What changes, with the succession rules changes?

28 Oct

In the comments section of his previous post, Svar (awakeiron) linked a CNN story about the two changes that the British government has just made, in law, to the laws of succession; namely, that now, a first-born girl will take precedence, in line for the British throne, ahead of any brothers that may be born after her (until now, she would get passed over and her next brother would take precedence over her); also, that a monarch will now be permitted to marry a Roman Catholic (previously, under the Act of Settlement, they were forbidden to do so).

But what will change, practically speaking, with the new rules?

True, in the personal lives of any children born to Prince William and Princess Kate, and their descendents, it may forever be different than it might otherwise have been.  But practically, what effect will this have?  Absolutely nil.  The United Kingdom is of course a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute monarchy as it was in the past (e.g. in the days of King Henry VIII).  As such, the personality of the person on the throne has little bearing on how Britain will be governed, unlike in the days when monarchs had considerable power, making laws, having enemies executed, etc.  So really, little will change fundamentally with this largely symbolic gesture.  Why, then, was it so critical to do it?

And as for the other change, the monarch will still be the titular head of the Church of England, i.e. the Anglican Church.  As such, I presume that any Roman Catholic he or she might choose to marry, will end up having to convert to the Church of England – just as they would have had to, anyway, under the old rules; after all, nothing could have stopped someone Roman Catholic from converting to Anglicanism, in order to marry a monarch; thus, what has changed?  Absolutely nothing, far as I can tell.

So, as far as I can see, this is a largely empty gesture, made for purely symbolic reasons.  Yet, of course, the government of the U.K., and their mainstream media lapdogs, are acting like this was a hugely important decision – even though little of consequence has changed…  Which raises the question: why was this highly important to do?  Especially for a supposedly ‘conservative’ administration, as David Cameron would claim his Conservative-Liberal-Democrat coalition nevertheless is.  Did the Lib Dems put him up to this?

Or did he simply want to go down in the history books, as having made this ‘historic’ change?

All I know, is that David Cameron is no conservative, by any stretch of the word, due to his feeling the need to bow and kowtow to political correctness, in this matter.


Posted by on October 28, 2011 in government


13 responses to “What changes, with the succession rules changes?

  1. Matthew (eumaios)

    October 28, 2011 at 10:55 pm

    “why was this highly important to do?”

    Anti-nomianism: hatred of order. Or perhaps to draw the kingdom one step further away from a righteous Stuart Restoration.

  2. Will S.

    October 28, 2011 at 11:22 pm

    Agreed. I can understand, of course, why the coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, would not want continuity with the past; liberals, esp. in their progressive, modern guise, never do. However, the fact the Tories went along with it, betrays their lack of true conservatism, just leaving well enough alone, esp. since nothing really changes with this symbolic gesture.

    We had an analogous situation a generation ago in Canadian politics, which I remember as clearly as if it happened yesterday. Certain constitutional amendments were proposed, which were sold to English Canada as “aw, it’s nothing; just symbolic; but it’ll keep / make the Quebeckers happy”, whereas to Quebec, it was sold as “these are critical changes which Quebec needs; if English Canada rejects them, it will be a personal rejection of Quebec, a slap in the face!”. I, and millions of others, smelled a fish in the two-facedness of the arguments… The Quebec separatists opposed the changes, saying they didn’t go far enough – but when English Canada rejected them in a referendum, claimed that was a slap in the face, that they couldn’t even give this much … I lost all respect, if I ever had any, for scheming, conniving politicians of all stripes, that day…

  3. Matthew (eumaios)

    October 28, 2011 at 11:48 pm

    If you read Vox Popoli, you know the phrase “bi-factional ruling party”. Moldbug habitually refers to the Inner Party and the Outer Party. Meet the new boss …

  4. Will S.

    October 28, 2011 at 11:55 pm

    Yes, indeed; in the Brits’ case, tripartite, because of the Lib Dems being able to hold the balance of power, against Labour and the Tories…

    I should read more Mencius Moldbug. He always has an interesting take on things. The boys over at Udolpho always cite him, as does Ilkka

  5. Matthew (eumaios)

    October 29, 2011 at 12:12 am

    Some beautiful man has collated and organized the Moldbug corpi:

    I recommend starting with the Open Letter to Progressives. For us, some of it is preaching to the choir. And yet I was still startled and disturbed to realize how progressive I was.

    • Will S.

      October 29, 2011 at 12:18 am

      Looks interesting, Eumaios. Thanks! Will take a look.

  6. Svar

    October 29, 2011 at 1:37 am

    Looks like Dr. Thomas Fleming has an opinion on this matter:

    Do you guys know that Langobard has actually met and talked Thomas Fleming, Pat Buchanan, Scott Richert, and if memory serves me, Clyde Wilson? I’d like to meet those men one day.

  7. Will S.

    October 29, 2011 at 2:38 am

    Interesting, Svar! Twould indeed be wonderful to meet the original paleoconservatives…

  8. ray

    October 29, 2011 at 4:38 am

    The United Kingdom is of course a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute monarchy as it was in the past (e.g. in the days of King Henry VIII).

    most of practical brit power and money, at least since the East India Co days, is networked thru fraternal groups, and the crown is still at the center of these — not to mention extremely wealthy in its own right

    they ran the “female succession” flag up a couple times in the past few years, gauging public reaction, so this move was inevitable

    cameron, like tony b. liar, is, as you note, in no sense conservative — he’s a n.w.o. flunky, and enacts the western (a)progressive agenda, no matter what turds pass his lips

    the n.w.o. is gynocentric and gynocratic — new woman order — so the succession move is an obvious gambit, preparing for the Fantastic Female New Age upon which these chumps have placed all their chips

  9. Chris

    October 29, 2011 at 5:46 am


    The issue required more that the UK approval. Any change in the Act of Settlement requires that there is consultation with the dominions (of which there are now but three) where the Queen is monarch.

    This means that NZ, Australia and Canada have to agree. There was a meeting of everyone in Perth this week, hence the announcement.


    The glorious revolution (which lead to William of Orange & the Act of Settlement) was the the death knell of absolute rule. The King, from that time on, had less power than the Lord Protector did (or the US President, who was modelled on the older system). Are you arguing for the divine right of Kings or are you a Anglo-Catholic praying to St Charles the first, saint and martyr?

  10. Will S.

    October 29, 2011 at 8:25 am

    Yes Chris, I knew about them conferring with the Canadian and other Commonwealth settler colonies’ governments.

  11. Matthew (eumaios)

    October 29, 2011 at 2:28 pm

    Chris, one need not believe in the divine right of kings to abhor regicide.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s