholic be Supreme Governor of The Church Of England? Would that not be akin to The Pope being non-Catholic?

Alastair Stuart said...

John Gummer, it was John Gummer, bah should've remembered that!

A Labour MP tried something similar in 2001, albeit with republicanist measures attached.

Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dale,

His Grace is not remotely irritated by your intervention, for you are a congenial and good natured chap.

However, he must firstly point out that the Act is 1701, not 1801, as your posts states.

Secondly, he asks this. To marry whomsoever one wishes is a human right. To be king is not. If the King of the Vatican has marriage restrictions placed upon him for historical and doctrinal reasons, why may not the King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

At least the latter may marry, but the King of the Vatican may not marry at all. This is surely a gross infringement of his human rights.

Like Mr Dale, His Grace fully supports the ending of all unjust discrimination. The Pope should therefore permit Roman Catholics to attend communion in Anglican churches, and permit Anglicans to participate in the Mass (Cardinal Hume prevented Tony Blair from doing so).

So let us end all such archaic and outdated discrimination, and allow Labour Party members to work at Conservative Central Office and stand as Conservative candidates, and vice versa. Surely the decision one makes about one's political afiliation should have no bearing at all on one's employment...

Machiavelli's Understudy said...

If I were to discriminate against someone because they were Catholic I would (quite rightly) be had up in court

Why 'quite rightly'?

Surely if I don't like the particular tone of someone's religious beliefs, I should be able to exclude them from my dealings or otherwise? Obviously you're discussing something that is a matter for the state, but still, I disagree with the idea that someone should be hauled before a court because of their beliefs.

Archbishop Cranmer said...

PS

Your very good friend Ann Widdecombe does not support amendment, for she understands that this Act is the last bulwark against rampant secularism. It upholds the Judeo-Christian foundations of the the legislature, and its amendment would bring a very complex house of cards tumbling down.

rilly super said...

I just can't keep up to date with these red hot current issues, sigh. I heard you on the radio this morning Iain dear, what was it you were talking about again, oh yes, the magna carta being sexed up wasn't it?

jailhouselawyer said...

I agree that the Act of Settlement would be incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998, and a declaration to this effect should be sought by way of a judicial review.

However, I seem to recall that Princess Anne made a point that her children would be commoners. So, I was rather amused to read that plain Mr Peter Phillips was to have the first Royal wedding since blah, blah, blah.

Since when does a commoner marrying a commoner constitute a Royal wedding?

Sir Pointon said...

Puh-leaze. Get a life, people. Judeo-Christian foundations? Rampant secularism?

How to put this in a respectful way? Poppycock!!!

antifrank said...

Hmmm... among her many duties, the Queen is head of the Church of England, making Britain one of only two formal theocracies (the other being the Vatican). It's about time that number was reduced from two to one, and as part of that process, the Act of Settlement should be repealed. The two changes cannot sensibly be taken separately.

Roger Thornhill said...

I see the effect Cherie had on our previous Prime Minister and how he went cap in hand to the Pope.

Our PM or King should not be subordinate to anyone or thing other than the people of Britain or its parliament when acting on its belalf (i.e. not when toadying to the EU).

If the Pope did not exist, the problem would not exist.

thermalsatsuma said...

Is there anything in the act to say that a monarch must be a Christian and part of the Church of England, or is just about who they marry? Princes William and Harry have not made any sort of public declaration of their religious beliefs or lack of them, so what would happen if they turned out to be atheists?

Let's disestablish the Church of England while we're at it. It's a patent nonsense to have religious beliefs, which are personal and have no factual basis, written into the legal constitution of a country.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

A person in line to the throne:

"that all and every person and persons that then were, or afterwards should be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or should profess the popish religion, or marry a papist, should be excluded, and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown and government of this realm"

And The Monarch must be Anglican:

"That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law established"

Hughes Views said...

What's the Tory policy on this hot topic that everyone's talking about just now Iain?

I can't believe I just typed "Tory policy"....

Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Neil H,

Indeed it does. It also states:

"...That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law established."

'In communion' is a distinct and theological phrase, but here is not the place for a Greek lesson.

