Tuesday, January 8, 2013

don’t think about kangaroos






Prince Charles is worried. Legislation is about to go before the UK parliament which will do two things:
  1. Change the laws of succession so the throne [and other titles] will pass to the first born child regardless of gender, and
  2. Allow the monarch to marry a Roman Catholic

I can’t find anything to explain what his problem is with abolishing primogeniture. I certainly can’t imagine what his problem might be. If it’s okay for his mum to be a monarch, why not a granddaughter?

Historically speaking, inheritance rules have always been about property, and Charles’ objections just seem to be more of the same.

If Wikipedia is right, this is Charles’ title
His Royal Highness The Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Extra Knight of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Member of the Order of Merit, Knight of the Order of Australia, Companion of the Queen's Service Order, Member of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, Aide-de-Camp to Her Majesty*

We know the Duchy of Cornwall makes him filthy rich, and heaven knows what else he owns in amongst all that lot above. His brothers and sons also have decent titles that presumably come with property

Princess Anne’s title is Princess Royal. The only special treatment she gets, as far as I can see, is protection under a statute of 1351: This means if any bloke slept with her before she was married he committed an act of treason punishable by death.

No wonder she behaved like a grumpy bum anarchist as a teenager.

[*Honestly. It’s no surprise a country with a Privy Council would be ruled by someone who sits on a Throne.]
-----------------


Charles’ objection to the Roman Catholic thingy almost makes sense – if you look at it from his point of view. The monarch of England is supposed to be the “defender of the faith”.
I suspect Lizzie believes in God and takes her role as defender seriously. But she has about as much power over the Anglican Church as she does over the parliament. Less, even.

God forbid one of Charles’ grandkids marries a papist and this leads to Charles’ great-grandkids being raised as papists. There would be something of a conflict of interest between being Catholic and being Defender of the Anglican Faith.

It makes sense that women can be Vicars of villages like Dibley but can’t be Bishops. After all, the area controlled by a Bishop is a Bishopric. The female version of Bishopric would not sound very holy at all.

The Anglican Church is going to lift its ban on gay men being bishops, so long as they remain celibate.
Traditionally, celibacy was about not being married. It came to be assumed that unmarried clergy would, because they are not married, abstain from and not even think about sex. Personally, I think telling people not to think about sex would be as effective as saying don’t think about kangaroos.

What Charles is really worried about seems to be, in summary, that the King/Queen is supposed to defend a faith that thinks women should stay below a glass ceiling, and that gay men should not think about sex. A Roman Catholic King or Queen could not be so liberal. Gosh, Roman Catholics are not even supposed to be root rats, cheat on their spouse or get divorced. I'm sure they could not go round wishing they were tampons.


4 comments:

  1. Great commentary and frankly it should go to the first born whether there is a boy or not. Heck most of the queens have ruled much better than the vast majority of kings over history! Just sayin....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MT, I'm sure millions of Republicans throughout the Commonwealth would agree with you about the performance of Queens, and at least volunteer that they have a great deal of respect for Queen Elizabeth. Not many seem smitten with Charles.

      Delete
  2. Bit of a tangent, but only recently did I learn of how much marriage and divorce was based on property and inheritance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marriage is all about the "bottom line"?

      Delete