I don't mind that my party lost the 2010 general election. I wish they hadn't, sure, but I don't feel cheated. In fact, the candidate I voted for won his constituency (Norwich South) and his party formed a coalition with another party of losers. Together they claim to have won. I am not at all happy with this result but they've played by rules I judge to be reasonably fair and I certainly feel my vote counted for something. Perhaps if I voted for Labour, I'd feel different. Perhaps next time when I may well vote for Labour, I'll feel different, but that's a thought for another time.
What does concern me is that David Cameron is in the highest possible elected office in this country and yet is not the Head of State. Elizabeth of Windsor claims that honour, along with the conflicting role as Supreme Governess of the Church of England. The monarchy may have highly restricted powers and duties, but chief among those duties is official representation of the United Kingdom.
I don't want David Cameron representing me. I feel a little betrayed by the Lib Dems for allowing this to happen, but I'll take it because I know that in four years time I'll get another chance to pick my parliament. Not only will I never get a say in choosing the next monarch, I am also offended by the rules regarding succession.
This royal family which claims to represent me overlooks two natural rights I feel strongly about: freedom of religion and gender equality. A son inherits before a daughter and if you're not protestant you can't inherit at all. I can understand hereditary powers: The tribal chieftan's son had the best training to become the next tribal chief. The tribal chieftan wants to provide for his immediate family and naming his son heir is the best way to do that. That made sense two thousand years ago and tradition is nothing if not persistant. Of course the availability of education for everyone means the noble classes can no longer be assumed the best choice to rule, and haven't been for a long time. I don't think that's news to anyone though.
What I cannot possibly understand is hereditary faith. This is a very personal matter unique to each individual and to name someone the next head of a church - again, with highly restricted powers and duties - upon their birth seems extremely absurd. In this country you are protected against descrimination based on gender or religion unless you plan to lead it. Only male protestants, please. Okay, we'll allow a woman this time, but don't expect us to like it.
Curious about public support for the monarchy I found an ICM report from 2009. I can't find the poll itself so I don't know how many people were asked, what the demographic splits were like or even how the questions were phrased, but the results given in the article state 18% favour Britain becoming a republic at the end of Elizabeth II's reign. That's disheartening for a republican like myself, but the news isn't all bad: At 89% the vast majority of us would like to see women and men treated equally in succession.
Interestingly 81% of respondants would like to see the rule banning catholics from the throne removed, which is something I argued in favour of merely moments ago, but now having read comments in this article I may be forced to reconsider my view there. Roman Catholics accept the Pope not only as the head of their religion, but as the infallible vicar of Christ on earth. He is also the head of the Vatican state, which could be seen as making Britain a subject of the Vatican. I would not like the Vatican to gain a greater influence on this country any more than I am happy with the Church of England's currently inflated sense of importance.
No, I think it's far better to say we abandon the idea of monarchy altogether. I'll accept a catholic president if the power still stays with the people. We can always get rid of her when she tries to outlaw condoms.
Hate to break it to you but
ReplyDelete"The Treason Felony Act 1848 prohibits the advocacy of a republic in print. The penalty for such advocacy, even if the republic is to be set up by peaceful means, is lifetime imprisonment. This Act remains in force in the United Kingdom."
Ah, but the Act is worded like this: "and being convicted thereof shall be liable ... to be transported beyond the seas for the term or his or her natural life."
ReplyDeleteBasically, by writing this post I have earned holiday to Australia, courtesy of Her Majesty's government. Not quite the punishment now that it was in 1848.
I wasn't aware there was a ban on Catholics on throne still. Wow.
ReplyDelete"Roman Catholics accept the Pope not only as the head of their religion, but as the infallible vicar of Christ on earth. He is also the head of the Vatican state, which could be seen as making Britain a subject of the Vatican. I would not like the Vatican to gain a greater influence on this country any more than I am happy with the Church of England's currently inflated sense of importance."
I was going to make a comment on this, but I think the most beneficial thing for you to do would to be to look up JFK's speech about being a Catholic. Let me see if I can find it...
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkhoustonministers.html
I agree with pretty much everything JFK had to say there. His catholicism should not have in any way been a bar to his candidacy. The issue here is more one of sovereignty than religion. The Pope is the head of a foreign sovereign state and all Roman Catholics owe some allegiance to the Pope.
ReplyDeleteBy Catholic Canon Law, Catholics must raise their children as Catholic so allowing one Catholic to the throne would change the monarchy from an Anglican institution to a Catholic one theoretically, for all time.
The Monarchy are not elected heads of state. This is my main issue with them. If Americans really had felt that JFK was putting the Catholic church before the USA he could have been impeached or simply voted out of office. That's not something you can do with a hereditary monarch. They aren't nearly so accountable.
Of course I don't honestly believe that if Prince William converts to Catholicism today then in fifty years time Civil Partnerships will be illegal again, but I do feel the Head of State should be accountable to the people above all else.
Quite true. I agree. I do think it's a little odd, and frustrating, that your head of state is still technically royalty. In school, we're taught that the queen is just a figurehead for the UK. But having the actual position as well means something else...
ReplyDeleteIt's also weird for me to think about religion so strictly. We've only had one Catholic president, and many other Catholics I know still identify as Catholic despite not following all parts of the Catholic... law I guess? As someone raised (very lax-ly) Jewish, it's a bit confusing to me. Our presidents don't always make a big fuss about being religious, and when they do, it's less clear that it's a Protestant thing than it is a specific-issue-moral-stance thing influenced by religion (i.e. abortion).