NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/3076884/Catholic-could-become-king-under-plans-to-abolish-Act-of-Settlement.html


The plan to abolish the Act of Settlement could ultimately lead to the disestablishment of the Church of England.

The Act also prevents Muslims and other non-Protestants from succeeding to the throne.

Scrapping it would also end the practice of primogeniture where male heirs are given priority in the succession. That could pave the way for a first-born daughter of Prince William to ultimately succeed him as monarch.

It was reported last night that Chris Bryant, a Labour MP drawing up options for constitutional reform, is backing the scrapping of the Act.

Mr Bryant, an aide to Harriet Harman, the Labour deputy leader, has now passed his recommendations to Wilf Stevenson, one of the Prime Minister's advisers.

Any move to scrap the Act would only come if Labour won the next election, and even then there may be doubts about the political will to make the change.

In 2001, Tony Blair, who is now a Roman Catholic, promised to re-examine the legislation but did nothing about it.

Earlier this year, Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary signalled that ministers would look at abolishing the 307-year-old Act of Settlement because it is "antiquated" and discriminates against a section of society.

Under the 1701 Act, monarchs are forbidden to become or marry Catholics.

Traditionally governments have steered clear of the issue, because of the implications for the Church of England and the complexity of the law.

Repealing the Act would in theory mean a Catholic could become head of the Anglican Church, something some constitutional experts say would end the Church of England's role as the established church.

However, the law has come under growing attack in recent years from both church leaders and politicians.

The Act has come under growing pressure from, Alex Salmond, the Scottish First Minister, who has campaign for its abolition.

This year Peter Phillips, the Queen's eldest grandson and 11th in line to the throne, faced having to surrender his place in the succession because of the Act.

Mr Phillips, the son of the Princes Royal, became married Autumn Kelly, a Canadian management consultant who was baptised a Catholic. She renounced her Catholicism and converted to Anglicanism in order to preserve his place in the order of succession.

Interesting, but I don't think it's likely a Catholic'll end up in the Royal family anyway.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/3076884/Catholic-could-become-king-under-plans-to-abolish-Act-of-Settlement.html



Interesting, but I don't think it's likely a Catholic'll end up in the Royal family anyway.Well, on the off chance a British royal converts to Catholicism it would be wrong to bar them from the throne. The law should have been removed fifty years ago.

Interesting, but I don't think it's likely a Catholic'll end up in the Royal family anyway.

Why not? They've shagged them before. They just don't have to deny it now.

I want to see a Pastafarian monarch. *nod*

I want to see a Pastafarian monarch. *nod*Forget Pastafarian, imagine if the royalty belonged to the Church of Scientology.

I can haz monarchy too?

This is good news. One more religiously bigotted tradition bights the dust.

Och. How will they be able to lead the CoE, then? And wouldn't the Pope have at least nominal authority over them?

Bad idea. The existing system works just fine. Disestablishing the COE would only trip a constitutional crisis and risk a power imbalance, and the change would bring no real benefits.

Don't you have to be born into the family to be eligible for the throne anyways?

Boo! This is a blairite plot to have Tony instated as King!

Don't you have to be born into the family to be eligible for the throne anyways?

Not exactly. You can end up with the situation of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert - while she is titular head, HE ran everything. This is why Queen Elizabeth II has never given Prince Philip the title of "Prince Consort", as that would have devolved all actual POWER on to him, being the male (and assumed, by the ancient laws, the competent one).

Forget Pastafarian, imagine if the royalty belonged to the Church of Scientology.

At which point the US, Canada, and Australia would have no choice but to invade the UK to restore respectibility to the Anglosphere. :)

Not exactly. You can end up with the situation of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert - while she is titular head, HE ran everything. This is why Queen Elizabeth II has never given Prince Philip the title of "Prince Consort", as that would have devolved all actual POWER on to him, being the male (and assumed, by the ancient laws, the competent one).

Plus isn't he Greek Orthodox? Or did he convert?

Forget Pastafarian, imagine if the royalty belonged to the Church of Scientology.

Great. Just what we'd need. Monarchs joining in on Scientology's kool-aid party. It's only a matter of time before the Scientologists kill themselves, reuniting with Xenu or something. It could dwarf Jonestown.