Contra the erroneous but oft-repeated assertions that the Monarch may be a Muslim, Sikh, Jew Moonie, or anything but a Roman Catholic, the Monarch must be in communion with his/her church. This is not therefore 'anti-Catholic' discrimination; it is a pro-Protestant assertion, for the Church of England is Protestant and Reformed by law.

The Supreme Governor of the Church of England must therefore be Protestant Christian, just as the Pope has to be Roman Catholic. If the former is an unacceptable discrimination, then a fortiori must the latter also be.

His Grace awaits a response to the ending of 'all discrimination' in the workplace...

Steven Ronald said...

I know it's been said higher up the thread a lost better-

However it is very annoying that when this topic is brought up it is classed as "discrimination" - well yes but only because we quite sensibly do not want to be ruled from Rome

Jay said...

Guys, can you make sure if you mean the Anglican Church you say the Anglican Church? For the "Church of England" is in fact the Roman Catholic Church, and it makes it very hard to follow opinion when everyone keeps mixing these titles up.

As for the issue in the post, if the lady in question is a real Catholic then there is no chance of her renouncing the Faith. Therefore Mr Philips will have to renounce any ideas and claims he has on the throne.

Guthrum said...

Mr Peter Philips is a commoner or in my book a citizen, he is free to marry who he wishes. If he is really bothered about his place in the pecking order of this out dated and irrelevant institution he would not be marrying her. As a citizen I trust that public funds will not be used to finance the happy day. Good Luck to them both.

Newmania said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Newmania said...

There is simple answer to this conundrum which I have put into action .
By using a method known as "praying", I have been to discuss our little problem with god.Nice chap , votes Conservative , bit of a wet. He tells me that he agrees with Cranmer or at all events he really can`t bear to see him upset.
Whilst we were chatting he let slip that the Conservative Pary were going to win the next election but only wagged an amused if censorious finger when I asked if Mrs. N might have bigger breasts. Oh well ..don`t ask...

Anyway thats the Settlement thing sorted out . Glad I could help.

Dave J said...

"the Act of Settlement should be repealed."

That would make the Jacobite pretender, currently Franz of Bavaria, King Francis I (or Francis II if you treat all the prior claimants as legitimate). And maybe that's what you're arguing for, but you should be aware of the very different consequences here between amendment and repeal.

The Hitch said...

Mr Mania
The problem of you wifes boobies is easily solved by the application of several grand.
A previous Mrs Hitch had the same problem and this was solved by £3000(1990 prices) and an overnight stay in hospital. Unfortuantley the breasts, like the £3000 are now in the hands of another and I am left with nothing more than regrets and few happy memories.
(no thanks for the mamaries jokes mania)

Vienna Woods said...

Hmmm! Jay3gsm is quite right! I always hear many people claiming that they are Protestant when they are in fact CofE which in other words is Catholic, but not “Roman Catholic”. The order of service in the Mass is quite the same for both faiths you know. Dear old Henry VIII founded the Church of England following an argument with the Pope over divorce. The old sod eventually died of syphilis which was rather just considering what the murderous maniac achieved during his lifetime. Rather weird that more than 70% of the population follow a religion founded on the thoughts and musings of this deranged monarch.

Windsor Tripehound said...

Peter Phillips' fiancee does not have to "renounce her religion" as you put it. We Anglicans are Christians too, you know.

What she would have to do is renounce Rome, which is not the same thing.

If she were to join the Church of England she would still be part of "one Catholic and Apostolic Church".

Liberal Republican said...

I agree with you Iain.

Somehow, I doubt the fear of Rome is still in the hearts of middle of England.

Patriccus said...

Funnily enough, Gordon Brown brought this exact issue up prior to the recent local elections and the by-elections - i.e. when he needed to rely on Catholic votes to survive in some of the marginals. Elections over, he has now quietly decided to drop the issue.

With the levels of outright Catholiphobia that currently exists in the Labour party (see recent columns from Tribune and Tablet columnist Paul Donovan for accounts of the outright discrimination expressed by several Catholic Labour members), this represents an opportunity for the Conservatives to open wide the big tent, and become the natural home for traditional Catholic voters. Given the strong numbers of Irish immigrants in cities such as Liverpool and Manchester, as well as the strong populous in Scotland, the loss in numbers of these votes would certainly cause Brown difficulties in some of the more marginal seats around these areas.

