baldysblog.co.uk

In the 1688 Bill of Rights and later reinforced in the Act of Settlement in 1701, Catholics were positively discriminated against so that they could never marry into the Royal Family and become therefore Queen or Queen’s Consort and retain their religion and therefore an assumed “allegiance to Rome”.

The proposal is in a Private Members Bill launched by Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris which as most do, will fail without Government support. However in terms of changing the current state of affairs, even as a Catholic, I oppose such changes and any modifications should be considered carefully and over time.

Brown in the Brown Stuff…

Of course Gordon Brown, idiot of this parish had to be let it known that “He has had discussions with the Palace” on this topic. But because of the complications involved not least those Commonwealth countries where the Queen is Head of State, having to approve and pass legislation before this could happen, it was something that Labour would do in the future.

I wonder which future this demented man thinks he and is abominable party have in UK Politics ? Rather like the idiot Straw coming up with a new and legally toothless “Bill of Rights”, this is more Labour spin and vapour trails that signifies absolutely nothing, fortunately.

Male Primogeniture

In a spirit of being “Modern and Equal Rights”, one desire is to remove “male primogeniture” whereby a male child takes precedence over an elder sister in the line of succession to the throne. As has been pointed out, three of our most successful Monarchs have been Queens, Elizabeth I, Victoria and our present Elizabeth II.

The reason for male primogeniture obviously harks back to much earlier times when a throne had to be held by strength of arms and it should be remembered that Henry VIIIs numerous wives were as much about securing a male heir and thereby, the Kingdom.

However, times have changed and any change to this will just be cosmetic. Would our wonderful Princess Royal, the one who refused all titles until this was imposed on her by her Mother, have really had a better life by being now 4^th in line to the Throne ? On this issue, I have little interest and frankly think that the immediate Royal Family could best make that decision rather than politicians.

Marrying a Catholic

My best advice would be to leave it well alone because it really is not a major issue and if say either of our Princes fell madly in Love with a Catholic, it would be possible to rustle up a one-off Act of Parliament that would allow it and publicly delineate in that “terms & conditions” for want of a better expression. It aint broke so why fix it ?

The problems of in effect repealing the 1701 Act of Settlement are similar to disestablishing the Church of England which whilst on the surface would mean little in practical terms, would cut across our history and in fact, many of those things that underpin a tolerant society where freedom of religious worship and free speech exist built on the blood and bones of our past.

In fact I would argue that in an increasing secular world where Christian worshippers in terms of numbers, are falling off a cliff whilst Muslim worshippers are ever more ardent, these very elements from our bloody past serve as a reminder of the evolution of our society based upon underlying Christian values. If we look at the world of Islam, we see still the division between Shia and Sunni which mirrors the split between Catholics and Protestants within Britain.

Today apart from Northern Ireland and Glasgow, this Christian split no longer has any traction within the UK but, with 2 million Muslims here and no sign of any Muslim Society being tolerant in any meaningful way towards each other let alone Christians, we need to reinforce that this is a country rooted in Christian values (apart from that is, anybody in the Labour Party who all all Heathens).

The Devil makes work…

Haven’t politicians not got better things to do ? It is hardly as if there are massive numbers of Catholics actually being discriminated against is it ?

Besides which, a Parliament that can discriminate against hundreds of former Gurkha soldiers who have served this Country in the front line and yet refuse to grant settlement rights automatically, can hardly claim to be concerned too much with “being fair” to anybody but themselves.

They can rightly claim to be part time, grubby, venial, grabbing newspaper headlines, talking through their arses with sound bites and ensuring they have claimed every Parliamentary expense they can, which seems all that they can manage. Of the +640 in the House, very few are worth keeping, we need to be shot of most and especially the PM and his whole Cabinet come the next election.