A Scots bishop rails against the laws of succession forbidding the heir to marry a Roman Catholic. The BBC is there to give the Hibernian Spacey-Trellis a pulpit to vent from without a word from the opposition to this bit of insanity that would mean the repeal of the Act of Settlement. Never mind that doing so would dissolve the United Kingdom and knock the the monarchy itself into the hazard. It's prizes for all in the Brave New World and that's all that matters.This being the Beeb, they also take a gratuitous shot at primogeniture, which is "icky", but not a word from anyone with an once of integrity who sees this folly for what it is.
Of course, thre isn't even a peep about the real story of a Conservative party that responds that it is "considering" reform instead of taking a firm grasp of the Mace and loudly declaring that what isn't broken does not need to be mended.
5 comments:
Okay then; how? How is the heir to the throne marrying a Catholic going to endanger the monarchy or anything else? You seem so certain of this yet you have provided no evidence that it is the case.
In order for the monarch to marry a Roman Catholic would require the repeal the Act of Settlement. This Act is the basis for the existence of the entire United Kingdom. To repeal it would mean nullifying every act upon which the settlement depends. Without the act, the United Kingdom is no longer a legitimate nation and a staggering number of laws and institutions developed over three centuries go out the window.
As for the Monarchy, repeal of the act means that the entire line of succession going back 300 years becomes void and the House of Windsor will find itself without a legitimate claim to the throne. The choice facing England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and all other territories and dependencies (since there would be no UK they can only be dealt with as individual states) will be abolition of the monarchy or civil war. Many rival claimants would be foreign, so watch the Continent use this as an excuse start to grab at British assets. Don't think they will? Don't bet on it.
War with France will also result, since Queen Victoria will have been in no position to renounce her claims in France. England will once again own half the nation and, because of that nasty 1789 business, a claim to be the legitimate government of all of France. Wait, England can't... Oh, that's right. That pesky Act of Settlement again. Without it, we're right back in the 17th century.
But what the heck. So long as we're "fair" and Feminist, who gives a toss?
Ok, I'm not going to pretend to have as detailed a knowledge of British legal history as you do; but do you really think that what you just described is a likely chain of events?
Don't you think that the sheer inertia of the political institutions in place in the United Kingdom would lead to a less dramatic course of action, I don't think that any of the major political institutions in Britain are going to want that sort of situation to occur and - simply out of a sense of self-preservation - would probably simply ignore the logical consequences of adherence to the letter of the law in this situation and carry on like they were before (analogous to the "living constitution" theory of interpretation in the US)
Unfortunately, there is no "inertia" in law. Either it exists or it does not. It seems odd that people pay so much attention to words on a scrap of paper, but those words have real binding power. Look at Britain today where we're unable to expel Jihadists because of a scrap of paper called the Human Rights Act (the worst named document in history). It can't just be disregarded. To do that is the road to anarchy or tyranny–most likely both.
If the Act of Succession is repealed, then all subsequent law based upon it must be rewritten as well, which would be a nightmare with every faction in the Kingdom and without salivating at a chance to get their agenda carved into stone. Don't believe me? Look at the EU constitution or the Human Rights act of 1988 or the whole programme of New Labour; nothing but one power grab after another disguised as "reform".
If the act is simply repealed with no other reform, then there literally is no government because the government only acts in the name of the monarch and without a legitimate monarch, there is no legitimate government. You could, of course, declare a republic, but that's not "inertia", that's revolution.
The American example is an interesting one, especially with Mr Barack Hussein Obama in office. His and his party's take on the "living" constitution is so flexible that there are already serious worries that they've actually broken their oath of office. Imagine a United States where a large, mainstream group of citizens reject the legitimacy of the President and Congress.
Not a pretty sight.
Post a Comment