Well, on the off chance a British royal converts to Catholicism it would be wrong to bar them from the throne. The law should have been removed fifty years ago.

The reason why it would bar them from the throne is because the monarch of England is Head of the Church of England. It would be like the Pope being a protestant...

However, that fact is, of itself, antiquated and personally I think the head of the Church of England should be the Archbishop of Canterbury (as it pretty much defacto is anyway) and thus have a somewhat clearer seperation of church and state. Although it has always amused me that technically, by the letter of the law, the British government is almost theocratic, whilst we are possibly one of the most atheistic (and certainly agnostic) countries going.

Frankly the law should also have been repealed a long time ago to allow the first born, irrespective of gender, to inherit. As opposed to only allowing woment to become queen when there are no male heirs of equal lineage. After all, arguably our two greatest monarchs were both Queens (Victoria and Elizabeth I obviously).

Och. How will they be able to lead the CoE, then? And wouldn't the Pope have at least nominal authority over them?

That's what I was thinking. Ignoring the fact that it's an almost entirely symbolic position, doesn't being the head of the Anglican Church mean you have to be...you know, Anglican?

EDIT: Reading the article, it says the act bans Muslims and other non-Protestants. Does that mean that under the law, a non-Anglican Protestant (such as a Baptist or Lutheran) could become the monarch?

Not exactly. You can end up with the situation of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert - while she is titular head, HE ran everything. This is why Queen Elizabeth II has never given Prince Philip the title of "Prince Consort", as that would have devolved all actual POWER on to him, being the male (and assumed, by the ancient laws, the competent one).
Philip has ALWAYS had the title of "Prince Consort", and no power has devolved to him, just like Albert had none.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/3076884/Catholic-could-become-king-under-plans-to-abolish-Act-of-Settlement.html



Interesting, but I don't think it's likely a Catholic'll end up in the Royal family anyway.

IIRC Zara Phillips or maybe her husband became Catholic.

But then we will need a separate person to be Head of the Church of England maybe the next senior member.

To answer NL questions yes it does mean that, I wonder if that was one of the reasons for doing so.

Not exactly. You can end up with the situation of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert - while she is titular head, HE ran everything. This is why Queen Elizabeth II has never given Prince Philip the title of "Prince Consort", as that would have devolved all actual POWER on to him, being the male (and assumed, by the ancient laws, the competent one).
He didn't run everything. That's why he was a prince, not a king.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/3076884/Catholic-could-become-king-under-plans-to-abolish-Act-of-Settlement.html



Interesting, but I don't think it's likely a Catholic'll end up in the Royal family anyway.

I don't really see much of a point in the monarchy anymore beyond simply holding onto it since it's been there for so long.

But that's just me being a silly American.

WHAT Catholics allowed to be Monarch!!! the US will invade, to prevent this.

Philip has ALWAYS had the title of "Prince Consort", and no power has devolved to him, just like Albert had none.

I'd really suggest you take another look. In most European states, he would indeed be "Prince Consort", but the British system is different. Philip would only be Prince Consort if Elizabeth chose to grant him the title.

And Prince Albert Saxe-Coburg had a LOT of power. If you look at any laws of Britain made in the period he was married to Victoria (also Saxe-Coburg - they were cousins) you won't find Victoria's signature - you'll find his. And had they ever disagreed on a measure, by law, he had the right to make the decisions (though that apparently didn't occur - the two of them were very much in agreement about most things, and it was a happy marriage).

The Press occasionally makes the mistake of calling Prince Phillip Prince Consort, but that is NOT one of his titles. The "Prince" title comes from his position in the Greek royal family.

Dakini
Quote:
He didn't run everything. That's why he was a prince, not a king.

Actually, he was a Duke. Prince Albert took his title of Prince from the position of Prince Consort; he could not EVER take the title of King, because he married Victoria after her ascension to the throne.

I don't really see much of a point in the monarchy anymore beyond simply holding onto it since it's been there for so long.

But that's just me being a silly American.

Apart from providing another layer of checks and balances in the system.