Problem is that if some of the more intolerant views expressed on this thread are reflective of the party as a whole, then I can't really see Catholic voters flocking to the Tories in their droves though.

Unknown said...

The Act of Settlement is part of the constitutional process of ensuring that we do not have a Catholic Monarch. This remains relevant and important for it avoids a situation arising whereby a foreign and alien power, to wit the Pope, seeks to bully The Monarch into refusing his or her Royal Assent to a Bill of which he does not approve, by threatening excommunication or being sent off to the realms of fire and brimstone or whatever it is that Catholics now get threatened with if they do not toe the line.

This is not mere fantasy as the Pope and his Papal Bootboys routinely threaten Italian MPs with excommunication or whatever when subjects like abortion come up.

Has anyone affected actually complained?
No.
Those who call for a change in the law do so because they have other axes to grind, by and large.

No more tinkering please.

Newmania said...

On Patricuss`s comment I will be interested to see how Boris Johnson appealls to the large London Irish community. We know how Ken Livingstone does it ....

David Lindsay said...

Gordon Brown apparently annoyed Cardinal Keith O’Brien of Edinburgh by not including the repeal of the Act of Settlement among his proposed constitutional changes.

But, in The Catholic Herald a couple of weeks ago, Stuart Reid (Deputy Editor of The Spectator), rightly pointed out that the Act of Settlement is good for us Catholics, because it reminds us that we are different, and because it does us the courtesy of taking our beliefs seriously by identifying them as a real challenge. Quite so.

Furthermore, I question the viability of a Catholic community which devotes any great energy to the question of ascending the throne while the born sleep in cardboard boxes on the streets and the pre-born are ripped from their mothers’ wombs to be discarded as surgical waste.

Far from being a term of abuse, the word “Papist” is in fact the name under which the English Martyrs gave their lives, and expresses the cause for which they did so, making it a badge of honour, to be worn with pride.

And yet, and yet, and yet...

The Established status of the Church of England was already a century and a half old at the time of the Act of Settlement, and is wholly unconnected to it. Anyway, in the 1990s, the Courts ruled that that status entailed what everyone had always known to be the case: that the doctrine of the Church of England – “the reformed Protestant religion as by law established in the Realm of England” – is whatever Parliament says it is at any given time, be that the ordination of women (as was the matter in question), or reincarnation, or the infallibility of Papal definitions ex cathedra, or anything else at all.

All that it is necessary for a monarch to do in order to uphold this “religion” is to grant Royal Assent to Ecclesiastical Measures just as if they were any other Bills passed by Parliament.

Those who would most resist any change to the Act of Settlement are those who insist that the Church of England is confessionally Calvinistic as a first principle rather than, as is in fact the case, only until such time as Parliament sees fit to repeal or replace the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, and not a moment longer.

Such people are mostly not in England (where they are mostly not members of the Church of England), but in Scotland (where the monarch is required, in ecclesiastical terms, to do nothing more than preserve a Presbyterian pattern of polity) and in Northern Ireland (where, as in Wales, the monarch has no formal ecclesiastical function whatever).

However, it is in Northern Ireland that a large Catholic community, by far the single largest religious body (as the Catholic Church also is, narrowly or otherwise, in each of England, Scotland and Wales), is crying out to be bound more closely to the British State, with which certainly a very large proportion of its members, and possibly the majority, identifies very strongly.

In view of what the Coronation Oath actually means, then let the Act of Settlement be repealed if that would help that binding, long complete and unthought about everywhere else in the United Kingdom (even, it seems, on Merseyside and in the West of Scotland).

What was established in 1688, with strong Papal support, was in fact the Catholic principle previously given practical effect in 1399 in England, and even more ingrained in Scotland, as against both Gallican princely absolutism and its metamorphosis into the theory whereby the new gentry-cum-mercantile republic was sovereign even over the Prince.

English Jacobitism, in particular, was what would now be called an Anglican, rather than a Catholic, phenomenon, when it was not just a ragbag of everyone (Congregationalists, Baptists, Quakers, smugglers, the lot) opposed to the Whig hegemony. Catholics hardly featured, since they simply did not share the underlying philosophical and theological assumptions; rather, they fully accepted Parliament’s right to determine the succession to the throne, even when it was inconvenient to themselves.

