ThunderDragon Blog

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.

Today the Queen and Prince Philip celebrate their diamond wedding anniversary, having been married for 60 years. That is a fantastically long time indeed. It is unfortunate that none of her children have managed to hold down a relationship.

To mark their anniversary, the Queen and prince Philip are returning to Malta, where they spent the first two years of their married life.

Sources: BBC, The Times, The Telegraph

Keep the Queen on our passports!

How dare they?! The Queen is, and shall remain, our head of state. We are, first and foremost, subjects of the Queen. The EU should stay away from our passports. We may be citizens of the EU, but we are citizens of Great Britain and subjects of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II first and foremost.

So the EU can fuck off if they think that we will have their twelve-star logo and a passage from their - rejected - Constitution on our passports. We’re still British and not European, and Britain is still, technically at least, a sovereign state. So until we are forced to become nothing more than a region of a United States of Europe, we will continue to have the royal coat of arms on our passports.

Source: The Telegraph

Gordon Brown entered the Palace to kiss hands [but not literally] just a few minutes ago, and has presumably by now been invited to form a government by the Queen. So he has now achieved his ambition of at least the last 24 years, since he became an MP, and formally taken over from Tony Blair. He has managed to last ten years as Chancellor, the longest anyone has ever served, and thirteen years as the heir. No matter what you think of him, that is some success.

However, now he has to face the reality of the situation. He can no longer pull his Macavity act whenever anything goes wrong, as it is now his responsibility. Who will he have in his new Cabinet? We will find out soon - and since he has had so long to do it, he cannot get it wrong.

He is going to make a statement when he gets back from the Palace. What are his aims for his premiership going to be? We should soon find out…

UPDATE 2.48pm: Gordon Brown has just left the Palace as Prime Minister.

UPDATE 2.55pm: Extracts from Brown’s speech just before he enterted 10 Downing Street:

“I just accepted the invitation of Her Majesty the Queen to form a new goverment… This will be a new government with new priorities… at all times I will be strong in purpose, resolute in action… I want the best chances for everyone. That is my mission… As Prime Minister I willcontinue to listen and learn from the British people… This need for change cannot be represented by the old politics… I am convinved that there are no wekanesses in Britian today that cannot be overcome by the British people… I promise to do my utmost…”

UPDATE 3.05pm: The Number 10 website has already been was updated with Gordon Brown as Prime Minister. It was as Brown left the Palace, but seems to have changed back for some reason… Wait, it’s back again! I wonder what happened there?

Click to enlarge

UPDATE 4:

Nick Robinson on Brown’s first speech as PM here.

Tory Radio has the audio of Brown’s speech online here.

The Times have the full text of the Brown’s speech here.

UPDATE 5: Brown’s speech on YouTube:

Today is Tony Blair’s final day as Prime Minister. In just an hour or so, he will no longer be Prime Minister. At his last PMQs, he got a standing ovation from MPs on all sides.

He has now just left 10 Downing Street for the last time on his way to the Palace, to formally resign from office. As they left, Cherie Blair had a very direct message to the media: “We won’t miss you at all”.

Very soon after Blair formally resigns, Brown will be called to “kiss hands” although not literally. Very soon we will have a new Prime Minister and a new Cabinet.