I don't really see much of a point in the monarchy anymore beyond simply holding onto it since it's been there for so long.

But that's just me being a silly American.

Several reasons. I don't agree with the current system ideologically, but I wouldn't deny that up until the first half of the 20th century it was a very effective one that kept the powers of government in balance. Although we have had a rash of presidential style PM's from the 70's onwards, abolition would simply be the quickest way of making the situation worse, as well as opening up a ugly can of worms concerning religion.

I don't want the role of the ten commandments and abstinence being seriously debated in parliament. Having all the theocratic side of things taken care of without public hysteria by the monarch keeps all that shit out of parliament.

And I certainly don't want the PM having veto powers or prancing round as the head of state (though Blair suffered from the delusion that he was)

Several reasons. I don't agree with the current system ideologically, but I wouldn't deny that up until the first half of the 20th century it was a very effective one that kept the powers of government in balance. Although we have had a rash of presidential style PM's from the 70's onwards, abolition would simply be the quickest way of making the situation worse, as well as opening up a ugly can of worms concerning religion.

I don't want the role of the ten commandments and abstinence being seriously debated in parliament. Having all the theocratic side of things taken care of without public hysteria by the monarch keeps all that shit out of parliament.

And I certainly don't want the PM having veto powers or prancing round as the head of state (though Blair suffered from the delusion that he was)

Well, fair enough, but I'm still going to stand by my opinion.

The monarch is Supreme Governor of the CofE: this is a purely symbolic role with no real power; what executive power there is (and there's surprisingly little) is invested in the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I don't see why there'd be any more problem with the monarch being a non-Anglican than with a non-Anglican becoming Prime Minister, since the PM actually has a larger role in the running of the Church (the PM has veto power over the appointment of bishops and makes the final decision on who to appoint to such senior positions).

Personally I say we should disestablish the Church and abolish the Monarchy, but this is a step in the right direction. Shame it'll never happen since Labour won't win a fourth term.

Personally I say we should disestablish the Church and abolish the Monarchy
Why?

The Monarchy make us money, and also give Americans on XBox Live something to insult us about, which is... eh... good or something, also they provide quite a lot of stability to the country, which is always a good thing.

And what's wrong with the CoE? It's pretty chillaxed, really. Which is nice.

I don't see why there'd be any more problem with the monarch being a non-Anglican than with a non-Anglican becoming Prime Minister, since the PM actually has a larger role in the running of the Church (the PM has veto power over the appointment of bishops and makes the final decision on who to appoint to such senior positions).

Actually, they are appointed through Royal Prerogative, and the selection is mostly made by the Crown Nominations Commission. The PM simply forwards their choice to the monarch to implement.

Personally I say we should disestablish the Church and abolish the Monarchy, but this is a step in the right direction.

Why?

Shame it'll never happen since Labour won't win a fourth term.

I don't think the Labour party would make such a move anyway, even though it is infested with republicans and die-hard "class warrior" types. It'd be electoral and constitutional suicide.

Shame it's not going to happen. It's a good idea (I see no reason why men should take precidence over women and why we should have an established church in England) but it will tread over far too many traditionalist toes, especially in the Tory party and the House of Lords. Blair would have had the authority to do it early on in his day, but I doubt Brown can cross all of the hurdles, and if he could, do it before the Tories get in.

Hooray! Burn the Anglicans! And the Protestants! And the Hussites! And the witches! But mostly the Protestants and Anglicans! HERETICS! HERETICS AND TRAITORS!
I mean...
...
...
...
Damn Frenchies.

Shame it's not going to happen. It's a good idea
Don't really see how...
I see no reason why men should take precidence over women
That would be bacause having a monarchy is about keeping family lines going. It's in the nature of the beast.
and why we should have an established church in England
Because then the monarch has some religious authority over the public, and isn't subservient to the Pope, albeit only nominally today.
but it will tread over far too many traditionalist toes, especially in the Tory party and the House of Lords.
Yep.
Blair would have had the authority to do it early on in his day
Not really.
but I doubt Brown can cross all of the hurdles, and if he could, do it before the Tories get in.
And why would he bother? A monarchy is an unfair system. Trying to make it egalitarian completely misses the point of the whole exercise.

