web analytics

LONG TO REIGN OVER US

By Pete Moore On December 14th, 2011 at 8:55 pm

FOUND: The first, ever, correct understanding of our British Constitution in the MSM.

From a priest, no less, and what a splendid sort he seems.

A CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY?

By David Vance On November 4th, 2011 at 9:40 am

As you know, the United Kingdom is a Constitutional Monarchy and a Protestant one at that. It’s been that way since at least the 1701 Act of Settlement. I support this concept and would point out that it has held this Union together for longer than most other Nations have even existed. It is imperfect, but what is perfect? However things are a changing and it raises an interesting question; Should subjects remain loyal if the nature of the Monarchy changed? Some say no;

A former DUP adviser has said that he would no longer have allegiance to the Crown if the monarch was a Roman Catholic. Wallace Thompson, a special adviser to DUP deputy leader Nigel Dodds when he was a Stormont minister, said he was concerned at the reforms announced by prime minister David Cameron last week. Under the plans future monarchs would be allowed to marry a Catholic and first-born female Royals would no longer lose out to younger male heirs in the line of succession.However, Mr Thompson said that he believed the constitutional change, which will require an amendment to the 1701 Act of Settlement, could be the first step to abolishing entirely that historic law.

Mr Thompson was speaking yesterday as secretary of the Evangelical Protestant Society. He is also chairman of the fundamentalist Protestant lobby group the Caleb Foundation, whose vice chairman is another DUP member, Mervyn Storey. Speaking on BBC Radio Ulster’s Sunday Sequence programme yesterday, Mr Thompson said: “To me it’s stage one of a process here where further reform and amendments to the Act of Settlement will be demanded — in fact are being demanded.

“My concern then is that when you have the monarch marrying a Roman Catholic, what happens to the children? How are they brought up?” He said that Royal children could be brought up as Catholics, creating a constitutional crisis if they were in line to be monarch. “We are in danger of moving towards that full-blown repeal of the Act of Settlement and the overthrowing of the Protestant basis of the monarchy. I think it would be a very serious development for the United Kingdom. My loyalty to the throne is based on the monarchy being Protestant, so from a personal point of view if that were to happen then my loyalty to the monarchy would end.”

It’s a curious view.

On the one hand, Wallace suggests he would become disloyal to a Roman Catholic King, yet he expects Roman Catholics to be loyal to a Protestant King. Is that rather hypocritical? If loyalty is to be based on religious association, then I think we have a problem.

On the other hand, the Protestant Monarchy has worked out rather well.  I speak as a poor Christian of a Protestant persuasion! My issues with our Monarchy do not so much lie in the ongoing changes – (which I oppose on principle) – but rather in the fact that the Monarchy has failed to stand up for our Nation as it has been subsumed into the EU. If we can’t defend the Sovereignty of the Nation, why bother being “Sovereign”?

Elizabeth is my preferred Monarch. Elizabeth the 1st that is.

ELIZABETH R GOES TO DUBLIN

By Pete Moore On May 17th, 2011 at 12:16 pm

The red carpet, all the quality out in their finest, the 21-gun salute and a guard of honour at the splendid Georgian Áras an Uachtaráin.

Gosh they do like their old world pomp and ceremony over there, eh?

 

 

 

LONG TO REIGN OVER US

By Pete Moore On April 28th, 2011 at 5:17 pm

Dr Eamonn Butler of the Adam Smith Institute gets it:

As titular head of the government, the army and the judiciary, the Queen notionally has the power to prevent these institutions being perverted by anti-democratic tyrants. It is not the power that the Queen wields, but the power that she, in theory, denies others. In fact, the present Queen has not done enough to prevent politicians over-expanding their power; but over the centuries, the system has definitely had some positive effect.

There is no point in a constitutional monarchy for its own sake. The point, as the (classical) liberal Butler here and Dr Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance both realise, is that it’s the best way we know of safeguarding our liberties against tyranny. In this it has been pretty successful and even the long reign of the worst and most negligent monarch in our history has not – at least yet – snuffed them out entirely. That we live in relatively benign society does not mean this will always be the case. Queen Elizabeth II or one of her successors may be truly tested one day in the same way that Spain’s King Juan Carlos was tested in 1981 when he faced down a military coup. If that day should come we should expect our monarch to break a habit and do the same. This would be the very point of their existence.

Americans might be interested in Butler’s subsequent comment on the path of their own (elected) monarch.

From a Jackass to a Queen

By ATWadmin On December 23rd, 2008 at 9:09 am

I remember standing in St Peter’s Square in the Vatican back in 2006. At first I thought I was the only Protestant in a sea of Catholic pilgrims. My sense of isolation was somewhat eased when I saw of crowd of baying Anglicans being held behind a barrier by the Swiss Guards. They were calling for an end to the ban on non-Catholics being allowed to succeed to the Papacy.  So impressed was I at their fortitude that I joined them, grabbed a poster of Martin Luther, and began to chant ‘Protestantism rules OK!‘ just as Pope Benedict emerged on the balcony of the Basilica to begin his address to the faithful.

Do you believe any of the above?  No, neither do I.  I’ve been to the Vatican on many occasions; stood in awe at the sheer beauty of the place; have seen two successive Pontiffs preach to the crowds; and left the scene with indelible memories of each occasion.  I am no less a Protestant for the experience, but I am reconciled to the fact that Protestantism is the minority partner in global Christianity.  Comfortable with that reality, I am also pleased Protestantism is the majority partner in the United Kingdom.  I have no wish whatsoever to see a non-Catholic ascend to the Papacy.  Equally, I have no desire to see a Catholic take up the role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

There are restrictions with the US Presidency.  American law forbids anyone not born in the United States to become Commander-in-Chief (I believe it is decreed in Article Two of the Constitution, though Grizzly Mama, Troll, Mahons, etc. are free to correct me).  I so not see a clamour of liberal figures in Uncle Sam calling for the restriction to be lifted.

In Britain it is different.  Here we are cursed with a government determined to remove every historical pillar that has moulded our culture, role and definition as a nation.  The latest weapon in the socialist war to destroy our constitutional traditions is the call for repeal of the Act of Settlement and the dis-establishment of the Church of England.  Following suggestions from the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, who is to his Church what George Blake was to British Intelligence, Labour MPs are now climbing on to the bandwagon.

Let me make clear the motivation behind the move.  This is not about equality for Roman Catholics in Britain (perhaps someone would like to point out an aspect of everyday British society where Catholics get a raw deal in comparison to Anglicans!).  This is about destroying the Monarchy by stealth and, in tandem, extending the power of the State as envisaged in socialist dogma.  En masse Parliamentary support for dis-establishment and the removal of the AoS doesn’t come from Catholics in the Conservatives.  It comes from the ranks of the party whose history is infested with characters who have never shielded their desire to see this Union live under a presidency.  In other words this is not about the rights of Catholics vis-a-vis non-Catholics.  It is part and parcel of a gradualised methodology intent on removing the raison d’etre of Monarchy as a prelude to fatally undermining the institution itself.

Anglicanism has played a unique role in the development of Britain and the Monarch’s position as Supreme Governor reflects this.  You cannot remove that role without undoing other aspects of the British Constitution and affecting the Monarch’s standing as Head of State in other countries.  Shit is full of pathogens; that’s why it stinks.  Britain’s Labour Party is full of seditious little socialists; that’s why IT stinks.  I just wish those same socialists would be more honest about their ultimate intentions.