Nice little diversionary tactic from the BBC this morning. At a time of economic turmoil (for those outside the State sector) what could be MORE important than for the Dear Leader to be discussing Royal succession reform with the Palace? The BBC have even produced another of their notorious polls to show the public to be wildly supportive of the ending of the concept of a Protestant monarchy. All wrapped up in the colourful decor of equality, this is red meat for those (such as the BBC) who loath our enduringly successful Monarchy and who seek to reduce it to the same sort of mess so much else of our once great Nation has become under siLabour “reform.” I can’t believe that this is the big issue on anyone but the most rabid republican’s tongue so why is the BBC out commissioning a poll on it?
PS Since writing this the BBC have invited me on the Nolan Show to discuss. I will repeat the views stated above – plus any thoughts you may have.
why not ask them how popular head of state in Republican governments are compared to our Queen?
It might just be a case of if it’s not broke don’t fix it.
Give the wankers hell!
To discuss whether the heir to the throne should be allowed to marry Catholics, or to discuss whether this is a cynical diversionary tactic from the Beeb?
You haven’t really opined on the former?
Cockney,
Of course Royals should be allowed to marry ANY person of any or no faith group that they want. It’s just that of they choose to do that they exclude themselves from the Throne, and rightly so.
I agree for what its worth, although possibly I’m allowing myself to be diverted.
An interesting question is whether the exclusion from the line of succession should be extended to Royals who marry anyone not a member of the CofE, rather than just Catholics. This wasn’t discussed at all on the breakfast Beeb this morning.
(Also posted on “Desperate Times..” – apologies for the doubling up !)
That’s part of the whole point – Prince William CAN marry a Muslim, a pagan, an atheist or a Jedi Knight !
The Act of Settlement was written up to prevent any Stuart from reclaiming the throne, and since the Stuarts were seen to have Catholic sympathies, the wording was wrapped up in the popular ‘Romanophobic’ language of the day.
The Act of Settlement should be rewritten either to
a) lift the ban on marrying Catholics
b) extend the ban to marrying Muslims, as they are now the main ‘enemy’ religion
c) extend the ban to ALL non-Anglicans
After all, a few years ago, didn’t one of the Dutch royals marry a Catholic despite an “unofficial bar”, and the Dutch did not feel too worried about it, and their Royals survived.
But there again the Dutch are probably more worried about Islam than Catholicism…
To clarify the last comment :
Prince William CAN marry a Muslim, a pagan, an atheist or a Jedi Knight, without forfeiting his right of succession to the throne.
it might be more interesting public debate if we were to ask if it would be acceptable for the royal family to become fundamental muslims or bhuddists by marrying into those religions.
Would we really want heads of state who have vastly conflicting religions and beliefs from their subjects?
It seems far fetched but was implemented by the Tudors for this reason in the first place.
Since most of the CofE clergy who are worth their salt have already returned to the One, True, Church of Rome (many hundreds of them since the early 90s) leaving behind just the beardie crowd, I think it is high time the Royals made the same journey of faith and restored a Catholic monarchy.
England and Scotland used to be Catholic countries. This new-fangled Protestantism thing has been a mere diversion up a blind alley.
I shall pray daily for the Conversion of England …. and our separated bretheren in the BBC.
As our country slides into bankruptcy and civil strife, is this really a major concern?
I’d remind them that we got rid of the monarchy before (for overtaxing the people!!), and the period of chaos, tyranny, and unhappiness that followed led to a welcomed reinstatement.
No problem with prince and princesses being equa.
However, the monarch is head of the Church of England, whilst there is a Church the monarch is the figurehead. This is not a question of ‘equality’ but about a fundermental pillar of our nation – which of course they want to bring down. I’d confront them with their aim outright? Suggest that their simplistic poll should be taken when people have been able to fully debate and understand the implications.
And suggest they promote that debate rather than ‘populist’ (not ‘popular’) campaigns designed to detract the heat from the disaster of Gordon.
The last is probably the most important point to make.
Frankos posted:
“it might be more interesting public debate if we were to ask if it would be acceptable for the royal family to become fundamental muslims or bhuddists by marrying into those religions.”
That was the basis for the Princess Diana conspiracy theories back in 1997, although it must be said that the Al Fayeds were a bit lapsed in their Muslim faith.