This does have huge constitutional implications, I wish I could say that it is merely a case of stopping discrimination and being done with it, but it's a whole lot more complex then that.

The British constitution sucks. I hate the whole mythology bullshit around it. It's basically one massive equivocation and we should really hurry up and get a written one.

I hate the whole mythology bullshit around it.

What are you referring to here?

What are you referring to here?

This idea that we have a constitution that provides checks and balances or that has any significant merit. We have a system that is basically archaic and any stuff about royal perogative or the rights of the monarchy is just ridiculously full of crap - especially the laughable idea that the monarchy is a wise old head looking after the country and checking the excesses of parliament.

Actually, they are appointed through Royal Prerogative, and the selection is mostly made by the Crown Nominations Commission. The PM simply forwards their choice to the monarch to implement.

Wrong. The Prime Minister is given two proposed candidates to choose from and can reject both if they want to, requiring to Commission to nominate a new candidate (I'm not sure whether there's a limit on how many times this can happen). The PM also gets to appoint the chair of the Commission when the Archbishop of Canterbury is to be chosen.

Sources:
Wikipedia: Appointment of CofE Bishops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_of_Church_of_England_Bishops)
Archbishop of Canterbury's website (http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/854)

Why?

How long have we got?

For the removal of the Royal Family, I think it's fairly obvious that a democratic country should be represented by a democratically chosen head of state. Even if this wasn't the case the whole idea of hereditary monarchs is ridiculous: being squeezed out of one particular vagina does not qualify you to be head of state. I also feel that it's unfair on people like princes Harry and William to be constantly scrutinised by the press from their early teens, but this is an inevitable consequence of being heirs to the throne.

As to disestablishing the Church of England:
-Firstly, there's no good reason to keep it established
-From a Christian perspective spiritual leadership should not be chosen or influenced by political leaders
-While the church is established it's much harder to mount a coherent legal case against anti-Atheist discrimination in education
-It's undemocratic to have unelected bishops in the House of Lords.

Those are just a few reasons.

This idea that we have a constitution that provides checks and balances or that has any significant merit. We have a system that is basically archaic and any stuff about royal perogative or the rights of the monarchy is just ridiculously full of crap - especially the laughable idea that the monarchy is a wise old head looking after the country and checking the excesses of parliament.
True of almost all constitutions, though.

For the removal of the Royal Family, I think it's fairly obvious that a democratic country should be represented by a democratically chosen head of state.
Power accumulates even in 'democratic' states such as the US (although this more of a confederacy) - I see no reason not to just be honest about it.

The PM has had more power than the monarch for a long time now, and this is reflected in how they are viewed on the world stage. People don't say "oh no, the UK is in crisis, I hope the Queen does something about it, they expect the PM to sort the problem out.

The Queen mainly just chats with heads of state if the PM is a bit busy tbqh.
Even if this wasn't the case the whole idea of hereditary monarchs is ridiculous: being squeezed out of one particular vagina does not qualify you to be head of state.
So? Everything you enjoy by being British is also 'won' via the lottery of birth. We were pretty lucky to be born here. Some people were born in Zambia or whatever and live shitty lives because of it.

Unless you propose a world-wide egalitarian state with democratically elected leaders and the rest of it, you cannot take this viewpoint seriously.
I also feel that it's unfair on people like princes Harry and William to be constantly scrutinised by the press from their early teens, but this is an inevitable consequence of being heirs to the throne.
Meh. Again not unique to the UK. I mean look at the press attention on the pregnant child of VP-to-be Palin in the States.
As to disestablishing the Church of England:
-Firstly, there's no good reason to keep it established
Other than that it has millions of adherents and is generally a very chilled out version of Christianity, which is great.
-From a Christian perspective spiritual leadership should not be chosen or influenced by political leaders
Meh. Not like the choice of Pope, Ayatollah etc. isn't politically motivated tbqh.
-While the church is established it's much harder to mount a coherent legal case against anti-Atheist discrimination in education
There is very little if any "anti-Atheist" descrimination in education, though, and I don't really see why the CoE would make any legal threats harder to follow through - a priest is a priest, and a judge is a judge.
-It's undemocratic to have unelected bishops in the House of Lords.
The Hosue of Lords is not a democratic institution, it checks the House of Commons.

