MICHAEL D. writes:

If there are any lingering doubts that “Conservative” Prime Minister David Cameron is indeed a conservative, then let them now be dispelled without further ado. His proposal to change the law of succession to reflect his liberal tastes is foolish, insensible and potentially harmful. The succession cannot be changed simply because David Cameron, or anybody else for that matter, doesn’t like it. They don’t have to like it. 

However, I was not surprised at the total absence of opposition to this proposal to do away with male primogeniture at the Commonwealth Heads of Governments meeting here in Australia. Our own hard-left, unmarried, barren, feminist prime minister was not about to complain. Neither were the spineless political leaders of other nations, who are mostly elites eager to prove their “diversity and equality” credentials at the expense of their culture and their peoples’ long-term interests. It would not have been difficult to bury this risible proposal with an effective counter argument, but no Commonwealth political leader even tried. 

For good reasons men and women have different roles in a family. The most important role for a man is to lead his family, along with other roles such as protecting and providing for his family. He is naturally most suited to lead and his rightful place at the family’s head is not debatable. The age of his sisters is irrelevant and a woman may lead her family only in the absence of a man—if her father dies and she has no surviving brothers. The succession may travel through a female line but not at the expense of a direct male line. 

The law of succession enshrines our heritage and customary traditions; it is completely coherent with them. There is no foundation in Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Norman culture, traditions or customary law for the eldest son of the monarch to be disinherited simply because by chance one of his sisters happens to be older than him. If Cameron has his way, the new law will be seriously at odds with our culture and I predict the anomalous reform will not survive a serious challenge. Such a challenge cannot emerge for decades, since the next three in line to the throne are men. Perhaps this is why the liberals elected to act now. 

The silly proposal to change the succession law cannot reverse more than a thousand years of cultural heritage. If a princess is crowned ahead of her younger brother, she will be an usurper and no amount of “diversity and equality” rhetoric will change this. At best, her only shroud of legitimacy might be to serve as regent for a while. Once her brother comes of age he will be empowered to end the regency and claim his birthright as King and head of the House of Windsor. If she refuses to depart, she will be overthrown. Even if her younger brother lacks the will, resolution or courage to do this; the existence of a higher right in blood to the Crown will not just simply go away. When events turn adverse to the usurper, as eventually they will, she or her descendants will be challenged. For England’s sake I hope there is no need to fight the Wars of the Roses all over again. 

Cameron is wrong on the other point also. The main reason for excluding Catholics from an Anglican Protestant monarchy is obvious to everybody, except for Cameron and some elite intellectuals as it would seem. It is utterly inappropriate and heretical for a Catholic to lead a Protestant church and nation. Nobody wants to repeat the bloody and horrific experience of the last two Catholic monarchs of England, Mary I and James II. Those days are well behind us now and the succession law makes logical and effective provision against these terrible events happening again by excluding Catholics from marrying into the royal family.

Laura writes:

This proposal is revolutionary and stunningly arrogant. It requires not just a revision of the Bill of Rights, but the overturning of a tradition deeply embedded in Western culture and human nature. And yet it was announced by Cameron as if it amounted to no more than a few outdated rules.

On the issue of a Catholic marrying into the royal line, it doesn’t make sense. A Catholic would be obliged to raise his or her children as Catholics. 

                                                                                    — Comments —

Agnello writes:

I must disagree with Michael D. on this subject. If a parliament has the authority to exclude a rightful heir to the throne from succession on the basis of his adherence to the Bishop of Rome and the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, then that parliament necessarily possesses the authority to disqualify a potential monarch for any other reason – being a man is one of the more obvious things that such a parliament should hope their King will never be.

Agnello adds:

Modern Parliamentarians are all, philosophically, Whigs, and like all Whigs, desire nothing so much as to emasculate all legitimate authority above them.

Steve M. writes:

Michael D. believes that “it is utterly inappropriate and heretical for a Catholic to lead a Protestant church and nation.” Let’s set aside the awkward fact the Britain is not really a Protestant nation – only 71% of Britons claim to be Christians of any sort. Let’s also ignore the fact that the Anglican church is not especially Protestant and has a history of persecuting what it called “dissenters” – Quakers, Presbyterians, etc.

