An end to primogeniture (and to Catholic ban)?

#1
The Guardian said:
Downing Street has drawn up plans to end the 300-year-old exclusion of Catholics from the throne. The requirement that the succession automatically pass to a male would also be reformed, making it possible for a first born daughter of Prince William to become his heir.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/25/anglicanism.catholicism1

A long overdue proposed piece of legislation which I hope goes through as quickly as possible. It's always struck me as one of the stupidest bits of the modern monarchy that the crown still passes to the first male child, rather than to the first child regardless of gender. Seems to send a message that women are less fit than men to serve as head of state (yes, yes, I know - but this is Current Affairs not the Naafi :D)

Ban on Catholics being lifted can surely only be a good thing too. Anyone see any downsides?
 
#2
_Artemis_ said:
The Guardian said:
Downing Street has drawn up plans to end the 300-year-old exclusion of Catholics from the throne. The requirement that the succession automatically pass to a male would also be reformed, making it possible for a first born daughter of Prince William to become his heir.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/25/anglicanism.catholicism1

A Ban on Catholics being lifted can surely only be a good thing too. Anyone see any downsides?
yes we would all have to eat fish on fridays. :x
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
I've got a better idea - I'm with Prince Charles on this one - make the crown non-denominational. Each church can have, and does have its head honcho in a dress, bhurka, robe, whatever, and the King or Queen represents the British people alone.

Also, let's give the monarchy MORE powers rather than less. Why not remove Parliament's powers to make changes to the monarchy and how it works too?
 
#5
I know that the present Pope and his predecessor are a vast improvement on previous Popes, but the Catholic Churches record on Human rights leaves a lot to be desired. A Catholic Monarch? No thanks. Hypocrasy should be left to the politicians, it's their profession.
 
#6
_Artemis_ said:
Ban on Catholics being lifted can surely only be a good thing too. Anyone see any downsides?
Well, if this legislation was in any way useful it would kind of imply that either the Charles, William, Harry and Andrew... had all been wiped out and we had to find some obsure southern german catholic prince from the depths of the Saxe Coburg Gotha family tree, OR the royal family had gone mad and converted to the catholic church for some bizarre reason.

I can't imagine how that scenario might play out just now but both seems like a downside after some suitably apolcalyptic event, the kind of which we probably would want to do away with the 'leadership' of lilly-livered politicians the likes of Brown and want the leadership of a warrior king like William V or Henry IX to lead us through the dark times.

But really seems like another example of the meddling labour types scrabbling around to change what they can to destroy British heritage and tradition while they have a chance
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#7
The problem is, Labliar is populated, not by 'communists with conviction', or even 'idealists' with a love for the people of this great nation, but a whole mixed bag of republicans, catholics, Scottish, 2nd generation Irish, the malcontented, the envious, the malformed, the maladjusted, the hateful, low achievers, corrupted, greedy, habitual liars and mischief makers.;

Why do Labliar want to change the succesion and the Monarchy in general? The above is why.
 
#8
The catholic thing is a red herring, the change will mean nothing in the real world. Female heirs was a natural progression to the change of attitudes towards women since the last succession in 1952, I see no problem with it at all, indeed what sensible person would?
 
#9
_Artemis_ said:
The Guardian said:
Downing Street has drawn up plans to end the 300-year-old exclusion of Catholics from the throne. The requirement that the succession automatically pass to a male would also be reformed, making it possible for a first born daughter of Prince William to become his heir.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/25/anglicanism.catholicism1

A long overdue proposed piece of legislation which I hope goes through as quickly as possible. It's always struck me as one of the stupidest bits of the modern monarchy that the crown still passes to the first male child, rather than to the first child regardless of gender. Seems to send a message that women are less fit than men to serve as head of state (yes, yes, I know - but this is Current Affairs not the Naafi :D)

Ban on Catholics being lifted can surely only be a good thing too. Anyone see any downsides?
I think that the first child regardless of gender, Becoming king or queen is a good piece of legislation to be introduced .
 