Lady of the Lake – great points.
I was also wondering with Gordon travelling the planet to ensure we get global solutions to..ahem, global economic problems how about he travels to those jurisdictions that only permit a Roman Catholic Monarch (Spain, Belgium) or those that only permit a Lutheran…or, and this is a tad risky, those such as Iran that only allow an Islamist as head of State???
The whole point of this no news headline seemed to be to get the words “Gordon Brown” and “Buckingham Palace” into the same sentence as often as possible on the news bulletins. Presumably Brown had a mobile phone conversation with Her Majesty from South America? I wondered if it was those pictures of Mervyn King with the Queen that had triggered Broon’s psychotic envy – King meeting the Queen no doubt set him off.
Is this reporting or a training manual?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7961868.stm
Ben
does seem a bit pally in nature –workshy protesters supported by workshy BBC staff–what a love in
David you could have a dig at the EU at the same time
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/5056754/Britain-sees-40-per-cent-rise-in-cash-lost-to-Brussels-National-Audit-Office-says.html
A male heir to the throne can marry a Muslim only if he converts to Islam. In which case he could not be king, since he could not be head of the Church of England. (It’s all in the Koran.)
Radio 5 reproted that the Post Master sacked for not serving people who don’t speak English has lost another job.
Interesting though that the BBC ‘claimed’ that he lost his first job because ‘local people compalined’
No BBC. Rabid thick stupid bushy beareded Muslims complained as they always do.
Lady of the Lake: David Starkey was on the Radio 5 phone in this morning makeing your very point. with the Country almost bankrupt the Government dreams up this and of course the state broadcaster runs it as the MAIN STORY of the day.
Why? As Starkey said, this will have no effect for at least 60 or 70 years anyway.
Yet again the BBC spins a story to help the Government out.
Please ask about the juxtaposition of the BBC poll and the news that Gordon is “talking” to the Palace. What a lucky coincidence that the BBC had commissioned a poll on the subject just in time to coincide with the Downing Street announcement. That was very prescient by the BBC. Did somebody tip them off about a good diversionary wheeze being developed at No. 10 for when Gordon was struggling in the news?
It would also be intersting to know how much the BBC spends annually on these polls which somehow seem to make the news and always seem to confirm the BBC take on matters. Perhaps its how they frame the questions to get the “right” answer(s)!
Whenever Blair was in trouble he trotted out the anti-hunting bill.
It was pure smokescreen and the media fell for it every time.
As someone who does not believe in primogeniture, I feel that this is not the most important issue for our government at this time.
Maybe 30 years ago, before Charles married and produced a couple of male heirs, this might have been important, but at the moment there are 3 male heirs to the throne before we even get to Anne. It highly unlikely to matter for years.
But it gives a headline to the BBC!
I got the chance to question the poll! And I emphasises it was a diversionary tactic by the Dear Leader.
Before starting on defacing the Monarchy, wouldn’t it be a good idea for Labour to complete its “reform” of the House of Lords? What validity would any constitutional change have were it to be passed by a Parliament which was itself still unreformed – as it currently is?
Oscar 10:16
Good point. Is it a coincidence that this came up so soon after Mervyn King met the Queen ?
Maybe, David could make this point to link the two and suggest , it is all a diversionary tactic from the unique , fundamental , public disagreement between King and Brown.
The not so hidden agenda is obviously the destruction of the monarchy which would suit the vile Evan Harris very much.
In light of yet another example of how the bBC hates looking in the mirror in case it sees racism, sexism and homophobia looking back. I wonder how the bBC feels about how 2 million British citizens (sorry make that 2million and 1) I forgot to mention his saviour Binyam another British citizen .
I wonder why the bBC centres its scope on the Royals (1 family) when the latter have the right to discriminate ,oppress and terrorise enshrined under the equal ops law. (I presume they have a cop out)
Now I don’t wish for this to descend into a BNP recruiting post, but the question has to be asked is why is the bBC having polls on the Royal family when a Poll on Islam in the Uk from non Muslims would reveal a lot more. But then the bBC refused to air the results of the Balen report.
Interesting that the beeboids can lead the news with a completely fabricated and irrelevant story about a minor issue by any standards, but seems unable to report on a major critique of the most important financial issue of the day, despite said critique having drawn unprecedented worldwide coverage on the intenernet !
