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?