#10
Isn't the issue also that the Monarch cannot be married to a Roman Catholic? I seem to remember that Peter Phillips' wife converted to the CofE immediately before the wedding (or was it vice-versa & he renounced his position in line to the throne).

I also seem to remember some stuff being spouted that if these rules came in they would be seen as retrospective & therefore there would be all sorts of difficulties about the current successsion.

Anyway, lets hope that ZaNu Liabour is long gone before any of this happens. They'll never find parliamentary time with far more pressing issues at hand....

...doh, that's what we thought about the hunting ban!
 
#11
The real problem is the preponderance of myth and superstition which has no place in any modern state
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#13
msr said:
The real problem is the preponderance of myth and superstition which has no place in any modern state
Indeed - therein lies the problem. It matters not which brand; the very fact that one signs up to any of it should stop them becoming the Monarch, male or female.

We have a Queen as head of state now, so why not if the first born is a daughter?
 
#14
The Monarch, at Coronation, weds the people to form a marriage called the Crown. Govt, Armed Forces, Judiciary, Police derive their authority from the Crown as our servants not our masters.

The Monarch is sole fount of justice in mercy. The law is administered indepedent of government and is above all.

There shall be no law save that of the Realm.

If we had a Queen with half the intellect and education of Elizabeth 1st we would not be in such a mad PC European influenced and dominated chaos of a country. The police would never have progressed to believing themselves to be uniformed storm troopers of govt.

I suppose with Labour eroding Crown authority by stealth, with Europe only recognising the Queen as a citizen (and hence our system of law as without authority) why not go the whole hog and go back to having the Pope telling us how to go on as well.

And as for a man who talks about becoming Defender of Faiths whilst not saying a word about becoming fount of justice. Waste of a king apprenticeship.

OIRA strategy was based on an inevitable trend to this situation by the way. Went to ceasefire in 72 and sat back waiting ....... and laughing occasionally.

Bring on a Republic. If we have abandoned all the justifications for a monarchy then we have to put a check and balance against govt authority with another system.
 
#15
Maybe this is a sop to Teflon Tony. Once he has been elected as 'First Citizen of Europe' President-Caesar Augustus. He, like Medaeval Kings in England and France, will claim to be the 'True and Rightful' hier to the Throne of Scotland and England. Being a Catholic, this will suit himself down to the ground, after all, he may also be after the Pope's job!!!

hehehehe!! 8O

That means, as a Jedi Knight by Religion, I will be able to put in a bid to be King as well..... :)
 
#16
why bother changing it now? Lets only change the rules as, when, and if, they need changing (i.e. if William has a daughter or if HRH PoW decides to become a catholic)

Parliamentary time, believe it or not, is very valuable....why waste it on passing laws that aren't necessery. (yet)
 
#18
righthandmarker said:
The monarch is the head of the Church of England. How will this work with a Catholic Monarch?
Does it really matter? Why can't the Archbishop of Canterbury be the head of the Church of England? Why does the Monarch need to be involved in religion at all? We no longer believe that they are granted the right to rule by god himself.

Many republicans point out that you can't have too much power tied up in an individual and so the Monarch's powers should not be increased, but look at the power enshrined within the office of POTUS, and that seems to work ok...

oh.

The opportunity to have matters of state decided by a specialist in politics who has been trained from birth in the machinery of state and been involved in politics for over 50 years should not be overlooked. The Royal Family provide us with a diplomatic and political elite at a negligible cost to the taxpayer.
 
#19
Did anybody notice the other comment made by Geoffrey Robertson QC? The little bit where he said that the next stage was for the government to challenge the notion of a head of state who achieved the position through inheritance?
 
#20
A Catholic Monarch, no thanks.

The reason we are the country we are (and not the faults we have because of the influences of other incoming foreign types) is because we are founded on the preachings of Calvin and Luther.

The Roman church is a lie, I am not saying that Protestantism is any better as a Protestant is a Catholic, just not a follower of the Dark Lord of Rome. It is led by doctorine from an age where the world was flat, that any one who did not conform to Catholicism was killed.

Better the Devil you know.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top