Cousin of the Queen of the United Kingdom said abortion is worse than terrorism

[FiveLinden]

But, and I mean this with no disrespect intended, and I don’t even know why it’s true, and imagine it’s some deep and pervasive cultural reason… as a colonial subject of her majesty, from perhaps one of the more casual colonies, I’m likely to forget this information tomorrow and keep mistakenly calling her the queen of England.

If you are indeed in a colony then your reference correctly should be to the Queen of the UK. But if you are in a former, now independent, colony such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Jamaica etc. then the Queen is the ‘Queen of Australia’ etc. because each of these countries has accepted her as their own monarch. If the UK deposed her tomorrow, she would still be Queen of about 20 other places.

 

[MNathaniel]

If you are indeed in a colony then your reference correctly should be to the Queen of the UK. But if you are in a former, now independent, colony such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Jamaica etc. then the Queen is the ‘Queen of Australia’ etc. because each of these countries has accepted her as their own monarch. If the UK deposed her tomorrow, she would still be Queen of about 20 other places.

Oh no I feel my humour kicking up… please know that I mean this in good cheer while mostly bustling around doing house chores today and in a goofy mood. If you genuinely find correct titling etiquette for the royal family an important thing, please let me know and I’ll at least keep my goofiness about it off here.

But “correct references for the queen” are just not my headspace right now.

All I’m now thinking, from my irreverent little now independent former colony country, is:

Queen of the Corgis!
The Queen Across the Sea
Mrs. Queen
Captain Queen of the Cockneys and Canucks

You get the drift. I honestly do like the reality of a royal family, and swear I feel affectionate about them (and am not looking to dethrone her majesty as our head of state, as many of my countrymen desire and honestly I reckon will probably happen soon enough). I just also have I really casual, default irreverent manner, I guess. If I met her I’d be tempted to offer my hand to shake, and not to insult her either, but because it’d feel weird to bow. (I know she wouldn’t accept it and I’d probably wise up beforehand and solicit counsel from people who could advise me of whatever the good reasons are for observing the ‘proper etiquette’ with the royals. Just sharing how my brain is towards them by default. They’re just a family that lives in a palace and that’s neat and we pay for them to basically be symbolic for us, in my mind. Like, in my head they’re just normal people with a slightly unique career role. I like them, from a distance. I’m cool with the whole palace thing. I’m chill with them taking turns being my head of state. I was a little less cool with Harry and Meghan trying to live here and get us to pay for it after abdicating the role we pay for, but they’re gone again so that’s fine. So, much love. I just can’t seem to get in the headspace of bothering to learn how to refer to the royals “correctly”.)

I bow to Jesus. He’s the only one, currently.

Not meaning any disrespect though to worldly authorities I perhaps should be showing higher respect to. Open to correction on it.

 

[Anicette]

I suspect that if Prince William were determined to convert to Catholicism, Parliament would probably pass the necessary legislation to allow it. However, all concerned would probably wait until the present queen is dead before doing so.

It could only happened if the Anglican Church would be firstly separated from the State and the Monarchy.

Actually, the King or Queen of UK is the head of the Church of England. So it would be impossible if he is anything other than Anglican.

 

[FiveLinden]

If you genuinely find correct titling etiquette for the royal family an important thing, please let me know and I’ll at least keep my goofiness about it off here.

Please good away. I am actually in favour of the abolition of all hereditary monarchies and the nationalisation of their accumulated property in all countries. But I am also a pedant.

 

[Lea101]

Not sure what you mean by this.

Usually, the regency acts are meant to determine who is going to cover for a specific monarch. For Elizabeth in 1937, I believed it was meant to hold up for future monarchs after her. So if there needs to be a regent, the act dictates that it would be Harry unless a new one is going to be drafted if they don’t want him to be one.

So if the 1937 act were to hold up, and if Harry doesn’t completely leaves the UK, he would automatically be presumed to be the Regent.

 

[Lea101]

He seems to be reliable, which is pretty much all one is looking for in a constitutional monarch.

Unfortunately you’re right.

To be quite honest, I’d rather see the whole thing abolished lol

 

[ATraveller]

I am actually in favour of the abolition of all hereditary monarchies

Bad idea. Having reserve powers held by an unelected person pitted against an elected legislature is one of the best ideas for governance. Which is why the Scandinavians, often praised by republicans on the economic left but oddly neglect to mention they’re constitutional monarchies, still have their hereditary monarchies. They also take attention and glory away from narcissistic politicians. The image of having a PM bow before someone else is excellent.

I’ll use Norway as an example (because there’s a story of people confusing the Confederate flag with :norway: Norway’s elsewhere on CAF).

Whilst the Constitution of Norway grants important executive powers to the King, these are almost always exercised by the Council of State in the name of the King (King’s Council, or cabinet). Formally the King appoints the government according to his own judgment, but parliamentary practice has been in place since 1884. Constitutional practice has replaced the meaning of the word King in most articles of the constitution from the king personally to the elected government. The powers vested in the monarch are significant but are treated only as reserve powers and as an important security part of the role of the monarchy. This information was verified by the prime minister himself.

The King does not, by convention, have direct participation in government.
Monarchy of Norway - Wikipedia

Sounds familiar.

nationalisation of their accumulated property

Crown property, like Buckingham Palace, are in essence state property. They belong to the Crown but not the monarch. This is no different from the White House. It doesn’t belong to Trump but the office. Balmoral is private property that the Queen’s ancestors purchased with their own funds and these private properties are a pittance compared to what is Crown property.

