Could Gordon’s plans for royals lead to a dis-United Kingdom?
Tuesday, 31 March 2009
Print
Email
Various theories are abroad as to why, in the midst of the worst economic crisis in 80 years, the Prime Minister has chosen to launch himself on the reef-strewn shoals of religion, Catholics and the Crown.
Spin doctors in Number 10 speak urbanely of the Prime Minister having discovered that the ban on the monarch marrying a Roman Catholic is an historic anomaly.
For reasons undisclosed, it must be tackled now. Cynics — most of his audience — smell a desperate attempt to raise rival headlines to those which blame Number 10 for the dismal financial crash which is hitting the pocket of pretty well every voter.
They detect one more sign of an approaching general election. The leader of the Scottish Nationalists, Alex Salmond, is on record as having called for the ban to be removed.
The Prime Minister cannot afford to ignore this patent bid for the Catholic vote. Were it not for the stranglehold Labour has established on Scottish industrial constituencies, the party might never see office in Westminster again.
Of the 59 Scottish MPs, 40 are Labour — and of those 40, 13 — more than one third — are Roman Catholic.
They have been grumbling to Number 10 that in the new Britain, over the creation of which Blair presided, more than a thousand youngsters under 14 every year are having abortions and that small-time landladies in their constituencies are unhappy at being arraigned for refusing to rent double beds to male couples.
In a bid to row back, Brown, son of the Presbyterian manse, has invited the Pope to visit the UK, a visit which is scheduled to happen before the election. (Why else would the Prime Minister be issuing it?)
And how suitable if the ice encasing the proud Anglican island were to be broken beforehand by a proposal that the old slight of the monarch being forbidden to marry a papist be swept away? How suitable indeed!
The only snag is that we have been here so often before — and nothing has happened.
In the recent past, numerous Catholics have risen to positions of great political influence at Westminster; but something has stayed their hand when it came to the question of pushing for the scrapping of the 300-year-old Act of Settlement which contains the ban.
In fact, they have been willing to wound, but afraid to strike.
I first met the constitutional lawyer Norman St John-Stevas when, as the undergraduate president of the Cambridge Union, he came to Dublin to debate at Trinity College. I later interviewed him when he was in Mrs Thatcher's cabinet.
I recall that, when he took over his office in the Commons as Leader of the House, one of his first acts was to hang a very large portrait of James II on the wall. James, you will know, was the Catholic King of the Stuarts of Scotland who was defeated at the Boyne — an episode in his flight from England which led directly to the legislation of 1689 ordaining that the Crown must be Protestant.
St John-Stevas is now Lord St John of Fawsley, but his mother was Kitty O'Connor and he is a deeply learned Catholic. It is significant anent the current debate that he is on record as pausing at the brink.
He admits that repealing the ban would be likely to lead eventually to a Catholic monarch and, even in this age of widespread religious indifference, that could transform an institution uniting the nation into one which did the opposite.
Lord St John, in fact, buys the ‘can of worms' argument: that, once the lid was off, it could never be put back on. A Catholic consort, particularly if a woman, could lead to her children being brought up as Catholics, leading eventually to a Catholic king or queen — who would be supreme head of the Church of England.
Avoiding this anomaly would at once raise the question of disestablishment — and that would involve major reform of the House of Lords, the great state occasions, the older universities and schools — and so on.
There remains the factor of the historic role of the Pope in presiding over the Vatican, an independent state, with its own diplomatic corps, from time to time intervening actively in the international political scene — as it did so controversially in its dealings with the Nazis during the Second World War, as it does now with the UN.
Would the national loyalties of a Catholic monarch of the UK be compromised? Materially, would it matter? Possibly not.
British kings and queens no longer topple governments. Yet in an intangible quantity like monarchy, perception is everything.
Popular doubt about divided loyalty could end it.
The personality of the monarch, of course, is crucial. The slightly bumbling Charles might be just what the future requires.
Remember that his 17th-century predecessor, Charles II, jokingly advised his sister, Henrietta, to sleep through boring sermons, as the rest of the family did; leading one preacher to call out to the Earl of Lauderdale: “My Lord, you snore so loud you will wake the King!”
Post a comment
Limit: 500 characters
View all comments that have been posted about this article
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP address logged and may be used to prevent further submissions. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by BelfastTelegraph.co.uk's Terms of Use.
Posts submitted in UPPERCASE letters will be rejected.
Comments
29 Comments
To all my friends in Northern Ireland from both traditions I would like to say that even with all the years of the peace process we still have the Harry Hopkins of this World. We must never allow his kind any respect. Mr Harry Hopkins statement shows hatred is alive and well. Its very sad to hear an adult communicating in this manner. Harry speaks with no factual information but from a very dark part of his mind. Even to mention the famine in an insulting way shows that he has respect for himself or for the memory of those that suffered in the past. We must all be very alert to alarming and dangerous bigots.I want to remind Mr Hopkins of a few facts. The Republic of Ireland or Ireland is not bankrupt. The Republic of Ireland is suffering like all other independent nations. The Republic is in very good economic shape for the future. We don't get handouts in fact we contribute to the EU. We have extended our hand of friendship to everyone in Northern Ireland.
