Tuesday, January 22, 2013

The Act of Settlement and constitutional terrorism

Today, an amendment to the Act of Settlement is being rushed through the House of Commons by means usually reserved for emergency terrorism legislation. The imminent royal baby appears to represent a threat to the Coalition's equality agenda every bit as serious as that posed by al-Qaeda to the safety and security of the free world. There will be minimal debate and negligible scrutiny; a Commons guillotine and wave at a committee.

It is, in fact, a constitutional stitch-up between Cameron and Clegg; No10 and Buckingham Palace; the Government and the Crown, with the connivance of the Heads of Commonwealth.

His Grace has written on this matter so many times that it feel like Groundhog Day (eg here, here and here).

It is not simply a matter of ending male primogeniture or permitting the Monarch to marry a Roman Catholic: the constitutional ripples will be felt for decades to come. Indeed, today's apparently trivial 'modernising' amendments could lead to the disestablishment of the Church of England, the end of the Union, and even the demise of the Monarchy itself.

What Cameron and Clegg fail to realise (if, indeed they understand anything of the Constitution at all), is that those who campaign to end the ban on a Roman Catholic monarchy by focusing on the Act of Settlement are on a wild goose chase. That Act was passed by the old English parliament, which ceased to exist in 1707. The Act was also arguably incompetent, since the English parliament could not unilaterally decide on the British Regal Union of 1603-1707. The Scottish parliament recognised this fact, and deliberately countered the Act of Settlement with a Scottish settlement Act - the Act of Security of 1704.

The Act of Settlement 1701 was superseded by the Treaty of Union 1707, which, in Article 2, also prohibits Roman Catholics 'and persons marrying Papists' from ascending the Throne of the United Kingdom. The Treaty of Union 1707 is the founding charter of the United Kingdom. Tamper with this, and the Union itself is imperilled.

It has been observed that Scottish unionist politicians do not want this truth out. They fear making Scots aware that the United Kingdom is the creature of a treaty between two equal parliaments: a living, legal document, capable of amendment and adjustment to contemporary needs.

These are the unspoken ‘constitutional ripples’ so feared by Donald Dewar. This is why successive prime ministers of the United Kingdom and unionist Scottish secretaries of state had no intention of ending the ban on the Monarch either being a Roman Catholic or married to one, and why they were quite happy to let historically-ignorant and politically-ill-informed people continue harping on about the Act of Settlement 1701.

Until Cameron and Clegg came to power..

"Why," muses Alex Salmond, "should we bother amending the Act of Union this year when the whole thing might be abolished in the next? Indeed, while we're looking at this trivial equality amendment, let's remind ourselves that the Scottish Parliament is not subject to Westminster: it is equal.."


Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

Why should there be a ban on Catholics being or marrying a monarch? The CofE is a busted flush and the English want rid of Scotland even more than they us.

Lets just have a clean sweep.

Lets be a grown up nation/s.

It's not as if the CofE was standing for anything other than gay rights, women vicars, Sharia courts, multiculturalism, relativism, agnosticism and "social justice".

It was always a Frankenstein monster and only held power through threats, confiscations and secular interests.

It has accelerated the collapse of our belief and British culture and should be regarded as something best rid of than kept on a ventilator for a few more decades.

Put it out of it's misery.

22 January 2013 at 10:25  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

...anyway, if we are talking about equality then why have a monarchy in the first place.

It's just not logical.

Two posh blokes polish up the succession rules and yet still the vast majority of Britons are "Commoners".

22 January 2013 at 10:30  
Blogger Corrigan said...

They fear making Scots aware that the United Kingdom is the creature of a treaty between two equal parliaments

Here's a bulletin for you Cranmer: the Scots are way ahead of you on this one. Why do you think they get narked when they hear the English media lying about Scotland "leaving the UK", or Scotland having to apply for EU membership once it's "outside the UK"? There is no UK once Scotland leaves. Scotland did not become part of England in 1707. See how this works?

22 January 2013 at 11:04  
Blogger IanCad said...

Children who play with matches need disciplining.
The block.
The gallows.
The firing squad.
We are governed by the most abominable wretches and UKIP is not the answer.

22 January 2013 at 12:08  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Oxford's PPE course really needs looking into, going by the lack of constitutional and legal literacy of our glorious leaders.

22 January 2013 at 13:01  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Harry-ca-Nab said

" ...anyway, if we are talking about equality in the 'visible' church then why have a Pope in the first place.
A fellow nominated in secret by people not voted for by the common church goer, who is carried around on a chair, a ring and feet kissed (this has GOT to be against commonsense hygiene and safety and those poor fellows carrying it could hurt themselves. *ecclesiastical injury lawyers4U*) unlike St Paul and Peter who refused such worship!

It's just not logical or biblical to the normal 'commoner', is it!.