Tomorrows’ lead :
Gordon Brown Meets Sir David Attenborough To Discuss Re-introduction of Great Bustard on Salisbury Plain.
Charles is more of a worry than anything: he seems to have made that sort of journey without even marrying one!
Put him together with our political parties who would rather take an axe to the Monarchy and the present constitution than it would to the corrupt Biased Corporation or the telly tax and you have reason to fear where we might end up.
It isn’t that I want to have this exclusion of Catholics but we have what we have as the result of history (as with N Ireland) and it certainly isn’t where I would have started but it is not the only consideration.
It’s difficult to contemplate dismantling the constitution that we have and basically I am holding on to Nurse for fear of something worse.
Oh, and Anne would make a better Monarch than his nibs, had she been the eldest and eligible.
Just ask where this comes in the Top 100 concerns of the British public…
Surely the more important issue is the succession of a Prime Minister without an election?
This story is clearly far more important than the news that the recession is deeper than first feared. GDP is down 1.6 per cent, more than the ONS predicted. Sky News has this news on the front page – guess who is more concerned about Salic law?
It’s completely ridiculous these succession proposals especially the Catholic one. It’s a simple fact that the British Head of State is also the head of the Church of England. How on Earth can it be acceptable for a Catholic to be the head of the CoE? The only honest debate they can have is for the disestablishment of the CoE.
The BBC are doing excellent pass blocking for the Labour party this morning. Not to mention that it is another re-announcement. Scum.
The BBC Axis of Evil (al Jazeera & FrontLine inc.) are surely wetting themselves at the prospect of the one-eyed stiff one giving the Royal Family some grief.
It is likely that the sixth form socialists who run the nationalised channel might prefer a presidential system like the one that threw up Chirac, Mitterand and Clinton…Am pretty sure that their vote would go to the hanging professor of anthropology from the Punyversity of East London(Excuse me, the University of where?).
Will Colin Duffy have a place in the Northern Ireland government when he is released? Seems a cert to me
frankos,
Now then, Colin is only an alleged murderer. I am sure his hands are as clean as those of Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams, if you catch my drift….
This thread started off as the al-beeb and the government using it as a smoke screen for avoiding embarrasing issues, primarily the economy. Can I add another embarrasing issue which the beeb, the MSM and the politicos (including the so-called opposition) are avoiding – the horrendous escalating costs of something hardly anyone wants, the Olympics. I understand that this is now rising by the day and firms who wanted to get involved as they could see a nice little profit in it, mainly through using our money, are now so hard up that they want us, the taxpayers, to stump up even more of the readies so they can fill their boots. When will the beeb throw light on this disgraceful episode?
A more interesting juxtaposition is this story and today’s bad economic news. Also why the high profile announcement of the BM torture claims inquiry in the run up to G20?
Gordon and Lord Mandy are playing us like a fiddle and the BBC is a more than willing amplifier.
Also, is the BBC putting all this in context, and mentioning the states where only Roman Catholics can be head of state, or the Vatican, an independent state with its own UN seat, where only Roman Catholics are allowed to vote.
Nothing is going to change for the next couple of decades and it’s a very transparent diversion in which the BBC provided its helful hand to its new labour friends.
David: to most readers of this blog the far more important “constitutional” aspect of this story is (as Gerald Brown states above) the obvious cooperation — some would say collusion — that has gone on between the government and the BBC in the presentation of this proposal.
The BBC was obviously tipped off some time ago that Brown would be raising this, their opinion poll which they have published today would have taken weeks to plan. And how convenient that the poll supports the government. The timing is very strange. Why should this story suddenly emerged when Brown is in Brazil?
If you are on the radio this evening then please try to get the BBC to give you the date when they were tipped off and what sort of communication went on between Downing Street and the BBC, and what is BBC policy regarding such matters. Is it really their job to produce polls supporting government proposals?
david make sure you bring this up, ask whether a protestant woman can become the pope, and say how hypocritical the catholics are. also link the fact that the queen has a brain and she would support the popes views on condoms in africa.
David Vance,
Following on bodo’s interesting point about the BBC preparing this poll, ask Nolan if the Beeboids were surprised that 76% of the public still want the monarchy to continue. Were they expecting a lower number? If so, why?