 

[Kaninchen]

Having reserve powers held by an unelected person pitted against an elected legislature is one of the best for governance.

It also has the advantage of not having a directly elected head of state/chief ribbon-cutter that half the population despise on principle (like the US or France, for example) or a superannuated politician whose main claim to fame is that he or she has managed not to offend too many people (as in Germany or Italy, for example).

 

[Lea101]

Having reserve powers held by an unelected person pitted against an elected legislature is one of the best ideas for governance

In my country, that’s the role of our president, who doesn’t represent a political party. They’re elected though.

A monarchy however leaves a sour taste in my mouth. It’s not a healthy environment for children to grow up in for a couple of reasons, and the idea of taxes going towards a family to keep up their pomp and pageantry just doesn’t seem right imo. I think we’re seeing some dissonance now. “How dare these royalty act like royalty, like they’re above us! How dare they break tradition!”

This is not to say I don’t see any value in it, of course.

 

[PickyPicky]

Usually, the regency acts are meant to determine who is going to cover for a specific monarch. For Elizabeth in 1937, I believed it was meant to hold up for future monarchs after her. So if there needs to be a regent, the act dictates that it would be Harry unless a new one is going to be drafted if they don’t want him to be one.

MY ABJECT APOLOGIES.

I blame my increasing age and general stupidity. The 1937 Act had completely vanished from my memory, and I have been spouting nonsense as if I knew what I was talking about. Halfwit hardly covers it.

What you say is true, and what I said on the subject of a regency is, in Daisy Ashford’s fine expression, as piffle before the wind.

My apologies again.

 

[Lea101]

No worries, you still know more about this topic than I ever would

 

[twf]

Yes, I believe in the case of Canada, both our federal AND a majority of the provincial parliaments would have to pass it…

 

[twf]

To me she is the Queen of Canada . That’s just me. Truth be told, while the average Canadian is aware that she is our queen, they probably are not aware that she is legally Queen of Canada, and would be more likely to use the “Queen of England” title…

 

[GKMotley]

I blame my increasing age and general stupidity.

I do that a lot myself. My wife usually agrees with me, when I do.

 

[PickyPicky]

My wife usually agrees with me, when I do.

Your wife probably had the 1937 Act at her fingertips, too.

 

[GKMotley]

She is (other than on points concerning Hank, and all that) the family expert on all things Royalty-ish.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

I hadn’t heard about that. In what way did he get involved?

It’s documented in detail in section C.10 of the Anglican Church Case Studies: Chichester/Peter Ball Investigation Report published by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in England and Wales:

C.10: Peter Ball’s return to ministry | IICSA Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

Further details are buried in the transcript of a public hearing on 27 July 2018:

UK Government Web Archive

To summarise:

Exactly how harshly one judges the prince would depend on whether or not you accept his version of events. According to the prince, he was unaware that the bishop of Gloucester had accepted a police caution for gross indecency. He also claims that even if he had known that the bishop had accepted the caution, he would not have understood what a police caution is.

Neither of these claims seem plausible. It is hard to believe that the Prince of Wales would have been unaware of the fact that a diocesan bishop (in fact, his own diocesan bishop in Gloucestershire) had resigned after accepting a police caution for gross indecency. The incident was reported widely in the British media at the time.

One also has to remember that the Prince of Wales is in a unusual position. First, he would be aware that, as heir to the throne, he has to take particular care to avoid doing or saying anything that would bring the monarchy into disrepute. Secondly, he has the resources, including a permanent staff of secretaries, who are able to advise him on such matters as current events and the precise nature of a police caution.

In short, following Ball’s caution and resignation, the prince appears to have lobbied both the archbishop of Canterbury and the archbishop’s secretary for public affairs to allow Ball to return to ministry. He also acquired a house for the Duchy of Cornwall estate for the purpose of renting it to Ball. The prince sent Ball an extraordinary letter, in which he wrote:

I wish I could do more. I feel so desperately strongly about the monstrous wrongs that have been done to you and the way you have been treated. It’s appalling that the Archbishop has gone back on what he told me, before Xmas, that he was hoping to restore you to some form of Ministry in the Church. I suspect you are absolutely right – it is due to fear of the media … If it is any consolation, the Archbishop has written me a letter (between you and me) in which it is also clear that he is frightened of the press – what he calls ‘public perception’, which in fact, perception of events and characters based entirely on lies, invention, speculation and sensation.

 

[Angannas]

Also, do not forget that there are two churches with a special status in the UK. The C of E is only established in England, Northern Ireland and Wales have no established Church, while in Scotland the Church of Scotland, which is Presbyterian rather than Anglican, is legally the National Church

 

[PickyPicky]

In Scotland the Church of Scotland, which is Presbyterian rather than Anglican, is legally the National Church

Indeed it is. But the CofS’s relationship with the monarch is quite different from the CofE’s. For a Catholic to be monarch the oath would no doubt have to be altered or disposed of, as would be the case in England, but there would be no difficulty in a Catholic monarch appointing a Lord High Commissioner to the Church of Scotland, just as the present Queen does. As far as I know that would, constitutionally, be that.

So the constitutional problem in Scotland is far less complicated. What we can be fairly sure of, however, is that in Scotland the arrival of a Catholic monarch would be more controversial than in England.

 

[BartholomewB]

in Scotland the arrival of a Catholic monarch would be more controversial than in England.

From time we read about the fury of the crowds at a Rangers soccer game when one of the players — usually an Italian or a South American — has the effrontery to cross himself after scoring a goal.