22 January 2013 at 14:48  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

Tiddles, you can kiss my ring any day. Mwah.

The whole monarchy/CofE thing is rubbish. Wait till you get "Defender of Faiths" Charlie on the Throne. He'd rather be hugging a tree or lifting his arse to Allah than head up the CofE.

The point I make (which you obviously cannot discern) is that banging on about equality WITHIN a demonstrably elitist and, by definition, unequal institution is just irrational.

Increasingly the case for disestablishment is growing, whether by design or incompetence who knows.

But regardless of that it is quite obvious that the CofE no longer deserves to be the Established church as it has squandered its inheritance and now actively seeks to undermine the society and culture it was created to underpin.

22 January 2013 at 15:02  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

"*ecclesiastical injury lawyers4U*"

No-sin, no-win. Offer does not include excommunication on the grounds of schism.

22 January 2013 at 15:03  
Blogger Colleen McLeod said...

I mean, it's not as if any upstanding Papist would want to marry into that lot. Cleggers thinks that keeping our bums off thrones is an anomaly? We don't.

22 January 2013 at 15:30  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

AnonymousInBelfast said...

"*ecclesiastical injury lawyers4U*"

No-sin, no-win. Offer does not include excommunication on the grounds of schism." Damn and Blast. Wish Ernst had thought of that. Blog in haste, repent with displeasure! * Huge Chuckles* ;-)

22 January 2013 at 15:54  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...

Scots are very aware that the UK exists because of the Acts of Union and the international Treaty which they ratified.

If Scotland leaves that Union, the UK, is dissolved.

I am a Papist but I think it absurd that the C of E could have a Catholic as its head.

Mind you, the idea of a monarch, qua monarch, being head of the any church is ridiculous.

Even that old heretical miseryguts, my Dad, thought so.

22 January 2013 at 17:03  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Re : Succession to the Crown Bill being raced through Parliament today.

Paul Flynn MP is, I believe, moving an amendment to the Bill so the children of a homosexual king or queen could succeed even though we won’t even know who their parents really are !

22 January 2013 at 18:03  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Sir Gerald Howarth, brilliant, clever man, he gets it, thank God. I don't think they should be rushing this through now.

22 January 2013 at 18:19  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness, what a mess! The Succession to the Crown Bill Clause 5 puts the whole thing into abyeance until the Lord President (Clegg) implements it - he has to wait until legislation is passed in all Commonwealth realms...which means despite the BBC codswallop, if the eldest child is a girl and she is followed by a baby brother, the boy becomes the legal heir presumptive under present laws, only to be booted down the line when Cleggy promulgates the Bill. As for the amendment re a homosexual king or queen...FFS!!!

22 January 2013 at 21:37  
Blogger non mouse said...

Your Grace:

This motion is just one more reason why the British, equipped with piano wire, would be justified in rising up to cleanse the Halls of Westminster. The post-modern issue, especially with its RC component, is merely another part of the marxist agenda: the poisoned net in which the euSSR already have us trapped. By this operation, the lib/lab/cons will implant a pacemaker in the very heart of our system.

This past year, they have confirmed how willingly we respond to our monarchical figurehead. So her pretend ministers are taking advantage of that dynamic-- and they're pumping more poison into our diseased culture and society.

Given that we are already subjected to the enemy, once our monarch is again under the control of Rome --- Britain will have no semblance of independence left. The young, who have already swallowed the inimical re-inscription of our history, have no idea what freedom is, why we needed it, or how we benefitted from it. So they'll go along with the 'filosofies' and categories that they think so sophisticated.

And then ... 'ere long and sad to say... we'll have Ol'Rumpy officially enthroned, in cahoots with a harem of islamic ministers.

And then, and then: the British? Will there be any left? Or have too many of us presently adopted the attitudes of old Omar? Courtesy of the Victorian Fitzgerald, a sample follows:


PS. For the record, I seldom imbibe - perhaps a glass at Christmas ---


23 January 2013 at 01:54  
Blogger non mouse said...

-----And yes, I do note the recurring imagery here of wine, clay, and dust.

36 For in the Market-place, one Dusk of Day,
I watch'd the Potter thumping his wet Clay:
And with its all obliterated Tongue
It murmur'd---"Gently, Brother, gently, pray!"

37 Ah, fill the Cup:---what boots it to repeat
How Time is slipping underneath our Feet:
Unborn Tomorrow, and dead Yesterday,
Why fret about them if Today be sweet?

38 One Moment in Annihilation's Waste,
One Moment, of the Well of Life to taste ...
The Stars are setting and the Caravan
Starts for the Dawn of Nothing---Oh, make haste!

39 How long, how long, in infinite pursuit
Of this and that endeavour and dispute?
Better be merry with the fruitful Grape
Than sadden after none, or bitter, fruit.

