The Governments’ Succession to the Crown Bill will be debated on the ‘fast-track’ in the House of Commons tomorrow 22nd January (2013).
In a move seen as ‘railroading’ the Bill through the House, the Bill will have its 2nd Reading and Committee Stage on the same day.
Normally these stages would be some weeks apart, but the pregnancy of the Duchess of Cambridge has thrown the Government into a panic.
The Prince of Wales and a key House of Lords Committee have expressed misgivings over the Bill and highlighted the possibility of ‘unintended consequences’.
The Bill as published seems poorly drafted. Clause 1 reads:
‘In determining the succession to the Crown, the gender of a person born after 28 October 2011 does not give that person, or that person’s descendants, precedence over any other person (whenever born).’
That might seem as if anyone can succeed to the throne, which would be rather good news to those of us born outside the royal family.
The only legislation needing consequential amendment is said to be the Treason Act 1351, which is surprising.
The Bill also abolishes the disqualification to succession to one in line to the throne who marries a Roman Catholic, and removes the need for members of the Royal Family – other than the immediate 6 in line- to seek the monarch’s permission to marry.
John Hemming MP has put down an amendment to the Bill to downgrade all wives of a future reigning king to ‘kings’ consort’. This equality measure would prevent the Duchess of Cambridge ever becoming queen.
And just as we predicted in our briefing paper Defending the Crown, an MP, Paul Flynn, is to put down an amendment to allow children from a same-sex royal ‘couple’ to succeed to the throne, even though the public would have no clue as to who was the real father (or mother, if two lesbians) and who out of all the semen or egg donors in the world was the other true parent.
At least, if John Hemming’s amendment goes through, the gay couple wouldn’t be king and king – or a pair of queens.
Baroness Jay of Paddington, Chairman of the House of Lords Constitution Committee, warned against the rush on the bill:
“The Government appear to want to legislate on royal succession as quickly as possible. This risks shortcutting proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Succession to the Crown Bill is clearly of constitutional significance and as such should not be treated as fast-track legislation.
“Recent commentators have raised possible unintended consequences of the Bill. The Committee is of the opinion that those matters are the kind of issues that Parliament must have suitable time to discuss; that will not be the case if the legislation is fast-tracked.”
Christian Voice continues to oppose the Succession to the Crown Bill and asks for prayer for Members of Parliament as they consider this unnecessary and destablising measure tomorrow.
See: Prince of Wales is Right to be Concerned about Succession Changes
Prince Charles Warns of “Unintended Consequences” to Succession Changes
MP Wants to Stop Princess Kate Becoming Queen
Christian Voice Takes Stand For Male Primogeniture
Our Booklet Defending the Crown available in booklet form for £2.75 incl P&P HERE or online HERE.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join. If you do join, you will get ‘Defending the Crown’ free – specify it in the comments box.)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
The whole idea beggers belief to me. It will change the whole context of the law from all directions. Because of the homosexual marriage idea the whole thing is ludicrous. Secondly the idea of a Roman Catholic Monarch leads one to believe that the Roman Catholic Church is Christian in the real sense of the of the word. The whole idea is Satanic in origin and none of it will be satisfacory to any born again, Jesus loving Christian.
Dave H.
I can think of a couple more denominations which some could contend are not ‘Christian in the real sense of the of the word’. The practical point is that you could have the next-in-line to the throne being brought up in a different denomination – in fact on a different side of the Reformation – to that of the established church to which he (or she, Nick Clegg) would be expected to be supreme governor. Some will say the monarch himself (herself, Mr C) would still be barred from being RC, but that would mean a constitutional crisis at that time. So we are busily sowing a minefield for a generation to come.
It is clear that the proponents of this wrecking scheme wish to legislate our Royal family out of existence. Perhaps they envy the fact that the Monarchy is more popular than they are.
Two Kings and a couple of Queens it sounds like some kind of card game. I am afraid this all part of the plot to create a new world order and democracy as no place in that, so they just ignore the wishes of the people.
I have no doubt that we shall see this taking place over the coming decades.