Each of the Commonwealth Realms is a linear inheritor of that age-old tradition, which is the peaceable alternative both to the bloodletting anti-republican pseudo-monarchism coming down from Buridan through the French Counter-Revolution, and to the bloodletting anti-monarchist pseudo-republicanism against which it came to react, historical aberrations both.

The Parliament of each Commonwealth Realm therefore has the absolute right to determine the succession to its own throne; but they mercifully choose to exercise this right in unison, and may that ever remain the case. (It is perfectly illiterate to suggest that the repeal of the Act of Settlement would revive any Stuart claim to the throne.)

So, again, if the repeal of the Act of Settlement helped to keep even one country in this family, then, in view of the above, by all means let it be repealed, though only by unanimous consent among all the Commonwealth Realms, since its continuation would also be a price well worth paying in order to preserve the unity of that family.

David Lindsay said...

Oh, and Newmania, no one has done more than Ken Livingstone, in his day, to make life difficult for Londoners with Irish backgrounds.

Likewise, no one has done more to help the enemies of the Welfare State, workers' rights, progressive taxation, full employment, and the partnership between a strong Parliament and strong local government.

And no one has done more to subvert London's character as an English-speaking, monarchist city with a Christian heritage.

All in all, if anyone in the white or Afro-Caribbean working class votes for him, then they must be mad. But I doubt that very many of them do.

Meanwhile, the Tories cannot even be bothered to put up a serious candidate this time, opting instead for someone doing it as a public school lark.

Well, if anyone is interested in organising a proper alternative, as part of a much wider movement, then do get in touch: davidaslindsay@hotmail.com.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

You have irritated Cranmer. He is at his best when he is irritated.

Newmania said...

Meanwhile, the Tories cannot even be bothered to put up a serious candidate this time, opting instead for someone doing it as a public school lark.

You are confusing serious with dull David Boris is always serious. He is also serious in the sense that he can win . I think you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope at this I have read with interest what you say otherwise and it is always intersting but at times quixotically contrary IMHO

"However, it is in Northern Ireland that a large Catholic community,...certainly a very large proportion of its members, and possibly the majority, identifies very strongly."


Really , not that I have noticed. In don`t see a lot of hope for the Union now that the English have lost interest in it and actively wish for its end , there is nothing in it for us exceot to be defrauded of democractic rights and milked as a tax cow for the Labour fringe . I have wondered where that would leave N Ireland . A great deal poorer is one answer.

C. A. W. Parker said...

How is it right - how on earth can a conservative deem it so - for anyone to be hauled up in court for being anti-Catholic? Or otherwise anti-religious?

I'm a Christian, but people are entitled to their prejudices. I couldn't give a shit. I'm far more scared by people like Dale, who'd happily prosecute or be prosecuted for it.

We cannot regulate men's hearts.

Iain Dale said...

Mark, you (probably deliberately) misrepresent what I said. Of course people can be anti whatever they like. I was not talking about that, I was talking about discriminating against people for their religious beliefs. That is very different.

Chris Paul said...

Yep! Good to see Dizzy flying the flag for the antidistablishmentarians and all that. And I don't care if the whole lot of them give up the bogus status of being our lords and masters. But stopping the 10th in line from marrying a catholic is a nonsense. Does the law even do that?

There was a pile of steaming doo doos about socialists and catholicism over on Conservative Home earlier this week wasn't there ... and thinking beyond nation states is of course a part of the difference. Vive la difference!

Laurence Boyce said...

Isn’t it about time someone tried to amend the 1701 Act of Settlement, which bans monarchs and their heirs from marrying Catholics?

Oh yes, what a stupid anachronism. Unlike the monarchy itself of course which is bang up to date.

Chris Paul said...

Ha ha ha. I've just scrolled down some more. The idea that theoretically allowing Cats to be monarchs or heirs or their consorts would boost the Tory appeal to Irish communities in Liverpool and Manchester is absolutely hilarious.

For they are already ruled from Rome and would regard any Cat who sought the crown as an Uncle Tom or Auntie Eiblin. Ha ha ha.

Labour did lose a good deal of the catholic vote in Liverpool by being unduly loyalist and unionist ... though it did not go to (blue) Tories. And if Tories want to try a bit of this to win favour in Aintree then get to it my friends!

