Downing Street has drawn up plans to end the 300-year-old exclusion of Catholics from the throne. The requirement that the succession automatically pass to a male would also be reformed, making it possible for a first born daughter of Prince William to become his heir.
The proposals also include limiting the powers of the privy council, in particular its role as arbiter in disputes between Scotland or Wales and the UK government.
The plans were drafted by Chris Bryant, the MP who was charged by Gordon Brown with reviewing the constitution. They are with the prime minister's new adviser on the constitution, Wilf Stevenson.
Just one small problem...
Sources said No 10 would like the legislation to be passed quickly in a fourth term and Bryant briefed constitutional pressure groups on the plans at a private seminar in Manchester this week.
I think perhaps No 10 is perhaps taking a little too much for granted there...
8 comments:
They must be getting hard stuck for bills to introduce...
Moreover, the role of the Privy Council in devolution disputes is, I thought, to end following the creation of the UK Supreme Court.
Ah well, at least it will keep Guardian readers happy.
I hope you are being ironic in your "about time" comment, O'Neill.
In no way will the constitutional and religious pandora's box that would be opened by this be good for the United Kingdom.
No problem with the gender issue whatsoever. Let the first-born of whichever sex inherit. BTW, Lord Archer tried (and failed) to introduce just such a bill a few years back.
But the rest? Lunacy.
How do you think Roman Catholics would react to being told that they couldn't insist that the next Pope was a Roman Catholic?
How would Buddhists react to being told that the next Dalai Lama needn't be a Buddhist?
What would Moslems think of being told that they weren't allowed to insist that the head of the biggest Mosque in Mecca was a Moslem?
So how do you think Anglicans are going to react to being told that the head of the Anglican Church needn't actually be an Anglican?
What is so offensive?
Let me guess.
It's in the title isn't it?
The Church of England.
Now I wonder which word in particular they find so objectionable...
I hope you are being ironic in your "about time" comment, O'Neill.
Not at all. It's a sectarian anachronmism, royalty can marry a Hindu, Jew, Muslim or even a Mormon and keep right to succession, but not a RC? What possible justification (bearing in mind I also believe in the Destablishment of the Aglocan Church) can there be for that in 2008?
In no way will the constitutional and religious pandora's box that would be opened by this be good for the United Kingdom.
Again, I disagree. You're showing a lack of confidence there in the underlying strength of our state, the monarchy and indeed, the Commonwealth. If the Act of Settlement is repealed and the rules governing succession dragged into the 21st Century, I'm convinced that the UK will constitutionally be a stronger unit after.
wildgoose,
Do you believe in the secular state? If you do, then the destablishment of the COE, which is also mentioned at the bottom of the article, shouldn't really bother you. If you don't then you have a point, but I think your views would be a minority one within both the UK and England.
Yes I believe in a secular state, and I have always been in favour of the disestablishment of the Church of England. And for the record, I was baptised and married in the Church of England, although I am now lapsed and consider myself a humanist.
This however is completely irrelevant.
The English Monarch is the hereditary head of the Church of England in much the same way as the Aga Khan is the hereditary Imam of the Nizari Muslims.
It would not be acceptable to the Nizari Muslims to tell them that they had to accept a Hindu as their hereditary Imam.
It should not be acceptable to tell Anglicans that they have to accept a NON-Anglican as the head of their Church.
There is no difference in these two positions and I really struggle to understand why you are so opposed to Freedom of Religion for Anglicans in the Church Of England.
The only thing I can say for this ludicrous and highly offensive proposal is that it is yet another piece of wanton constitutional vandalism and is chock-full of obvious "unintended consequences".
In a way I hope he does make a big push for this.
Because the fallout will be enormous.
How do you think Roman Catholics would react to being told that they couldn't insist that the next Pope was a Roman Catholic?
Your mixing up head of state with head of church. I do not believe it would be possible, were the ban on RCs to be abolished, for the head of state in the UK, to also remain head of the Church of England. When calling for the ban to be removed, people are not looking at it from the perspective of wanting to tell you or anyone else, what the faith the head of your church must have. They are merely asking that the position of head of state should not have a ban on it for any faiths
They are merely asking that the position of head of state should not have a ban on it for any faiths.
No, they are tearing up yet more of the English Constitution. The Act of Settlement was intended to settle this issue once and for all, but there appears to be no end to the damage they intend inflicting.
Fine.
Let's re-introduce the Stuart claim to the throne. I am sure Alec Salmond would love that. Just think of the photo-opportunities!
Meanwhile, it appears that the CEP has them rattled! :-)
Brown and Straw express concern over the Campaign for an English Parliament.
Post a Comment