Posted by John | 24.04.09, 13:56 GMT
"made pay its way
Like Ni, which gets a government subvention of £7 billion and a hidden subsidy from GB consumers, does not?
Posted by KM | 13.04.09, 08:57 GMT
A united Ireland is coming no matter what Protestants say. Why? because your masters in the UK are now broke and cannot support you anymore.
Posted by Brian | 07.04.09, 22:25 GMT
Harry, you really are an annoying person with some strange and out-dated views.
-Loyalists would do onto the Republic as the IRA did onto Ulster-
Do you seriously believe that claptrap!! If ever a UI came about it would have to with the support of the overwhelming majority of people in NI, otherwise it wouldn´t work, everyone know that. That was a pretty stupid thing to say. Regarding your views on Catholics and Monarch, the less said the better. I just hope you wise up before you get old! Maybe you should read the great article on Alastair Little in todays BT and realise that living in the past stunts your growth.
Posted by robin | 03.04.09, 11:17 GMT
Why should Catholics be discriminated against? I am terribly sorry that the House of Lords and some academic institutions may be inconvenienced with the disestablishment of a state religion. But you are willing to deny the rights of a huge group of people who live in, and who visit your country and are well represented members of foreign nations. It is ironic that you did not deny Catholics the right to fight in your wars. Get with the real world, there should be no established religion in the twenty first century in any modern country. Hopefully the Church of England will flourish, however it should be on equal standing with all others, and does not need a monarch to lead it.
Posted by Timothy Quinn | 03.04.09, 08:46 GMT
Really; such squabbling!!! A United Ireland in twenty years; such utter rubbish!!! Even if fifty percent, plus one of the population in Northern Ireland voted to unite with the Republic, there still wouldn't be a united Ireland because the Loyalists would do onto the Republic as the IRA did onto Ulster and the Dissidents are endeavouring to do. We are where we are because that is where we are meant to be. Irish Unity and a Catholic monarch are pipe dreams; unfortunately they cost people their lives in this country. Beware what you ask for, the Gods maybe cruel enough to grant it.
By the way I'm actually a young professional person, who's gay with an asiatic partner. It's really only the Irish, their whinging, and Catholicism, and their bigotry and double standards, that bring out the worst in me.
Returning to the Act of Settlement - I still beleive it's right and in reference to Mr Brown... well he's just playing politics - to be sure
Posted by Harry Hopkins | 03.04.09, 01:51 GMT
Larry Flynn: "in 20 years the whole island with be the ROI"
It's thought processes like this, dear Larry, which mean you'll never get a United ireland.
That you can't work out why, is probably for the best as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by mickey | 02.04.09, 15:47 GMT
Mark, my favourite wee stalker, I see you're unable to argue the point (originally made for Robin, if you can read).
Think I'll write something else on another topic elsewhere, just to ensure you follow me like an obedient (but predictable) little dog! LOL
Posted by mickey | 02.04.09, 15:45 GMT
Mickey
Another sucessful amalgamation of politics and sport!. Sad sad sad! What has this article got do with the North of Ireland football team or their 'fans'?...With you it's all flags flags flags, anthems anthems anthems all wrapped up in sectarian rhetoric! zzzzz pathetic
Posted by mark | 02.04.09, 14:24 GMT
Here's an idea for you. If you're Protestant and love the monarchy so much, go live where it is relevant. It's not relevant in Ireland because in 20 years the whole island with be the ROI.
Posted by Larry Flynn | 02.04.09, 13:27 GMT
"A Catholic Nation for a Catholic people" etc etc etc etc - Isn't that why we don't want a United Ireland - the malignant bigotry of our Southern Roman Catholic brethern is really quite overwhelming!!!!!"
What decade are you living in? I'm from the Republic and I went to school with many protestants, and some of my relatives are protestant too. Nobody cares there, it's a non issue. I find it rather sad when whatever issue arises, this particular one being about the Monarchy in Britain and having nothing to do with Ireland (the Republic), people still drag the South into it. Unionist insecurity at it's most feeble. The sooner that this bigoted, outdated thinking ceases the better for everyone.
Posted by South by Northwest | 02.04.09, 10:28 GMT
Thank you, Mr. Waugh, for a most informative explanation regarding the motive driving the PM's intention to abolish a 300 year old law that renders it unlawful for a chatholic to sit on the throne.
The 64-dollar question is of course: Will catholic authorities reciprocate by rendering it lawful for a protestant to become Pope?
As a former catholic turned to protestantism due to numerous immoralities (dare I say evils?) sanctioned by Papal authority, I would dearly like to become Pope,vested with the authority to confess the sins of my papal predecessors.