Sackerson said...

From the Bill of Rights, 1689 (apologies to those who know it all already):

"...that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all persons of whom the oaths have allegiance and supremacy might be required by law, instead of them; and that the said oaths of allegiance and supremacy be abrogated...

I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God..."

EU and all. If you want us to give up our rights under this Bill, and our complete national sovereignty, please let's have a vote on it, and please let's not pretend it's a dull old history lesson.

David Lindsay said...

Off goes Newmania again about the English having given up on the Union. Says who?

The universally predicted antipathy to Brown once he took over “because he's Scottish” has entirely failed to materialise, and, as with his record on pensions and other things, the Tories couldn’t possibly start on about it in the autumn, months into his Premiership. How stupid would that look? Indeed, how stupid would that be?

Furthermore, David Cameron is a posh Scot. Not a borderline case like Tony Blair or Iain Duncan Smith, but the real deal. His English public school, his Oxford degree, his marriage into the English baronetage, and (these days) his Southern English seat are all part and parcel of this. Therefore, he simply cannot believe that a state school and Scottish university son of the manse from Kirkcaldy has the audacity to be Prime Minister instead of him. And Brown knows perfectly well that those are his views.

That is the real Scottish question in British politics today: the intra-Scottish class war between Brown and Cameron, between the people who own great swathes of Scotland (and much of England) but don’t live there, and the people who actually keep Scotland (and much of England) going day by day.

Most English people know, and rather like, a Scottish doctor, or bank manager, or what have you, very much like Gordon Brown or Alistair Darling. But they merely know someone like David Cameron or George Osborne...

Scary Biscuits said...

There seem to be a lot of republicans on this site, advertising their own modernity by sneering at the monarchy and - by implication - the British.

I think the more modern thing would be for the Roman Catholic church to drop its pretence to temporal (as opposed to spiritual) power. E.g. Lawrence: Oh yes, what a stupid anachronism. Unlike the monarchy itself of course which is bang up to date.

Yet it's strange isn't it that republicanism has been popular for over 200 years and yet and yet...

Like the Jacobins, the Bonapartists, the Nazis and the Communists (not that I'm saying republicans are that bad) whose ideas will look more out of date in another 200 years? The Euro-enthusiasts or the monarchists?

Philosophically, there are two possible reasons why something looks wrong: (a) it is wrong or (b) you don't understand it. Too many people today assume the former, especially when talking about human society.

Machiavelli's Understudy said...

Of course people can be anti whatever they like. I was not talking about that, I was talking about discriminating against people for their religious beliefs. That is very different.

So you don't believe in freedom of association?

Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Machiavelli's Understudy,

That has been His Grace's point, and Mr Dale has demured. He is far too busy preparing for Newsnight.

Mr David Lindsay,

Your contribution to this site has caused contention over at Cranmer's.

Mr Dale has played havoc with His Grace's hits today. He has a sermon to prepare, and the time demanded by his blog as a result of this post has undoubtedly been disproportionate to the beneficial effects upon his communicants.

In summary, when there emerges an ex Cathedra pronouncement by His Holiness, in the spirit of true ecumenism, that the successors to the Throne of St Peter may be Protestant, Cranmer shall be content to have a Roman Catholic Monarch in England.

Until then, it is neither bigotry to insist that the British Throne remain Protestant, nor is it 'anti-Catholic' to insist that Roman Catholics be barred from the succession.

And, morevover, this is supremely a Conservative policy.

Little Black Sambo said...

Michael 4.26. "Those who call for a change in the law do so because they have other axes to grind, by and large."
Dead right. Tony Benn is a good example.

hatfield girl said...

Bless.

Simon Harley said...

Peter Philips and his fiancee are now and should always be have been aware of the law. What will be more important to them; his claim to the throne and her religion, or their love?

Quite apart from His Grace's excellent arguments for the neccesity and retention of the Act of Settlement, we already have the charming precedent set by HM King Edward VIII later the Duke of Windsor who gave up the throne for the woman he loved rather than prolong a painful crisis. The question is, will Phillips and his fiancee rock the boat?

Newmania said...

DAVID SAID Off goes Newmania again about the English having given up on the Union. Says who?