Power accumulates even in 'democratic' states such as the US (although this more of a confederacy) - I see no reason not to just be honest about it.

The PM has had more power than the monarch for a long time now, and this is reflected in how they are viewed on the world stage. People don't say "oh no, the UK is in crisis, I hope the Queen does something about it, they expect the PM to sort the problem out.

The Queen mainly just chats with heads of state if the PM is a bit busy tbqh.

I am aware of the monarch's role, notice that I said 'be represented by' not 'be ruled by'.

So? Everything you enjoy by being British is also 'won' via the lottery of birth. We were pretty lucky to be born here. Some people were born in Zambia or whatever and live shitty lives because of it.

Unless you propose a world-wide egalitarian state with democratically elected leaders and the rest of it, you cannot take this viewpoint seriously.

Erm... what? Where did I claim that being born British qualifies me to do anything at all? Being born British means you have the right to citizenship and nothing else. Notice the difference between "having a right to something" and "being qualified to do something". A right can be arbitrarily assigned to someone, competence can't. This is completely irrelevant to the point I'm making.

Surely you agree that it's possible to be a good head of state or a bad head of state, no?
And you presumably agree that some people would make a good head of state, while others would make bad heads of state.
In other words, some people are better 'qualified' that others. The best way to find the well qualified ones isn't a hereditary system...

Meh. Again not unique to the UK. I mean look at the press attention on the pregnant child of VP-to-be Palin in the States.

This is an absurd comparison: Bristol is only under scrutiny because her pregnancy is related to Palin's 'abstinence only' policies, in the same way that Tony Blair's children were only in the news when it was related to his policies (his son getting seriously drunk while Blair was proposing on the spot fines for drunk and disorderly behavious, or the Blairs refusing to say whether Leo had had the MMR vaccine). Do you honestly think this is equivalent to plastering details of their personal relationships and pictures of their girlfriends on the front pages of the tabloids?

There's also the point that politicians can choose whether to enter politics, and presumably could withdraw if they felt their children were getting too much media attention. Not really an option for a hereditary monarch.

Other than that it has millions of adherents and is generally a very chilled out version of Christianity, which is great.

This is an argument for establishment? Why?

Meh. Not like the choice of Pope, Ayatollah etc. isn't politically motivated tbqh.

The Pope is elected by bishops based on internal vatican politicing, not based on Berlusconi's opinion, no?

There is very little if any "anti-Atheist" descrimination in education, though, and I don't really see why the CoE would make any legal threats harder to follow through - a priest is a priest, and a judge is a judge.

Apart from state funded 'faith' schools with the right to refuse places to atheist children and jobs to atheist teachers? Or the fact that every single school in the country is obliged to force 'Collective Worship' on pupils on a daily basis? No, I can't see how that discriminates against atheists in any way.

The Hosue of Lords is not a democratic institution, it checks the House of Commons.

Yes, but whereas almost all of the lords are chosen by democratically elected parties and are (ostensibly) there on merit, the bishops get a free ride.

At which point the US, Canada, and Australia would have no choice but to invade the UK to restore respectibility to the Anglosphere. :)

Seconded.

Does anyone have Prince Albert in a can?

Maybe parliment plans to return the C of E to Catholicism in the long run.

Maybe parliment plans to return the C of E to Catholicism in the long run.

Heaven forbid - that would cause more division in the Church of England than some of the other items that have been proposed.

Also, to all those that have mentioned about Britain getting a written constitution, please tell me, how would you go about it? Generally, constitutions have either been written at the time of Independence (e.g. US Constitution), or after a major Revolution (e.g. Chinese Constitution). How would Britain, which is unlikely to go through both, get a Constitution that would be acceptable?

Zombie Henry VIII and Zombie Guy Fawkes will reanimate and have a duel in the middle of Trafalgar Square soon.

