The Royal Succession

By Arthur St Hugh

Prime minister unveils changes to Royal succession

David Cameron and the Conservatives are to end male primogeniture and the Protestant succession to the monarchy. This is in line with their adherence to egalitarianism, but it is not, of course, conservatism. Presumably the Conservatives do not feel the need at present to abolish the monarchy in line with their republican principles because their betrayal of the monarchy to the E.U. has in substance accomplished that.

Cameron notes that “attitudes have changed fundamentally over the centuries” – a true conservative would have added for the worse – and claims that “out-dated rules” on succession do not make sense to the Conservatives (it would be arrogance and ignorance for Cameron to include everyone in his use of the word “us”). Rules cease to make sense either when they are no longer upheld, when there has been some sort of revolutionary change, or following an occupation. All three apply to the U.K., largely, but not solely, due to the actions of the Conservative party. That the Conservatives choose not to uphold or to restore the rules is a damning revelation of their true nature. In removing one set of rules one merely replaces them with another set of rules: why should we obey alien rules imposed upon us instead of our own native rules?

Cameron claims that the idea of a son taking precedence over a daughter or that a Royal heir cannot marry a Roman Catholic is a “way of thinking” which is “at odds with the modern countries that we have become.” Cameron does not have to state that he believes what our countries have become is a good thing because clearly he like all those who hold to the left-wing “way of thinking” believe that the colonisation of our countries, and the denudation of our culture and religion is a positive step forward towards nihilism.

Somewhat bizarrely Cameron holds that the monarch whatever their religion must still be in communion with the Church of England– if only James VII and II had had David Cameron as prime minister! Presumably then the monarch will remain a Christian? This would seem to be at odds with the Conservatives’ ‘multi-faith’ beliefs and contrary to the way modern countries have become under egalitarian and multi-cultural misrule. If Cameron is attacking the succession because he considers Protestantism offensive then presumably the next attack will be on the monarchy as Christian because atheists, muslims and pagans find that offensive? Indeed, Alex Salmond, would-be puppet dictator of an ‘independent’ Euro-region, has already raised the flag for polytheism, stating that this was “a missed opportunity not to ensure equality of all faiths when it comes to the issue of who can be head of state”. The ultimate result of the Conservative’s ‘reforms’ then, is that we will no longer even have a rex sacrorum upholding the rites of the established state, but instead an archon basileus, a citizen imitating the kingship and pandering to the practices of a transient populace.

Every Act of Parliament can be abolished and a sovereign government can set aside laws at will. It is questionable though whether this represents the national will or is merely obeisance to another sovereign power. We must recognise that it does not mean that the Papacy has now become the sovereign of the U.K., though readers may ask why Cameron has not also called for women and non-Roman Catholics to become Pope. The new sovereign is atheist, and its subjects are supposedly free to hold to any and every religion so long as their religious beliefs do not offend the egalitarian creed of the atheist state. The Oaths Act 1888 broke the adherence to God for politicians and introduced secularism into Parliament. It will seem incredible to present readers but the Conservative party of the day opposed that Act; today’s Conservative party not only uphold it but transgress even further. If you do not believe in God then arguments about whether the monarch should be Protestant or Roman Catholic will no doubt seem irrelevant.

There are some who bemoan the destruction of the Queen’s Oath to maintain the Protestant religion but the Queen has no say in the matter. Under democracy the prime minister enforces the rules that have been determined elsewhere. But when was the last time a Member of Parliament or a Judge upheld their Oath of Allegiance? Politicians openly commit all manners of treasons against her Majesty, and dishonour the Crown and Royal Dignity. The Oath has become meaningless even on a soldier’s lip. Republicans consider the Oath offensive even though it is in practice not upheld. We are all now citizens of the republic, the E.U. , including our monarch, whether we like it or not.

Equality is not only contrary to our monarchal constitution, but it also means a loss of uniqueness. What makes Britain unique, our people, our “out-dated rules” and customs, our religious practices, are all being erased. Because there is no actual being that is a ‘European’ the republicans think they can create one by ruthlessly stripping every aspect of culture and individuality from everyone and their nation. But, this will not lead to the 'new ~~man~~ person', it will lead to nothing. Should the Royal succession not be determined by the Royal family? Parliament in the Glorious Revolution sought to abrogate that right to ensure a Protestant succession to reflect the Protestant nation. Now a subordinate parliament seeks to change that succession to reflect the non-Protestant nature of the multi-cultural republic which has been imposed upon our nation. No one will ever style this revolution glorious.