Sixty Joyless De-Britished Uncrowned Commonpoor Years (1949-2009)

Elizabeth II Vice-Regal Saint: Remembering Paul Comtois (1895–1966), Lt.-Governor of Québec
Britannic Inheritance: Britain's proud legacy. What legacy will America leave?
English Debate: Daniel Hannan revels in making mince meat of Gordon Brown
Crazy Canucks: British MP banned from Canada on national security grounds
Happy St. Patrick's: Will Ireland ever return to the Commonwealth?
Voyage Through the Commonwealth: World cruise around the faded bits of pink.
No Queen for the Green: The Green Party of Canada votes to dispense with monarchy.
"Sir Edward Kennedy": The Queen has awarded the senator an honorary Knighthood.
President Obama: Hates Britain, but is keen to meet the Queen?
The Princess Royal: Princess Anne "outstanding" in Australia.
H.M.S. Victory: In 1744, 1000 sailors went down with a cargo of gold.
Queen's Commonwealth: Britain is letting the Commonwealth die.
Justice Kirby: His support for monarchy almost lost him appointment to High Court
Royal Military Academy: Sandhurst abolishes the Apostles' Creed.
Air Marshal Alec Maisner, R.I.P. Half Polish, half German and 100% British.
Cherie Blair: Not a vain, self regarding, shallow thinking viper after all.
Harry Potter: Celebrated rich kid thinks the Royals should not be celebrated
The Royal Jelly: A new king has been coronated, and his subjects are in a merry mood
Victoria Cross: Australian TROOPER MARK DONALDSON awarded the VC
Godless Buses: Royal Navy veteran, Ron Heather, refuses to drive his bus
Labour's Class War: To expunge those with the slightest pretensions to gentility
100 Top English Novels of All Time: The Essential Fictional Library
BIG BEN: Celebrating 150 Years of the Clock Tower

Wednesday, 9 April 2008

God Save the Queen from this Jacobite Bunk

The Daily Telegraph: "Act repeal could make Franz Herzog von Bayern new King of England and Scotland"

Last of the Stuarts: Charles I and the future James II, the last Catholic King of England

ANDREW CUSACK AND THEODORE HARVEY rightly take issue with the quack journalism at what is arguably the most respected daily newspaper in Great Britain. You would think that a basic level of research on a fundamental constitutional point would reveal that any repeal of the Act of Settlement could not be done so unilaterally by the United Kingdom, but would require the unanimous consent from the whole of the Crown Commonwealth, according to the terms agreed to under the Statute of Westminster 1931:

And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

But even if this were not the case, and Britain was free to repeal the Act allowing Catholics to accede to the throne, obviously this fact alone could not suddenly nullify over three centuries of British history, precedent and constitutional law. To suggest that any repeal would ipso facto and retroactively render Her Majesty illegitimate, or reduce any of her heirs and successors to the status of pretend claimants to the throne, is absolute bunk of the first rank.

Surely it takes only an elementary understanding to concede that the right of kings, within the span and scope of British history and law, does not derive exclusively from birth, but from the fact of rule which may, under exceptional circumstances, be established by means other than rightful precedence or even of blood inheritance. Such circumstances obtained, for example, in the cases of Henry Bolingbroke, Henry Tudor, and William the Conqueror. In the latter case, the right to the throne was established and recognized by outright force of conquest, irrespective of any (in fact extant) blood ties to a prior king.

These arguments are irrefutably and completely vindicated and upheld by over a thousand years of British history - those centuries establishing fact and precedent that by themselves are absolutely unassailable under British constitutional law.

So much for the Telegraph's pulp-fiction nonsense. God save the Queen.


Anonymous said...

Telegraph Jacobite nonsense! The Queen is a direct descendant of James I and so is the rightful Monarch even from a jacobites point of view. This Bavarian nonsesnse is almost as bad as David Camerons apparent claim to the throne (through his ancestor William IV).

That telegraph is talking about baloney things...

Stauffenberg said...

Well, you narrowly escaped the lederhosen. While I have always found the Telegraph's general home counties bias a bit tiresome, I had grown to like it as a quality daily. Pity to come across such a sloppily researched piece there. But it's still abundant with better articles and reviews.

What has always struck me about the wider Act of Settlement debate is the fact that many of those who publicly claim grievances with this allegedly "outdated and discriminatory piece of legislation" seem to give a fiddler's fart about religion and tradition, Catholic, Protestant or Dissenter, in all other contexts. The debate about the Act is useful for Monarchy-bashing, period. I consider it largely a non-issue.

El Jefe Maximo said...