David: you might want to mention the BBC guidelines when it comes to opinion polls. I’m sure listeners would find it interesting. No opinion poll can be mentioned on the BBC without first referring up to the head of political programming, a certain Sue Inglish. She just happens to be married to a senior Labour Party official.
Brown calls the BBC to order a diversion and the BBC obliges, the disasterous tour of Brown hit a new low when he stood with a racist fruitcake and was made to look like a complete tool.
Its quite possible that the non story about the royal family is a diversion, its got Browns fingerprints all over it, it even looks like a typical Brown covert threat.
With regard to catholics becoming head of state, any roman catholic attaining the throne would owe first loyalty and fealty to Rome and the pope, papal authority over the UK would become enshrined in law, are we comfortable with the pope calling the shots and becoming our supreme ruler?
The head of state is also the defender of the faith, the protestant faith, the church of England, Scotland etc, the agenda to sabotage the mornarchy has been going on for some time now.
The difference between a catholic and a protestant monarch is simple, the protestant is Gods premier servant on earth, the catholic is the popes servant on earth who in turn is Gods premier servant on earth, I dont know about you but I wouldnt be happy with a monarch that owes full and total allegience to a foreign divine ruler, it didnt work out too well last time did it? Maybe thats the whole point, sabotage our final independent institution?
Its also not beyond the realms of possibility that the eurotrash elite have been quietly demanding that catholisism is elevated above all regional religions to become a defacto EU state religion.
Royal reform is an important topic, and one I welcome the PM for bringing up. However, now is not the time, and you are correct to assume that it is a classic New Labour diversionary tactic.
Today’s younger generation have very little knowledge of the history of the monarchy, (due to hopeless education on the topic in schools) and therefore I doubt that many under the age of 30 understand the historical background to the Protestant power of the throne. Any poll the BBC asks probably fails to take this into account, and therefore when you ask someone about a topic with which they know very little, the results are thoroughly pointless.
I’m a practising Catholic for whom my faith is the centre of my life. I’m also a proud Monarchist. And I couldn’t care less about the Act of Succession.
I just wish the Church of England would return to orthodox Christianity and start offering some genuine moral leadership in our spiritually barren and morally imploded times.
The idea that Abortion King “Dr” Evan Harris, Doctor Death himself, the most satanic MP of recent times would somehow care about this suggests a malign motive or intent.
Our poor Queen must be weeping inside to see what this nation has become in the fifty years she has been faithful Monarch. As Catholics, we don’t give a damn about succession. What we do care about is this government’s anti-morality, anti-family, anti-child, pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, anti-Christian, multiculturalist, Islamist, and socially and culturally destructive agenda which is driving millions of good people to foreign countries.
Very interesting, to steal someone else’s gag, this is patently of no importance at this disastrous stage in our downfall, prop. G. Brown. Cover up seems an appropriate term.
As to a catholic Monarch, I thought the Bill of Rights forbids it on the grounds of rule by the Pope, a foreign entity. This of course also applies to a Prime Minister who takes orders from a foreign power, ie the EU. The Bill of Rights wins, we’re free, Brown has to go.
Hugh Oxford,
Apologies , I saw your comment after posting my own. I have no problem with Catholics at all and I appreciate your situation. I did not intend an attack on your religion.
Derek
Some of the comments on here today merely serve to show the BBC, by comparison, as a voice of relative reason and moderation.
David: you might want to mention the BBC guidelines when it comes to opinion polls. I’m sure listeners would find it interesting. No opinion poll can be mentioned on the BBC without first referring up to the head of political programming, a certain Sue Inglish. She just happens to be married to a senior Labour Party official.
Indeed and her husband is a very good pal of that sleazeball Alistair Campbell
David Vance:
Of course Royals should be allowed to marry ANY person of any or no faith group that they want. It’s just that of they choose to do that they exclude themselves from the Throne, and rightly so.
Surely David, Daft old Chas eschewing Diana and marrying a woman who looks like the back end of a horse disqualifies him on grounds of poor taste if nothing else?
As Monty Python & the Holy Grail say’s ‘what system of Government is predicated on some watery bint handing out swords’. King? I didn’t vote for him!
If I have to nominate a Monarch I vote for Jordan and Peter. Sure they are also shallow and pointless but at least she’s got great jubs.