40 You know, my Friends, how long since in my house
For a new Marriage I did make carouse:
Divorced old barren Reason from my bed,
And took the Daughter of the Vine to spouse.

41 For "Is" and "Is Not" though with Rule and Line,
And "Up and Down" without, I could define,
I yet in all I only cared to know,
Was never deep in anything but---Wine.

42 And lately, by the Tavern Door agape,
Came stealing through the dusk an Angel Shape
Bearing a vessel on his shoulder; and
He bid me taste of it; and 'twas---the Grape!

43 The Grape that can with logic absolute
The two-and-seventy jarring sects confute:
The subtle alchemist that in a trice
Life's leaden metal into gold transmute.

44 The mighty Mahmud, the victorious Lord,
That all the misbelieving and black horde
Of fears and sorrows that infest the soul
Scatters and slays with his enchanted sword.

45 But leave the wise to wrangle, and with me
The quarrel of the universe let be:
And, in some corner of the hubbub coucht,
Make game of that which makes as much of thee.

46 For in and out, above, about, below,
'Tis nothing but a magic shadow-show,
Play'd in a box whose candle is the sun,
Round which we Phantom Figures come and go.

[From “The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam” (12th century); trans. Edward Fitzgerald 1859/72]

23 January 2013 at 01:57  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

We have had purportedly homosexual (in the Carl-definition at least) monarchs before, and - dare I say it? - it is not beyond the realms of possibility that there are a few in the present line of succession.

Given that the monarchy has survived a great number of strange incumbents, I doubt another one would make much difference, except to ensure that the Guardianistas became ardent royalists.

23 January 2013 at 02:09  
Blogger David B said...

In terms of thought provoking poetry don't you think that the KJV compared to the Rubaiyat is rather akin to Roger McGough compared with Shakespeare?

I rather do - very little of the KJV actually constitutes anything of any literary merit.

Bits of Ecclesiastes and Psalms, perhaps, but then that has to be balanced against all the begats and the insane ravings of Revelation.


23 January 2013 at 10:07  
Blogger non mouse said...

Sorry, but I haven't read McGough.

My Omar/Fitzgerald quotation supports the suggestion that many Britons might be twisting, and copping out of, traditional Christian and political thinking. The marxist arguments we're expected to involve ourselves with are just a waste of time. So, instead, there's a tendency to lives of irresponsibility, a reliance on pleasure and 'substances.'

Today's speech might make a difference, but everyone knows these power-mongers are just playing a game. In their shadow-box, to boot. We don't matter to them.....

23 January 2013 at 11:59  
Blogger non mouse said...

PS - I would also ask why you are making your comparisons.

Are you basing them on superficial, modern, linguistic preferences and limitations? Or are you dealing with content, function, and substance?

23 January 2013 at 12:07  
Blogger Owl said...

Has anyone considered that RC's are not bothered about the religion of whoever is on the throne.

This sounds like a conspiracy to whip up contention between RC's and non RC's over a non issue.

Are are glorious spin doctors doing overtime?

23 January 2013 at 13:09  
Blogger non mouse said...

Of course they want to keep us arguing about it, Owl. And while we're thus distracted --- they want to strengthen euro control over us. Subjecting the monarch to papal infallibility/superiority does that ... Avoiding that 'authority' is one of the main reasons we got out from under in the first place.

23 January 2013 at 14:31  
Blogger David B said...

Non Mouse, I've been considering your questions re Omar.

One reason why I love the Rubaiyat - which is probably the most re-read piece of literature in my life - is sentimental, I suppose. It was among the favourite works of my grandfather, my mother and my father, and I spent a lot of time before my mother's humanist funeral choosing some of what I thought the more apposite verses to read aloud at it.

Apart from thinking the work wonderfully poetic in all it's editions, I also see it as an intuition pump when contemplating the human condition in a godless universe, though very much of it's day.

Rather than "a tendency to lives of irresponsibility, a reliance on pleasure and 'substances.'" I see, over the process of developing the various editions, more of a tendency to thoughtfully contemplate the human condition.

I also think the recent hype over the KJV completely overblown, both as any sort of moral guidance (it contains much evil, little good, and most of the latter impractical and out of touch with human nature) and in terms of having any literary merit except for a few snippets from a small minority of books.


23 January 2013 at 18:43  
Blogger David B said...

Back at the point of the thread, though, what about the succession of an out atheist?

It would seem rather silly to me to change rules concerning succession of Catholics, or Muslims for that matter, while still giving atheists some special place at the bottom of the pile.

To say nothing of unjust.


23 January 2013 at 18:45  
Blogger Owl said...

non mouse,

I also would like to see the UK under any foreign rule, papal or otherwise. In fact, I don't know any RC who would want that either.

