The ThunderDragon

It was proposed and rejected by the Attorney General just back in April, but now it has come up again:

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. (The Guardian)

About bloody time!

I can see absolutely no reason why this shouldn’t come in to reality. It is completely out of place in the modern world that people can be excluded from being sovereign due to their gender or religion. After all, for more than fifty years we have had a Queen. Neither gender or religion affect a constitutional monarch, who has a basically ceremonial role.

However, it doesn’t appear likely that it will actually happen since

Sources said No 10 would like the legislation to be passed quickly in a fourth term

A fourth term. Ok, never mind.

But still, hopefully a Conservative government will get round to it at some point.

MPs have to swear an oath of loyalty to the Queen when they take their seat in the House of Commons. But anti-monarchy campaigners want to challenge this requirement in the courts on human rights basis.

There is also an early day motion proposed by Lib Dem front bencher Norman Baker proposing an alternative oath, claiming that “some honourable members would prefer to swear an oath of allegiance to their constituents and the nation rather than the monarch”. It has so far been signed by 22 MPs - 14 Labour, 7 Lib Dems and one Conservative.

Frankly, it is ridiculous. The Queen is our Head of State. She is also a constitutional monarch, and so holds no real power in her own hands. That resides in the Prime Minister and in Parliament. The Queen is simply a unifying figurehead and symbol of our nation, and her entire family costs us just 66p each a year, for a more than full-time job.

The claim that the requirement to swear an oath of loyalty to the Queen discriminates against Catholics, Muslims, members of other religions and atheists by requiring them to swear allegiance to the head of the Church of England, and presumably against repoublicans by requiring them to swear an oath of loyalty to the monarchy, is stupid. The Queens role as Head of State is separate to that of Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

When it comes down to it, there are no human rights issues over this oath of loyalty. An MP can - like the Sinn Fein - not take their seats if they don’t want to make the oath. And other officials can not take the job.

In these oaths, although the wording references “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors”, the meaning is rather towards her position as Head of State. It isn’t a personal oath to Elizabeth II, but an oath to the nation she represents. If they can’t see that, then there are, frankly, big questions over their ability to take any office where this oath is required.

With growing inflation, it’s no surprise that the Royal Family have spent more this year than last year. They’ve cost the taxpayer £40million in the past 12 months - an increase of £2million.

Or, to put that another way, 66p per person instead of 62p.

Personally, I think that represents outstanding value for money. For 66p you can’t even buy 66 penny sweets nowadays. It’s less than the price of this morning’s paper. I think it could get me 1 track off itunes - if I used that instead of buying CDs as I prefer. In this day and age, it’s nothing.

Never the less, republicans have jumped on the publication of the Royal Accounts as another chance to dismiss the monarchy. It doesn’t include the rising costs of security - OK, they’re not going to be insignificant, but overall it shouldn’t cost more than a Chomp bar each. They’re saying the increase of £2million is huge - but realistically it represents a reduction in costs considering inflation.

It is a lot of money, let’s be fair. But, someone needs to calculate what money the Royals bring into our country. People visit London just for a chance of seeing the Queen (particularly Americans). The tourist industry is huge as people check out Buckingham Palace. Various Royals have particular roles. The Duke of York is the UK’s “Special Representative for International Trade and Investment” - he encourages people to invest in UK business and, as I understand it, does a fantastic job. Everyone’s role at public functions has immeasurable benefit in terms of publicity for the organising body (often a charity) and pride for those people who meet the Royal Family.

I’m yet to hear a convincing argument to get rid of the Monarchy. Conversely, given the present state of our government, I’m sure it would be quite easy to make a convincing argument to let The Queen ignore conventions and start running the UK as she wants to!

~ Asp

See: BBC News, Times Online, CNN

Little note - The Northern Monkey (or Snake) is off on annual leave for the next month. Peace and quiet beckons throughout July, rantings will return in August.

This was in yesterday’s Times:

And this in the Telegraph two days ago:

I think that Vera Baird is completely right. I can see no reason not to change this rule. It is very much out of date and utterly absurd in the modern world.

In its time, the rules were fine and acceptable - if not absolutely necessary. But the time when the monarch was expected to actually run the country and to lead armies in the field is long long gone. There is no need for the monarch to be specifically male. And the past fifty-odd years of Queen Elizabeth IIs reign has proven it.

And as for the restriction over marrying a Catholic? Why do we we have this ridiculous law any more? It is a relic of the Glorious Revolution. It’s about time, after 320 years, to repeal it.

How are either of these at all justifiable in the modern world?!

Just a note: This isn’t the first time I have supported these modernisation.

Britain is a nation of monarchists, with 80% wanting Britain to retain it’s monarchy. I am not in the slightest bit surprised by this, as the monarchy is on the whole well-regarded by the people of Britain.

Also, the monarchy is a good thing for this country, as it keeps a constant and recognisable national figurehead. It also keeps us away from the need for a President, which would either (a) require a complete and unnecessary reorganisation of our entire political system to fit the idea of a Head of State with powers in, or (b) be a completely and utterly pointless position. Neither of these would, in my opinion, be a good idea.

For at least the foreseeable future, if not far far beyond that, there will be a monarchy in Britain. They are far too embedded into the very fabric of this nation to be removed.

Source: BBC

There is one group which it is still legal to discriminate against in Britain - Catholics. Under the 1701 Act of Settlement, no British monarch may be or marry a Catholic. To do so would require abdication. This has come into the news because Peter Phillips, the Queen’s eldest grandson and tenth in line to the throne, may well have to renounce his right to the succession because his fiancée is Catholic.

Why is this acceptable in modern Britain? Even though the monarch may be by right “Supreme Governor of the Church of England” that can, and should be changed anyway - it should be something that the C of E can choose to offer to the monarch if they so wish. Britain is a secular nation now - the Church of England and all other religions should be removed from our governmental system and the C of E should be independent. The right of the Prime Minister to select bishops and archbishops is very much outdated, and the very position of the Church of England is out of sync with our society and laws.

Discrimination is discrimination. Really, the whole hereditary system needs to be overhauled, with women not being automatically discriminated against any more than Catholics. I support the monarchy as a whole, but some changes/modernisations are essential.

Source: The Telegraph