The fact is that the existing law permits all sorts of non-Protestants to be the king or queen. You can be an atheist, a Jew, a Muslim, or a Buddhist without this disqualifying you from the throne. Of all the different faiths in the world and in Britain, Catholics and only Catholics are singled out by law.

Laura writes:

As I see it, a Catholic ceases to be Catholic once he or she marries the head of the Anglican Church. So it is a moot point.

Joe writes:

The antipathy Anglicans feel toward Romans dates to 1066 and William the Bastard’s successful invasion and conquest of England, “Land of the Angles” – with the blessing and support of the pope. Until then, the Christian church in England/Britain was free and independent, its history preceding Augustine and, it is believed, courtesy of Greek missionaries. All that changed after 1066. 

So far as I know, militarily speaking at least, neither Mussulmen, Hindu, Sikh, Confucian, Taoist or pagan has equaled the singular accomplishment, and memories are long if perhaps fuzzy on the matter. 

“But there are millions of Catholics in England!” Indeed, there are. It is also important to understand the pattern of ethnic migration into Britain, not only to understand English/Roman strife but perhaps our own American War Between the States. Britons are not Anglo-Saxons. William’s invasion from Normandy (i.e., “Bretagne” or French for “little Britain”) was effectively the repulse of the Anglo-Saxon foreigners and a restoration of Britannic rule over Britain, or at least the English portion of the island, term used for want of a better one.

The battle between native Briton and Anglo-Saxon is ancient and continues into America. New England and Pennsylvania are mainly Anglo-Saxon; the American South is Britannic. The divergence of religion, from native Britannic to imposed Roman to Anglican to Calvinist is of course coincidental, such that the “Southrons” were largely Anglican and the Yankees largely Calvinist, even though their ancestors considered themselves good Anglicans and Roman Catholics respectively. 

In any case, many fascinating insights derive from an ethnic understanding of English history, especially as it is carried into our own Anglo-American country. It is a serious subject, drastically more complex, important and vital than Henry’s desire for an heir which, which when you get down to it, was almost irrelevant to the outcome: England would have broken with Rome no matter what – only the timing was up for grabs. I suspect Cameron’s oafish move will not be vindicated by history – or even the next election, assuming enough blood English remain to matter.

Laura writes:

I don’t know what percentage of the British population believes all this doesn’t matter anymore, but certainly it is very high. (Just as the number of those who believe women should be given equal claim to the throne is probably very high.)

The problem with what you say is that Catholicism is not the biggest threat to British identity today. Islam is. Muslims are allowed to marry into the royal line. I don’t point this out because I accept the argument that this discrepancy is unfair to Catholics. I don’t think it is unfair to Catholics because Catholics have no business marrying into a Protestant monarchy with its own established church.

The proposal to allow Catholics to marry into the royal line, if it suceeds, would be further recognition that the Anglican Church does not represent modern Britain. But the failure to exclude Muslims from the Royal Family is far greater affirmation of this.  

Joe writes:

Islam is a problem for England, to be sure. Unfortunately they really believe the idea of rule-of-law and the former colonies were granted the privilege to migrate to England. So that’s about that for almost everyone living there. 

My travel experience in England demonstrates that Indians and Africans outnumber the various Mussulmen by a large margin. No doubt this is because the Indian upper castes were essentially English-educated and have strong affinity for English civilization. 

I happen to agree with you on the Catholic – Protestant problem in relation to 2011. However, it’s necessary to understand its genesis to understand why it’s controversial still. 

English cities are post-English, just as our own New York, Boston and Philadelphia are no longer operationally American cities (viz United States cities). The English countryside is not too far gone, and most of the smaller towns and villages seem more or less intact as “English.” But the corrosive effect of the dole and Council Housing has damaged their society as did welfare and projects here. I believe England will cease to exist in our lifetime, the daft and clueless Charles being capable of most anything in his Boomer haze of kumbaya. Friends of mine who have met him report he is charming and seemingly intelligent – but obsessed with gaining the favor of former colonials and the good opinion of history. Sadly, he chose his referent group poorly.

Please follow and like us: