Queens, Kings and Churches

I have been chided for daring to write about this on my blog. You all understand only too well the Labour spin machine, and why this story suited the BBC.

It’s a nice irony that you have now all done what I did – written about something that is a non story – in larger numbers than write about most of my pieces on the economic collapse.

This entry was posted in Blog. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

14 Comments

  1. adam
    Posted March 28, 2009 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    well i don’t feel its a non story, so i am exempt

  2. Neil Craig
    Posted March 28, 2009 at 11:23 am | Permalink

    Touche.

    There is a story of an ancient Indian athiest philosopher who bored everybody on the non-existence of God. When he died he went to heaven because he had spent his life contemplating God.

  3. Duyfken
    Posted March 28, 2009 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    Right, well let’s not prolong the discussion.

    My priorities in political topics are:

    a) the economic situation – how can we extricate ourselves from the Brown bust;

    b) the EU – how can we extricate ourselves from its federal incursions and return to a trading association;

    c) “snouts in the trough” of MPs and MEPs (I don’t care about others such as MSPs) – how can I vote for any Party or candidate whilst this scandal continues?

  4. alan jutson
    Posted March 28, 2009 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    Like you I thought it nice to talk about something else for a change.

    Conducting day to day business reminds me of the real problems we face.

  5. Blank Xavier
    Posted March 28, 2009 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

    JR wrote:
    > It’s a nice irony that you have now all done what I did – written
    > about something that is a non story

    Speak for yourself, John 🙂

    When I saw the original post, I thought, what possible difference does it make to anything, what religion the King or Queen are?

    And if I were to say more, I’d simply say; it’s their private business, just as it is my own in this matter.

  6. ManicBeancounter
    Posted March 28, 2009 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

    The biggest thing about this story is the timing. The PM’s plan to head up a global fiscal stimulus was already shakey before the Governor of the Bank of England said the UK cannot afford a fiscal stimulus. Then the PM gave a luckworm speech in Strabourg, before enduring a savaging by MEP Daniel Hannen. Something had to be done to divert the public’s attention whilst Gordon Brown changes tack yet again. So the proposal to look (long-term) at removing a 300-year old law.

    We should all be deeply concerned that the news agenda is being controlled by spin-doctors more effectively that the properganda department of a Warsaw Pact State. Let us us take Gordon Brown at his word when he says that he will do “whatever it takes” to get this country out of recession. What it will take is a change of government, and so his next meeting with the Queen should not be to discuss the Royal Succession, but a short one to resign and to let the country decide the political succession.

  7. mikestallard
    Posted March 28, 2009 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

    Well, for me this question is the lynch pin of my life. I gave up my home (several times), put my family through hell and went on the dole for ten years to try and sort out my life after the realisation that the Cof E was no longer the national church.
    The real problem here, of course, if that there doesn’t seem to be any real choice between accepting the entire monarchy thinggy – Protestant Supremacy, golden coach, legacy of Empire, sexist succession, sheer incompetence of many Royal Family members – over the centuries – and getting rid of the entire caboodle.
    In which case, I wonder which of the many resplendent Labour Political Figures would make the most fitting President of England/East Anglian Region?
    How about Harriet Harman, a lady of very strong views and the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party?

  8. StevenL
    Posted March 28, 2009 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    “I have been chided …” (JR)

    Well from where I’m sitting you do seem to do quite a bit of ‘chiding’ yourself.

    I can’t really talk either. It’s fun though and your chiding is first class, so keep chiding!

  9. Archbishop Cranmer
    Posted March 28, 2009 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

    Chided by whom?

    This is not a ‘non-story’; it is acutely constitutional and transcends temporal matters such as economics and politics.

    The Act of Settlement is – as the BBC asserts in its usual anti-Anglican fashion – ‘discriminatory’ and ‘unfair’. And so The Guardian agrees, as does the rest of the Left. Conservatives should have no part in tampering with this aspect of the Constitution, for it is a foundational cornerstone.

    Of course it is ‘unfair’ and ‘discriminatory’ that the monarch may not be or marry a Roman Catholic, but the very act of choosing a religion manifestly necessitates discrimination against all the others. It is also ‘discriminatory’ that the Pope may not be Protestant, and even more ‘unfair’ that he may not marry at all. But there are sound theological and historical justifications for the restrictions upon both the King of the Vatican and the Queen of the United Kingdom, and none of these amount to a violation of their ‘human rights’. Prince William is perfectly free to marry a Roman Catholic should he so desire: that it is human right. He is not then free to be King and Supreme Governor of the Church of England, but to be King is not a human right; it is the gift of Parliament.

    • Blank Xavier
      Posted March 29, 2009 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

      > This is not a ‘non-story’; it is acutely constitutional and transcends
      > temporal matters such as economics and politics.

      While at the same time, IMHO, being profoundly meaningless.

      Who cares what religion another person is? what possible business is it of another person? the religious choice of the monarchy makes absolutely no difference *whatsoever* to anything, and thank goodness for that. I’d hate to live in a country or world where it actually mattered.

      • Mike Wilson
        Posted March 31, 2009 at 7:08 am | Permalink

        “I’d hate to live in a country or world where it actually mattered.”

        You do.

  10. Joe Mooney
    Posted March 28, 2009 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

    The Royal story reminds me of that Yes Minister story save the British sausage. It is designed to take the limelight off Gordon Browns failures.

    As Mr Fawkes says we are all going down with Gordon Brown and the sooner he goes the better.

  11. Citizen Responsible
    Posted March 29, 2009 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    This morning on the Andrew Marr show, the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, said that Australia would become a republic some time in the future but it was not a priority now. If the debate on the succession of the royal line is started in the Australian and Canadian parliaments, it could reignite anti-monarchist feelings and move them towards becoming republics. Is this what Mr Brown is hoping for?

  12. Matthew Reynolds
    Posted March 29, 2009 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    I think that Daniel Hanan did such an excellent job of attacking Gordon Brown and that Mervyn King was spot on over the need to reduce rather than inflate budget deficits so Gordon Brown was reduced to trying to distract out attention with this statement.

    I do think that rather than banging on about this succession issue the government should be making public services more efficient so that slower spending growth does not hit quality of provision while putting in place John Redwood type ides on monetary policy and financial regulation. They could also force all QUNAGO’s to cut their budgets by 15% net to take £15 billion off of the PSBR. Getting maximum numbers of people off of Incapacity Benefit and deregulating small business so there are more jobs around would lower unemployment.

    Those ideas would help make things better in Britain and all I can say is that if Europe does not concern many people just think how less important this issue is to most voters. In an ideal world Catholics should not be discriminated against for their faith – but this world is far from perfect alas…..

    For perfection we will have to wait for Heaven.

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page