The Family of Henry VIII, An Allegory of the Tudor Succession

IN PREPARATION for the legal introduction of same-sex “marriage” in Britain next month, government bureaucrats are rewriting a host of statutes pertaining to inheritance, royal titles, pensions, taxation and child custody to alter, redefine or remove references to husbands, wives, mothers and fathers. Redefining marriage means redefining kinship. Actually, it’s the inversion of kinship so it naturally creates a blizzard of complications, many of which cannot even be foreseen.

Some of the laws being reworked are many hundreds of years old, dating back to distant times when gay parades and wedding cakes with two grooms didn’t exist. Men will not hold the title of “Queen” or “Duchess,” according to early redrafting. And two women will probably not hold the same Duchess title. There are some weirdnesses that even British politicians cannot accept. Apparently, it will not be high treason to violate the husband of the King, which should make for some interesting threesomes. But it is unclear what the husband of the Prince of Wales will be called. Given the decadence of the House of Windsor, it’s a serious concern and should be ironed out before a man walks down the aisle of Westminster Cathedral to meet a Prince near the altar.

But who knows what will happen when the King and his husband have a child with a surrogate mother. Will she be given any title at all? Also, if she is the mother of a future King, shouldn’t her children by a husband of her own have some royal prerogatives too? After all they will be related by blood to the royal line. Ah, this is unclear. When Henry VIII made marriage a matter of personal preference, subject to the whims of adults and not the Church, little did he know where it all might lead.

According to The Telegraph:

Civil servants have drawn up a list of scores of statutes and regulations dating back as far 1285 to be amended or specifically excluded when the Government’s Same-Sex Marriage Act comes into force next month.

Under proposals to be debated by MPs and Peers as early as next week, terms such as “widow” will be deleted or reworded in legislation covering topics as diverse as seamen’s pensions and London cab licences to take account of the new definition of marriage.

References to mothers, fathers, husbands and wives are also to be amended to avoid future confusion.

— Comments —

Michael writes:

British politicians have fallen down a hole deeper and landed in a place more lunatic than Alice in Wonderland could ever have experienced. This is awesome to observe and entirely predictable, because when a society adopts ideology it loses all hope of functioning sanely and must issue progressively convoluted legislation, trying to make sense of the irrational.

Theodore Harvey writes:

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “the decadence of the House of Windsor.” While it would not be reasonable to expect the royal family to have remained totally immune from Modernity when even the Roman Catholic Church has not, compared to the lives of probably the majority of British people today their example is positively traditionalist. While democracy gives people the politicians they deserve, I believe the Monarchy still gives modern Britain a better present and future heads of state than it deserves. Granted, that may not be saying much.

One factual correction: “before a man walks down the aisle of Westminster Cathedral…”  Presumably you meant Westminster Abbey. Westminster Cathedral, built 1895-1903, is Roman Catholic, so has never been used for royal weddings and is even more unlikely than the Abbey to host a same-sex one.

Laura writes:

Yes, of course. Sorry, that was a Freudian slip.

As for the decadence of the House of Windsor, I would cite, for one, the Queen’s signing of the law legalizing same-sex “marriage.” I realize she has little power, but, as far as I know, she did not protest this development in any way. I would also cite the very unsound character and progressive mind of Prince Charles and offer this photo of Queen Elizabeth in a mosque, which is symbolic of her lack of resistance to the Islamization of Britain and to its racial transformation in general.

James P. writes:

“Men will not hold the title of Queen” — but what could be a better title for a man in a gay marriage?

If gay marriage puts an end to the House of Windsor, that might not be such a bad thing, given their general worthlessness.

Please follow and like us: