The Human Rights act applies to the monarchy according to Lord Chancellor

A very interesting development is that according to the Charles Leslie Falconer, Baron of Thoroton and Lord Chancellor, the Human Rights act does apply to the monarchy.

That is interesting because for those against the monarchy, it may give grounds and a forum in which to challenge the monarchy on legal grounds - i.e. the monarchy is against human rights. The Belfast Telegraph reported:

"The Human Rights Act puts the matter beyond doubt", he added and previous interpretations had been 'overcautious'... "National laws had to be interpreted in a way compatible with the human right to marry."

On a side note the Queen has decided to wash her hands of the whole marriage and not attend the wedding, maybe that is a cynical explanation but it must be pretty hard for Charles to have your mother skip your wedding.

The Queen is of course understands the historic codes, and follows them to the letter, which of course from one perspective are wrong but least she is playing by the set rules.

Charles, however, is the opposite, he is either modernising the monarchy or changing the rules as he goes along, the choice is yours

Who's castle is it anyway?

The British monarchy, has got itself into a bit of a mess over the forthcoming, arguably unconstitutional, wedding between divorcee Camilla Parker Bowles and Philip Arthur George Charles Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg (don't try to say that after a few pints), Prince of Wales, Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Baron of Renfrew, Earl of Carrick, Lord of the Isles, Great Steward of Scotland.

Slight hiccup is that because they are both adulterers, they cannot get married in the Church of England. Lots of questions arise from this. Isn't it a bit hypocritical for the Archbishop of Canterbury to give a post-wedding blessing? Also, if he can't be married in the C of E, surely he has no right to become the head of the C of E ?

Anyway, the wedding was supposed to be held in Windsor castle, but that would mean, rightly, that anyone could get married there. Why not? The tax payer paid millions of pounds doing the place up after the insides were burnt out.

They are now getting married in a normal registry office:

"Thames Valley Police, which is responsible for Windsor castle, will now have to make more elaborate security arrangements. A wedding in Windsor Castle, with about 700 guests, would cause minimal security concerns. Now, the police will have man the entire route between the castle and the Guildhall, and scan it for possible explosives. Police snipers will have to be positioned on rooftops and helicopters will provide aerial security. The cost, of course, will have to be borne by the local council taxpayers." Source.

They do not say whether the tax payers support it anyway or whether they think that council tax bills are high enough already.

Poll results about the Monarchy

I had a look at the poll results at an organisation called YouGov. They make for interesting reading. Here are some selected statistics, the links are in PDF format.

In a Poll on the 11th of February 2005 (yesterday). Only a third of respondents thought Charles should be the head of the Church of England with a majority against. 7% thought that Mrs Parker-Bowles should be queen - down from 15% in a previous poll, even though the media operation of the establishment has been in full swing.

Only 8% of respondents thought the marriage of Charles and Mrs Parker-Bowles would strengthen the Monarchy, (maybe the 7-8% were just saying yes to everything to make the researcher to go away).

Only 14% of people thought the monarchy set a good example of moral standards. According to yet another poll, only 26% of people believed there would be a monarchy in 100 years time.

Engagement of Charles and Camilla

Is it fair that Edward VIII had to abdicate to marry Wallis Simpson, while Charles can be a divorcee and marry a divorcee do the same thing without consequences? Of course, it was rumoured that Edward VIII had Nazi sympathies, so perhaps it was providential that he went before the Second World War, indeed there may have been more going on than we know.

It is not wise to get married if you have not broken off all ties with your former girlfriend. So Charles' divorce may have been only a matter of time. However now Charles is where he is (so to speak). For the couple personally of course it is better for them to get married.

There are of course many issues worth discussing. The big question of course is whether monarchy (rule of the one) in 2005 is morally wrong in an absolute sense. Going beyond that, there is also the problem that Charles's divorce should have barred him from being the next king if the 'rules' of the monarchy still apply at all. However perhaps they don't, some argue that the easiest thing would be to just call the whole thing a day when Her Majesty dies.

From the religious side of things, it could be argued that there is no King but God, and we should call no man King/Queen (see for example, Matthew 23) and to do so is idolatry. From a secular viewpoint, is it right that children grow up knowing that they have a place and have to stay in it?

Is the argument that it wouldn't be Britain without a monarchy is like saying Africa wouldn't be Africa without Malaria?

Nazis and the Royal Family

A prominent story in the media is about Prince Harry wearing a military uniform with a Nazi symbol on. Below is how it appeared on the front page of the Sun newspaper:



The poor lamb is often attacked by the media. The narrative the media wants to impose is one of good prince, bad prince. The Sun itself described them as 'heir' and 'spare'. Considering the boys' upbringing, the worrying question is whether he is just resorting to type.

The picture below is the ex-king Edward VIII and his wife Wallis visiting Hitler against the warnings of the British government in 1937. They wined and dined with Hitler and were even shown around an early concentration camp.



Edward had very close links with the Nazi regime and told an American magazine in 1941 that it "would be a tragic thing if Hitler was overthrown.”

There is more in this article in the Guardian about Edward VIII and Hitler.

Is the Monarchy against the public interest?