Posted by jock | 02.04.09, 01:21 GMT
Harry Hopkins you come across as a sad sad man... bigotry resides on both sides, within the minority... what is the bet your a decrepid old man stuck in 1970, suppose you stil believe 'black' people should stil be picking cotton, and standing on buses... your the reason this country doesnt go forward fast enough!!!
Posted by ji | 01.04.09, 16:16 GMT
Robin "in England and for the English, you´re still just a Mick or a Paddy"
Having lived in England for a number of years in 3 different major cities, I know for a fact this isn't true, however I'll induldge you.
Perhaps since you believe, that they believe, we're all just "micks" and "paddys", this is one of the reasons why so many of the anti-Northern Ireland brigade hate that "micks" and "paddys" in NI would dare fly Union flags and sing God Save the Queen, ya know, since we're all just supposed to fit the stereotypical fiddly-diddly tricolour-waving, lovable Oirish rogues (not a sectarian comment btw before some start girning) - and bottomline - the actions of NI football fans for example allows the English to surmise that "micks" and paddys" appear happy enough waving Union flags and singing GSTQ. And we can't have that now can we - since the English are still the enemy!?!?!
Ha, now I get the hatred of NI fans and these symbols!
zzzzzz
Posted by mickey | 01.04.09, 14:12 GMT
"Of the 59 Scottish MPs, 40 are Labour — and of those 40, 13 — more than one third — are Roman Catholic. "
I know it's a little pedantic, but i'm pretty sure 13 is less than a third of 40.
Posted by Karl | 01.04.09, 13:05 GMT
Mr. P wrote:
Hopefully the dinosaurs like Mr Waugh here will be the last of their kind.
Modern Ireland has no room for outmoded thinking like this.
Obviously and sadly it has. I think HarryHopkins/mickey has just proven this with a bucket full of bile. As I said in my previous posts, in England and for the English, you´re still just a Mick or a Paddy, whether you love their Queen or not. Disagree Harry/mickey?
Posted by robin | 01.04.09, 10:27 GMT
Catholics are barred *BY STATUTE* from sitting on the British throne. If Mr Waugh does not or can not see this as a willful, and possibly illegal, act of direct discrimination against them and their religion, he shouldn't be permitted to peddle his 16th century drivel in the pages of your paper.
But his comments beg one very large question. Why did Tony Blair wait until after his premiership to become a Catholic? It is interesting to note Blair also paid lip-service to the repeal of the legislation and did nothing while in power. Did he perhaps suspect there exists a larger and more fundamental conspiracy against Catholics in the UK?
Finally, has Waugh ever considered where the anti-Catholic rhetoric and bile of present and former Unionist/Loyalist politicians and followers stem from? This legislation should be removed forthwith. It has no place in a modern multi-cultural state.
Posted by GerryMac19B | 01.04.09, 10:20 GMT
The head of the Vatican statelet cannot be anyone other than a Roman Catholic and certainly not one of those cursed Protestants who refuse to bow to the dictates of the RC Church. He (and it must be a "he") can't even marry even if he wanted to. Yet he is presented to us as if he personified virtue itself. Why don't the witch hunters get a cheap flight to Rome airport and hire a taxi and take their battle there?
The matter is a relative non issue. Brown has only raised it as a smokescreen to divert attention away from his disasterous term in Downing Street.
Posted by william | 01.04.09, 09:17 GMT
This is offensive. It is simply another manifestation of a very old prejudice that believes that you can never be totally sure just what Catholics are up to, except that it's probably shady business. For that reason, Waugh is in favour of leaving ancient safeguards in place because... well, you never know.
He says the monarchy has an "intangible quality" and that "perception is everything". Best not to stain, blemish, or tarnish it, eh?
And who's "divided loyalty" is he talking about? A Catholic monarch? If so, he needs to get out more and meet some Catholics (maybe even a Catholic monarch or two) to find out that Catholics don't roll out of bed and run down to the e-mail or the post to see if their daily marching orders from the Vatican have arrived.
Actually, the question of "divided loyalty" might be asked of the sort of Ulster Protestant who's loyalty is not to this or that British government but to the monarch, and then only a Protestant monarch.
Posted by Ionatan | 01.04.09, 09:09 GMT
I agree with Mr Waugh; Great Britain won the Reformation. Roman Catholicism Lost. The Monarch is a Protestant - First, last and always!!! As for the Twenty Six counties; I wasn't aware that any significant number of Protestants remained - I believe The One True Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, with its established position within the Republic, got rid of them all..."A Catholic Nation for a Catholic people" etc etc etc etc - Isn't that why we don't want a United Ireland - the malignant bigotry of our Southern Roman Catholic brethern is really quite overwhelming!!!!!
Hurragh for the Act of Settlement.
Posted by Harry Hopkins | 01.04.09, 00:43 GMT
29 Comments