I think I am living in the UK in the twenty first century. I think I am. Sometimes things just seem so absurd that I question my reality. Some things you just couldn’t make up.
Just bear with me. Suppose there were laws about pigs - laws set up to protect the rights of pigs and to end discrimination.
- Law one says: all pigs are equal, both male and female, and nobody should discriminate about pig employment on the grounds of gender.
- Law two says: all pigs are equal, regardless of their personal beliefs about fairies, and nobody should discriminate about pig employment on the grounds that some pig believes fairies have red wings and other pigs believe they have blue (or even on the grounds that some pigs just believe that fairies are a figment of an over active imagination).
If these pig laws existed, you couldn’t have someone come along and say: “We’re going to have a new ruler of pigs, and we are going to make sure that only a male, blue wing believers, born into a particular sty gets the job!” If you said that, there ought to be protests in the streets. Pigs ought to herd together and protest. “We have laws,” they would say, “and what you are proposing flies in the face of them! What you are proposing makes a mockery of those laws, and of our piggy rights, and of our dignity as pigs. It is an insult to the females, an insult to the red wing believers, and to the non-believers. What right have you to fly in the face of our democracy?”
Dr Evan Harris has introduced a Private Member’s Bill, Royal Marriages and Succession to the Crown (Prevention of Discrimination), in an attempt to do something about the absurdity of the fact that in 2009 in the UK, men still have preference over women when it comes to succeeding to the throne. A small part of me is pleased that someone is trying to do something about that, even though I know that Private Member’s Bills have little chance of becoming law. And while that bill gives me some encouragement to think that other voices apart from mine can see a glaring inconsistency here, and while I am also encouraged by the fact that the bill is seeking to allow any heir to the throne to marry a Roman Catholic, what continues to enrage me is that we still have a constitution that requires any monarch to be in communion with the Church of England. It’s bad enough being a woman, but if you are a woman Catholic, or (god-forbid) a female atheist, you’ve no chance.
Whether or not the monarchy needs to be preserved (another debate), surely there can be no sensible grounds for continuing to enshrine sex and religious discrimination in its structure? Why do we allow this to continue to happen?
I’ve been watching the Tudors, which many British hate because of historical inaccuracies. But in spite of that, I appreciate the fact that it reminds me of the impact Henry the VIII had in British politics.
When I see insane Henry making all kinds of self-serving decisions and how little he cared for the people he ruled, I always remember that it was he who decided to make the reigning monarch the head of the Church of England.
All that just to say that it does sound extremely unhealthy that in the 21st century, the legacy of insane Henry VIII prevails. It seems totally absurd.
Ah, Henry VIII did wonders for world peace and religious solidarity. I hear that worked out well for his daughters. *smirk*
Well - that was the whole problem - he had daughters and one sickly son. I love the irony that Elizabeth I was a pretty effective monarch in spite of everything being stacked against her. Just think what she could have accomplished in a less misogynist society that wasn’t violently split between religious factions.
It’s a fair point, but like you say, it will never happen. It is also somewhat pointless as the next 80 years are already set bar some huge issue like they all die.
There is a slight issue with Catholic Queen/Prince though. Is it really okay to have a head of state whose spouse has a declared loyalty to a foreign power?
By the way Supreme Governor of the the Church was created for Elizabeth, not Henry. Henry was granted supremacy over the Church, that is, the state is in charge, not the Church; which makes perfect sense. That was undone by Mary and put back by Lizzy.
Oh, and I really wouldn’t take the Tudors on face value, it’s one of the most inaccurate things ever made.
http://www.boatangdemetriou.com/
Well, I have to say this issue isn’t one that gets me worked up because the whole idea of having a royal family is illogical and nonsensical to me. But they are a good tourism feature I suppose
I think that had Charles had a daughter first then I think the male preference issue would have been sorted. I’m sure the mood was right at the time and it just needed a practical application. Now of course it is less critical practically because it’s all males in line for the throne - but yes, it does need sorting.
The religious discrimination is equally baffling to me but I suspect the level of conditioning that royal offspring get probably mean they are unlikely to develop allegiances to other religions - but atheism is more likely.
It is hard to believe that this type of thing still takes place. But then the royal family is not really living in the 21st century anyway - well, that’s what I thought but then someone told me today that the Queen is on Twitter. Maybe she reads your blog????
Lorena
I have only learned about Henry from TV series, but he does seem to have had one big ego and an uncontrolled appetite in many areas. It seems absurd in so many ways that a church was created by such a man. It is so, so absurd that the British Constitution is still so dominated by such a mess originating from such a source. If only we could start again, or get rid of the present absurdities!
the chaplain
Agreed, the world would be a better place. It’s also sad to think that despite their differences, the religious factions would probably have been united in a desire to keep women as second best.
Kevin Boatang
Thanks for the historical information. Although it may never happen, I’m not so sure that concern about it is pointless. It enshrines prejudice and inequality on paper, and that can send out powerful messages that need to be argued against, even though it may seem impossible to stop them.
Reluctant Blogger
I agree that the issue of succession is a mere triviality against the far bigger anachronism of the Royal Family. For all sorts of reasons, I’m not yet ready to tackle that one head on. As for the Queen being on Twitter and reading my blog - I doubt the first, but am sure that her security minions do the second. I am a marked man
Well, I have to say this issue isn’t one that gets me worked up because the whole idea of having a royal family is illogical and nonsensical to me.
I’ll say. Like, can anybody explain to me why you have to ask God to save the Queen in your national anthem? Now, that’s bizarre, but maybe it makes historical sense. I don’t know.