Educate this yank. Assuming, of course, that Brown simply feels he must do this, and that the Commonwealth approved, would it not be possible to amend the Act of Settlement so as to remove the bar to a Catholic succession without changing dynasties from Windsor to Wittelsbach by simply making the amendment prospective rather than retroactive ?

The Trusty Tory said...

No, no, NO!!!

Beaverbrook said...

For the record, I'm all for changing the Act to include Catholics. But the idea that this would somehow change the line of succession deserves scorns of ridicule, even though the quacks who penned this piece couldn't possibly have been serious.

Pablo the Scot said...

Even if they repealed the Act of Succession it would not make any difference at all, despite the hype in the Telegraph. The Queen's line of descent is quite secure and legal, and that cannot be retrospectively changed. Nor would repael affect Prince Charles' position as he is the Heir to the throne through his mother. There are no other legal claimants, although others are welcome to attempt the usual route of Pretenders and raise an army to enforce their claim. They will never win the crown any other way.

Anonymous said...

Presumably, in accord with long-standing principles of Common Law and English statutory history, any Repeal of the Act of Settlement would only be effective PROSPECTIVELY. For example, were the Act repealed, Charles could 'convert' to Roman Catholicism and still ascend to the throne. But, historical succession would not be effected under principles of "res judicata" or the doctrine that things finally and historically settled cannot be reopened or revisited.

Anonymous said...

NOT Jacobite "bunk". Any TRUE, FAIR, EDUCATED monarchist would welcome the return of the real english kings.
What's nonsense are the unfair and grossly bigotted ATTITUDES of the waspy, hypocritical wannabe Orangemen pretending to be upright defenders of the "true" monarchy (as long as it's Protestant, of course, don't want all those terrible Catholics, eh?)
Sorry that tolerance, fairness, and TRUTH are raining down on your uptight pity parade, boys. Go back to defending chaps like Churchill, whose ancestors really knew how to get rich by selling out the interests of England. Funny, always thought of him as a pretentious overblown bigot with a lazy slob for a father and a crass, cheap whore for a mother. Oh, well. Glory Brittania!

Anonymous said...

Here's to the wee little gentleman.

Ah, isn't karma a bitch?

Beaverbrook said...

I have a lot of time for champagne Jacobites, and have more than a passing sympathy regarding the plight of hereditary rights. It is regrettable that the Tories had to spend the better part of three quarters of a century in the political wilderness over that issue, but at least they were motivated by something other than the Whiggish appetite for power.

Scott said...

Well, as it is, our monarchy *is* Protestant; and whether or not it will always be, I think it's silly to try and argue that it would have been better off not being so these past few hundred years. I give few figs for the clannish ugliness of the Orangemen, but it was important for all our liberties that the Bishop of Rome had no jurisdiction in this realm.

A Commonwealth Monarchist said...

I must admit, I do think that the Telegraph's standard of reporting had gone down sharply in my estimation in the last few days. Its screaming panic story about Rudd (which bought, hook, line and sinker, every republican fiction there is) wasn't much good and this is nonsense. They'd be better off spending more time on the fact that the other Commonwealth Realms need to repeal the Act of Settlement to avoid altering the succession than this alarmist claptrap. As for "esxchanging one German family for another", well, I don't know what to say...

Anonymous said...

Think a lot of uptight, priggish Protestant bigots are just miffed that their hatred and small-mindedness is finally being exposed.

Gee, their lives must be so tragic........

A Commonwealth Monarchist said...

...and several Catholics (i.e. me) could not care less about the Act of Settlement being repealed: it'd be nice if they did repeal it but I'm not fussed.

Anonymous said...

We have to remember that, at the time of the Act, Papal political power and the threats of France and Spain to British independence were still in living memory.

Now, Papal political power is all but gone and the Toleration Acts (including the repeal of the Test Act) make the Act of Settlement largely a vestige.

Not to disappoint Catholic readers, the more likely constitutional question is whether Charles ascend as an Orthodox Christian -- his father is Orthodox, he is close friends with Sir John Taverner, and he visits Mt. Athos frequently.

Scott said...

Oh gosh, but hasn't he also been rumoured to ascend as everything from a warlock to a muslim?

The future is in the hands of the Lord; only He will decide what kind of king we get.

Anonymous said...

There is no need to repeal the Act of Settlement, just amend it. The operative language refers to the "heirs of the body of Electress Sophia of Hanover being Protestants..." or words to that effect. Simply delete "being Protestants" and all is fine, there will be no Wittelsbach duke on the British throne. Much ado about nothing.

Anonymous said...

Some people on this page are talking directly from their bottoms :o)

Get real and live and let live!