The universally predicted antipathy to Brown once he took over “because he's Scottish” has entirely failed to materialise, and, as with his record on pensions and other things, the Tories couldn’t possibly start on about it in the autumn, months into his Premiership. How stupid would that look? Indeed, how stupid would that be?


1 David Cameron is English by ethnicity David ,was born in London, but brought up at Peasemore, near Newbury, in the English county of Berkshire[5], the son of stockbroker. What do you think we are doing here David breeding horses , the bloodline is irrelevant ? In any case his political outlook is English and he does not , like Brown , hate Englishness. He is relaxed sociable accommodating and balanced. Brown is devious obsessive and vengeful and dour. Incidentally referring to Scots as dour is now potentially actionable nonetheless it is the only word.

2 When and where attacks on Brown are made is a question of when the media will allow it . Pointless at the moment it will be cranking up soon . I have no idea what you are implying about a time limitation on commenting on Brown`s history of misrule . Fortunately your view is irrelevant

3 You say most of the English know and like the Scottish. Yes we know a few middle class professionals . Like them ? Sometimes but its hardly the point they are equally not the mass. The endless bile poured from North of the border has eroded most good will and on the right with traditional loyalty to the past there is increasingly a feeling that the English are mistreated , fiscally and democratically . I recall your risible resolution of the democratic deficit which I would suggest you keep to yourself other than for comic effect. You are right David Cameron’s privileged background is problematical to him but unlike some I am happy to judge him by what he does and says without prejudice .

4 The vast majority of surveyed English want English votes . The majority look upon independence for Scotland favourably various surveys have showed this that I could locate if you press me . This is driven by the Labour tactic of taxing the English to subsidise and therefore make dependent , the Scots . Oddly the financial sector is booming , they forgot to mess that up. In that the pattern of Scottish politics has now floated free of the Unions two Party system the Conservatives are , in effect , competing in England against Labour, hindered by imported foreign votes paid for by English taxes. As this pattern solidifies the English will be increasingly mistreated all of which was inevitable after devolution. That is why the Union is resented and the age profile of those on the right that defend it would not make happy reading for you!

5 You may think that this is disproved by the opinion Polls about Brown but it is perfectly possible for views to exist that are not expressed in votes . For example on the EU. Who does one vote for as a working class Patriot . Labour? Hardly , this leaves the BNP and this is why Brown has been making appeals to a BNP constituency by a series of gestures “ British jobs “ Foreign Criminals“ “ Tough on Hippy Drugs “. Its all media driven pantomime of course.. There is a similar bottle neck for English Nationalism which is , in any case , of a far less assertive type than bitter Scottish aggression. Gordon Brown is well aware of this especially the crisis that imposing laws on England with Scottish votes would cause. That is why he has to get a majority in England. It will be close . If you do not grasp this you can understand little of what he does. The great fact in his life is that more people in England will vote Conservative than will vote Labour . Scotland has a Parliament and wishes to separate. This SNP factor by the way is the real reason he is not rushing to the Polls , and the money ( What will they sell this time eh ? PR contracts ….watch this space )

BTW - Independence for England would also have huge cultural benefits for the English and , over time tend to open opportunities currently monopolised by middleclass Scots having it all ways. Imagine the end of the dreadful dead hand of the BBC imagine the creative flowering of the English untrammelled by this alien statist pottage of dead wood . Leaving the EU would become possible , taxes could fall and services improve and good relations resume . Well anyway everyone wants English votes .


Scary biscuits - Agree with every word I increasingly find myself wondering if her Majesty might wish , with the help of a few friendly generals , to accept the responsibility for rule again. At least I trust her.

Crushed said...

You don't have too go too far down the line of succesion to find persons excudled from it due to Catholicism, or marriage to Catholics- I think it's about number 24.
Members of the Duke of Kent's family.
So still Windsors. Way before the line of succesion goes abroad.

No Catholic can be Lord Chancellor either.
We are still legally the only minority disrimated against by legislation.

Anonymous said...

I am catholic but the idea of repealing the 1701 act of succesion it just irellevant. Lets face it its the 21st century there should be no one on the throne catholic protestant or otherwise, its an idea long past it's sell by date. No need to abolish the act, abolish the monarchy and the act goes with it