Wrong. The Prime Minister is given two proposed candidates to choose from and can reject both if they want to, requiring to Commission to nominate a new candidate (I'm not sure whether there's a limit on how many times this can happen). The PM also gets to appoint the chair of the Commission when the Archbishop of Canterbury is to be chosen.

You are right. This is the old process that is in the process of being changed, following proposals by Gordon Brown.

Church Times (http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=41557)

How long have we got?

As long as you wish, my friend.

For the removal of the Royal Family, I think it's fairly obvious that a democratic country should be represented by a democratically chosen head of state.

The fact that many countries with democratic systems don't have democratically chosen heads of state "obviously" means that is not universally considered to be the case. Many countries, both monarchies and republics do not have heads of state chosen by universal voting, which bares only a tenuous relationship to "democracy", as the word is used today, in any case.

Even if this wasn't the case the whole idea of hereditary monarchs is ridiculous: being squeezed out of one particular vagina does not qualify you to be head of state.

The legal qualifications for a head of state can be whatever the national culture has adopted. In the United Kingdom the qualification is that you are the eldest surviving child of the previous monarch. If such a person does not exist, the line of succession is followed. That is the qualification. There is more, but that is the basics of the Hereditary Principle.

I also feel that it's unfair on people like princes Harry and William to be constantly scrutinised by the press from their early teens, but this is an inevitable consequence of being heirs to the throne.

No, it's the consequence of our culture of gutter press journalism amongst certain papers and periodicals. Most other monarchies do not have this, it's largely a British thing, and I dislike it.

As to disestablishing the Church of England:
-Firstly, there's no good reason to keep it established

Nor is there any good reason to disestablish it, other than tripping a constitutional crisis. The COE does, however serve an important role in keeping extremist religion out of government, by filling a void with a relaxed, tolerent theology that allows people to get on with their personal lives as they wish.

-From a Christian perspective spiritual leadership should not be chosen or influenced by political leaders

Like the Pope...

-While the church is established it's much harder to mount a coherent legal case against anti-Atheist discrimination in education

UK law theoretically states schools should have communal worship daily, but it does not have to be COE worship, so I don't see how the COE is involved in any supposed discrimination. An incoherent case would be more due to an incoherent prosecution than the defence. It's up to the accused to make their case, so don't blame the defence for it.

-It's undemocratic to have unelected bishops in the House of Lords.
The entire House of Lords is entirely unelected. What's the COE got to do with it?

Interesting, but I don't think it's likely a Catholic'll end up in the Royal family anyway.

Well.. the Royal prince of the Netherlands, Willem Alexander, is married to one - which means he was striken from the list ;)
While he is down a few hundred places below the main candidates for the British throne, I can imagine others being in similar situations.

You are right. This is the old process that is in the process of being changed, following proposals by Gordon Brown.

Church Times (http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=41557)

It's yet to be confirmed AFAIK: it's still in proposal phase.

The fact that many countries with democratic systems don't have democratically chosen heads of state "obviously" means that is not universally considered to be the case. Many countries, both monarchies and republics do not have heads of state chosen by universal voting, which bares only a tenuous relationship to "democracy", as the word is used today, in any case.

You're trying to answer an argument from principles with an argument from experience: my contention is that, working from democratic premises, it's logically absurd to have an unelected head of state. Pointing out other democratic countries with unelected leaders isn't really relevant to the discussion.

The legal qualifications for a head of state can be whatever the national culture has adopted. In the United Kingdom the qualification is that you are the eldest surviving child of the previous monarch. If such a person does not exist, the line of succession is followed. That is the qualification. There is more, but that is the basics of the Hereditary Principle.

As I've already mentioned in my reply to Yootopia the issue is of 'qualification' in the sense of competency rather than of legal right:



[QUOTE=Abdju;14044435]No, it's the consequence of our culture of gutter press journalism amongst certain papers and periodicals. Most other monarchies do not have this, it's largely a British thing, and I dislike it.

I too dislike it, but I think it's the logical progression from hereditary monarchy: a would-be president would expect to have their character and private life scrutinised by the press, quite rightly, so the public can decide whether they like the candidate or not. As long as someone is in line for the throne (and also in line to be Supreme Governer of the Church of England) it's entirely reasonable to peer into their private life. This is why I don't think such responsibility should be dropped on the shoulders of young people.