6th February, 1649, after the execution of Charles I, the monarchy was officially abolished by parliament. It was written in the Journal of the House of Commons:

“Resolved, &c. That it hath been found by Experience, and this House doth declare, That the Office of a King in this Nation, and to have the Power thereof in any Single Person, is unnecessary, burdensome, and dangerous to the Liberty, Safety, and publick Interest of the People of this Nation; and therefore ought to be abolished: And that an Act be brought in, to that Purpose.”

Is this still true? Does experience show that the monarchy is unnecessary and burdensome? Does it limit our liberty? And is an act of abolishion still required?

By law, MPs are not allowed to discuss the monarchy on the floor of the House of Commons, so it is up to us.

In some other countries the public figures always swear allegiance to the people or the constitution. However members of parliament and other figures in Britain must swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen. This gives many MPs a moral dilemma, they have been elected by people who live in their constituency, is not there first allegiance to them?

In the swearing in ceremony, some MPs are forced to be dishonest and cross their fingers behind their back or speak in such a way that shows their disgust. Even worse, some Northern Irish elected MPs have been not allowed to enter the parliament because of this ceremony, their constituents are effectively disenfranchised.

The founding of the modern monarchy in England

King James I believed that Kings were "accountable to none but God only", he his subjects had no right to speak about how they wanted to be governed.

James argued that "The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods ... Kings are justly called gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth: for if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king."



As an aside, I don't think that God calls anyone God, that is idolatry. Anyway, at the time, the public did not agree with James and his son Charles was executed on Tuesday January 30th, 1649!



Charles attempted to dismantle the rights of the people and of the parliament, and after a civil war was executed by Richard Brandon, an executioner more used to common criminals. In the place of that we had a 'Lord Protector', Oliver Cromwell.



When he died, Britain was at a bit of a loss of what to do now. So they sent for the dead King's son, Charles II, who was in exile. Charles II then killed all the dissenters and the monarchy was restored.



Things could have been very different, we could have become a democratic republic. Did we made a mistake? Of course, whichever way you decide, in the twenty-first century we do not need to execute people to reform the political system.

Welcome to Abolish the Monarchy

Thanks for stopping by. This website is to discuss whether we want a peaceful abolishion of the Monarchy. This website is hosted by Blogspot in California so is hopefully beyond the reach of the 'old firm'. I've never been to California but it looks nice on TV.

If you would like to either keep the royals or if you would rather call it a day on the monarchy then please get involved, if you have something to say or contribute then please do. You can use the comment system provided. If you want to submit a longer piece then email me and I can edit and post emailed submissions on your behalf.

I only really know about the British monarchy, if you want to tell us about others then that is good too.

God save the Queen - or No thankyou?

As a religious person, does it mean that I must believe monarchy to be idolatry? In the Bible it says that you can only have one master, and one king, that you can have no king but God:

'God said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in all that they tell you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me, that I should not be king over them."'(Samuel 8:7)

As someone who wants to protect the environment, I hate the fact that the Crown Estates, which pays for the whole thing, is destroying marine environments and causing erosion by the dredging for aggregate extraction. What they do is sort huge amounts the sand and gravel each day, put it onto huge ships and sell it to other countries who have decided that they don't want to damage their own coastlines. We dig up far more aggregate than we need for own needs. They are literally selling off Britain, ship load by ship load in the name of her majesty. That fact does not endear me towards the monarchy.

As someone who believes in equality, I worry that it is a bad thing that every British child is taught they cannot get to the top of society because they have not been born to the right family. I worry that the monarchy supports the class system and helps it to cling to life with all the pernicious effects it has on people.

Sometimes people (often foreigners) say that without Britain would not be Britain without the monarchy. Ignoring for a moment that 'Britain' itself is a slightly difficult term, one is primarily English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish. It would be a different Britain but still be Britain. As John Major once said:

"Fifty years on from now, Britain will still be the country of long shadows on county grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, dog lovers and old maids bicycling to Holy Communion through the morning mist."

This will still be true without the monarchy. There is a good chance that some of the cricketers will be Muslims and the old lady coming back from church will go home and eat curry for Sunday lunch. Do we really need the monarchy in modern Britain? The Island will not sink into the see if we don't have one, indeed it is more likely to sink with the Queen flogging off all the sand.

"There will always be an England and England shall be free". For this freedom we do we really need the monarchy? Or is it that freedoms in Britain have come from opposing and restricting the monarchy? Certainly our first 'constitution' was to restrict the domination of the bad King John:

"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice."

So is it our freedoms that are enshrined in our culture and history which make Britain? Rather than the monarchy?

In the beginning

I thought a fitting way to start this blog would be with a scripture from the Hebrew bible which is shared by Jews, Christians and some other religions. I'm sorry that I don't know relevant passages in other scriptures such as Islamic or Hindu scriptures. If you do then please let me know.

I am starting with this because when I think about whether we should have a monarchy or not, for some reason this passage keeps coming int my mind.

1 Samuel 8:10-18

Samuel told all the words of Yahweh to the people who asked of him a king. He said,

“This will be the manner of the king who shall reign over you: he will take your sons, and appoint them to him, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and they shall run before his chariots; and he will appoint them to him for captains of thousands, and captains of fifties; and he will set some to plow his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and the instruments of his chariots.

He will take your daughters to be perfumers, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. He will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your olive groves, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.

He will take your male servants, and your female servants, and your best young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks: and you shall be his servants. You shall cry out in that day because of your king whom you shall have chosen you; and Yahweh will not answer you in that day.”