I just do not think that this is the issue here or maybe you know something that I don't.

My feeling is that sowing contention for contentions sake is more likely.

Divide and rule etc.

But I do agree with you that "distraction" is a major part of the ploy.

23 January 2013 at 18:50  
Blogger Owl said...

Oh dear,

"I also would like to see the UK under any foreign rule"

should read:

"I also wouldn't like to see the UK under any foreign rule"

Damn typos........

23 January 2013 at 19:41  
Blogger non mouse said...

David B: Then our experience of Omar, and our reaction to him, is not dissimilar. When I was 9/10, My father (who could recite the whole thing) had me teach myself to type while copying/learning the "Rubaiyat." Mission accomplished.

However, I don't know what you mean by "poetic" -- my approach to any literature is highly structured and analytical. The KJV stands up to that as a great monument in our language, if not the greatest. You simply refuse to allow the possibilities, or even some of the facts; but if you want to consider the structure and application of rhetoric, the Psalms are a good place to start. However, I would not compare any Biblical translation, as a whole, to Omar.

Obviously I don't dislike the latter -- it raises many questions and elicits multiple interpretations. For example, as I already hinted, the Potter/wine/clay/dust imagery seems to work at one level - sybolically; perhaps it even has an allegorical level. I haven't studied the scholarship as a whole, so I hesitate to develop a thesis about it just now. Nevertheless, at the literal level, it presents the speaker as an alcoholic, even a hedonist. That is what I referred to here ... I used it to mirror some of our reality today.

Surely, with its "two and seventy jarring sects," Omar is relevant to atheism in that sense.

As to being 'unfair to atheists' --Well. They used to say 'you can't please all of the people all of the time.' It's a waste of time to try...

23 January 2013 at 19:55  
Blogger non mouse said...

Mr. Owl:
My sympathy on the typos.
Beyond that, I'm sure you know many things I don't, and vice versa.

I'm surprised, though, that you consider Britain still to be a sovereign nation. In view of that nasty bit of parchment they've buried somewhere in Rome, I mean: the Treaty of Lisbon (and its predecessor, the Treaty of Rome). The politicians gave us away, don't you know. We do as we're told, and we have nothing whatsoever to say about it.

As to papist authority ... well, the papas were ever authoritarian. Don't forget that Billy Conk. came here under with the full encouragement of Alexander II, who wasn't too fond of Harold. We always were a bit hard to handle, being at the edge of the known world, and so on. So, the Bastard came to sort us out, and he even fought under the banner of St. Peter.

That's not to say that subsequent monarchs didn't have their hassles with the papas... my point is that they were/are political entities. And they decide whom RC kings can marry and divorce, etc...

As to sowing dissension; that is the nature of the Marxist-deconstructist agenda. The -isms, be they of gender, race, or history, work to that effect. As with all things marxist however, there's nothing original about it. The Anglo-Normans, for example, were masters at dividing indigenous Britons against each other; or against the putative 'English.' Gerald of Wales is among those who describes how that worked.

So I'm saying that the euros haven't stopped yet. It's just that now, having infiltrated all our institutions with marxism/communism, and with so many of us not caring, they seem almost to have won.

23 January 2013 at 20:36  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 January 2013 at 08:54  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

I cannot say that I like the way that this whole issue has been rushed through- I think practically every piece of legislation that has been rushed in this way has turned out to be a dog's breakfast.

This issue is quite an important one as it gets to the crux of what we do or do not want our country to be and who should represent it, so if we are going to have this debate it should be a full, honest and sincere one. Not something concocted in smoke free rooms by Cameron and Clegg.

The problem with 'equality' and the Monarchy, is perhaps that the very fact of a hereditary Monarchy is actually not equal and it is an elitist thing. Ergo, it is impossible to legislate for equality with such an institution.

The ban on the Monarch being a Catholic makes sense if you want an established Church. I guess if you lift that ban and a Monarch wants to be a Catholic you can't have an established Anglican religion.

Perhaps for equalities sake, Lynn Featherstone should be made Ambassador to the Vatican, where she can agitate for the next Pope to be a Protestant lesbian in a civil partnership. Afterall, why should not being a Catholic be a bar to being Pope?

24 January 2013 at 08:55  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

David B,

The KJV of the Christian Bible isn't that bad from a literally viewpoint. It's up there with Shakespeare, surely, as part of the British heritage?

Having said that, the original Hebrew is much better. And the Psalms are good in sung in Welsh too.

24 January 2013 at 08:57  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

For the record, I like Roger McGough. So much better than the usual preening tosspots who "do poetry".

24 January 2013 at 12:30  
Blogger non mouse said...

I'll have to look, AiB. I'm not much for anything modern, as you'll realise! However,if he's from Beetles-land he might strike a chord for me :)

24 January 2013 at 22:45  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older