Nor is there any good reason to disestablish it, other than tripping a constitutional crisis.

I've already given you some of my reasons for disestablishment.

The COE does, however serve an important role in keeping extremist religion out of government, by filling a void with a relaxed, tolerent theology that allows people to get on with their personal lives as they wish.

The CofE doesn't so much keep fringe religion out of politics as warp our perceptions of what constitutes radicalism. That's why a politician can say "Every school should be a faith school" and been seen as a moderate (i.e. Lord Adonis) but anyone who suggests that all schools should be religiously neutral is derided as 'angry', 'intolerant' or a 'secular fundamentalist'. The main reason there isn't too much radical religion in politics is because there isn't much in Britain full stop, and there's no real evidence to suggest that this is thanks to the CofE: France is fiercely secular and is even less religious.

Oh, and there's plenty of intolerance in the CofE, it just doesn't get reported much. Think of the Anglican bishop who declared that the recent flooding was divine punishment for homosexuality or the intolerance at the Alpha Courses. There's a huge spectrum of opinion within the Church, and etablishment legitimises the radicals.

Like the Pope...

As I said to Yootopia, internal church politics: Berlusconi doesn't get a look in.

UK law theoretically states schools should have communal worship daily, but it does not have to be COE worship, so I don't see how the COE is involved in any supposed discrimination.

It has to be Christian worship unless special permission is granted, and the Church controls over a third of the schools in England, with plans for expansion.

The reason why establishment makes it harder to argue against school prayer should be obvious: whenever it's challenged, the defenders reply that the UK is a "Christian country" so it's only natural to have school prayer. There's no way to justify the Christian country claim through statistics on church attendance, it's the establishment which is the only support for it.

An incoherent case would be more due to an incoherent prosecution than the defence. It's up to the accused to make their case, so don't blame the defence for it.

A coherent case has been made time and time again, but because the Church is legally established there's nothing that can be done about it. The National Secular Society gets tons of letters each year from atheist parents who's children have been turned down by local schools based on religion asking what action can be taken; the sad truth is that none can be taken.

The entire House of Lords is entirely unelected. What's the COE got to do with it?

Almost all the Lords now are appointed by democratically members of parliament.

Heaven forbid - that would cause more division in the Church of England than some of the other items that have been proposed.

Also, to all those that have mentioned about Britain getting a written constitution, please tell me, how would you go about it? Generally, constitutions have either been written at the time of Independence (e.g. US Constitution), or after a major Revolution (e.g. Chinese Constitution). How would Britain, which is unlikely to go through both, get a Constitution that would be acceptable?

it would no longer be the CoE but the Catholic Church.

I agree the Brits don't need a Written constitution they seem to do well with out one.
But in all Fairness the Chinese didn't write their 1st constitution until 1954 which was replaced in 1975, again in 1978 and yet again in 1982. most of which with out revolution.

That would be bacause having a monarchy is about keeping family lines going. It's in the nature of the beast.
I believe women do this particulary well.

Because then the monarch has some religious authority over the public, and isn't subservient to the Pope, albeit only nominally today.
If the Act of Settlement were repealed then the monarch wouldn't have religious authority over the public. And, for the record, I couldn't care less whether the monarch is subservient to the Maharishi himself so long as he or she is not in a position to enforce it on the rest of us.

Not really.
Large parliamentary majorities, fractured opposition, personally quite popular. Quite a good combination, IMHO, especially considering that he was able to overturn the constitution (ish) regarding the House of Lords.

And why would he bother? A monarchy is an unfair system. Trying to make it egalitarian completely misses the point of the whole exercise.
Plenty of other countries put their eldest child first in line to the throne, and I don't see any reason why (or indeed how) we can bleat on how men and women are equal in 21st century Britain and then deny it to our head of state.

What a load of bollocks. Either abolish the monarchy or leave it the way it is. Trying to make it politically correct is just retarded.

What a load of bollocks. Either abolish the monarchy or leave it the way it is. Trying to make it politically correct is just retarded.
Do you know what 'political correctness' actually is? Or are we just using the tabloid strawman here?