This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/07/cameron-clegg-new-guy-fawkes

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Are David Cameron and Nick Clegg the new Guy Fawkes? Are David Cameron and Nick Clegg the new Guy Fawkes?
(about 3 hours later)
Not for the first time Prince Charles has been losing sleep. He's worried that coalition plans to introduce gender equality into the royal line of succession are being "rushed" without proper consideration for unintended consequences. It's just what we needed to start a New Year more than usually fraught with challenging possibilities of a more urgent and alarming kind.Not for the first time Prince Charles has been losing sleep. He's worried that coalition plans to introduce gender equality into the royal line of succession are being "rushed" without proper consideration for unintended consequences. It's just what we needed to start a New Year more than usually fraught with challenging possibilities of a more urgent and alarming kind.
But is Charlie Windsor right for once? Whether or not you think his concerns important or relish the prospect that the Posh Boys now running the government may accidentally detonate Britain's delicate ancient monarchical settlement, I suspect he is. Like a stopped clock, a stalled heir-to-the-throne is bound to be right occasionally and we only have to glance at other half-cock coalition plans to "modernise' the constitution (AV voting, Lords reform etc) to concede that its thinking can be pretty callow. Tony Blair is a deep thinker by comparison.But is Charlie Windsor right for once? Whether or not you think his concerns important or relish the prospect that the Posh Boys now running the government may accidentally detonate Britain's delicate ancient monarchical settlement, I suspect he is. Like a stopped clock, a stalled heir-to-the-throne is bound to be right occasionally and we only have to glance at other half-cock coalition plans to "modernise' the constitution (AV voting, Lords reform etc) to concede that its thinking can be pretty callow. Tony Blair is a deep thinker by comparison.
According to the Daily Mail – in a report which Buck House will neither confirm nor deny (ie it's true) – the prince expressed his latest doubts to a senior Cabinet Office official, the permanent secretary, Richard Heaton, at a private meeting last month. What would happen if his first grandchild – due in 2013 and heir to the throne regardless of gender if the 2012 Succession to the Crown Bill becomes law – one day decides to marry a Roman Catholic? he asked, since Catholics cannot succeed to the British throne.According to the Daily Mail – in a report which Buck House will neither confirm nor deny (ie it's true) – the prince expressed his latest doubts to a senior Cabinet Office official, the permanent secretary, Richard Heaton, at a private meeting last month. What would happen if his first grandchild – due in 2013 and heir to the throne regardless of gender if the 2012 Succession to the Crown Bill becomes law – one day decides to marry a Roman Catholic? he asked, since Catholics cannot succeed to the British throne.
The matter would be resolved by negotiations with the Vatican, Prince Charles was breezily assured. It is a formula which takes us back to where all this started: when the then pope refused Henry VIII his first divorce in 1533 and the king decided to leave the papal version of the EU, much as David Cameron may accidentally be about to do again.The matter would be resolved by negotiations with the Vatican, Prince Charles was breezily assured. It is a formula which takes us back to where all this started: when the then pope refused Henry VIII his first divorce in 1533 and the king decided to leave the papal version of the EU, much as David Cameron may accidentally be about to do again.
"This realm of England is an empire," the Act of Supremacy declared. Ukip's Nigel Farage, who has belatedly become a hot media property – interviewed by no less than Decca Aitkenhead in today's G2, once closed territory to Ukip – could not have put it better (and will probably claim the credit). The Church of England became the state church, as it remains, a Protestant-Catholic hybrid, as it also remains."This realm of England is an empire," the Act of Supremacy declared. Ukip's Nigel Farage, who has belatedly become a hot media property – interviewed by no less than Decca Aitkenhead in today's G2, once closed territory to Ukip – could not have put it better (and will probably claim the credit). The Church of England became the state church, as it remains, a Protestant-Catholic hybrid, as it also remains.
But what has the sex of Princess Katie's expected baby (the proposed succession law would be retrospective) have to do with Catholicism, let alone with the wider implications for succession in the aristocracy, you may well ask? I can do no better than refer the concerned citizen to the erudite explanation by Simon Heffer, the Mail's ginger pundit and unabashed reactionary highbrow, which accompanies today's page-one lead. But what has the sex of Princess Katie's expected baby (the proposed succession law would be retrospective) have to do with Catholicism, let alone with the wider implications for succession in the aristocracy, you may well ask? I can do no better than refer the concerned citizen to the erudite explanation by Simon Heffer, the Mail's unabashed reactionary highbrow, which accompanies today's page-one lead.
For too-busy scholars let me summarise. Since Anglo-Saxon times women have only succeeded to the throne and (some) aristocratic titles in England (Scottish and Irish practice is not identical) when there was no male heir. If that sounds sexist to good sisters – the delicacy of the topic is well illustrated by Zoe Williams's Saturday article on women-only clubs that are quite different from horrid men-only ones – then it should be said in fairness that the old Salic Law against any female monarch never applied here, as it did in France and elsewhere. Had it done so, we would have lost our best ever (says me) king: Elizabeth I.For too-busy scholars let me summarise. Since Anglo-Saxon times women have only succeeded to the throne and (some) aristocratic titles in England (Scottish and Irish practice is not identical) when there was no male heir. If that sounds sexist to good sisters – the delicacy of the topic is well illustrated by Zoe Williams's Saturday article on women-only clubs that are quite different from horrid men-only ones – then it should be said in fairness that the old Salic Law against any female monarch never applied here, as it did in France and elsewhere. Had it done so, we would have lost our best ever (says me) king: Elizabeth I.
The new law would change that and why not? It has been clear for decades that no-nonsense Princess Anne is the most suitable of the Queen's children to succeed her, a thought which ought to trouble Charlie W more than it does. But pull on one thread of a tapestry and all sorts of things may happen. In a secular age such as ours it seems unfair to exclude Catholics from the succession chain, as the 1701 Act of Settlement explicitly did (it excluded them from public office, too) for what were good reasons at the time.The new law would change that and why not? It has been clear for decades that no-nonsense Princess Anne is the most suitable of the Queen's children to succeed her, a thought which ought to trouble Charlie W more than it does. But pull on one thread of a tapestry and all sorts of things may happen. In a secular age such as ours it seems unfair to exclude Catholics from the succession chain, as the 1701 Act of Settlement explicitly did (it excluded them from public office, too) for what were good reasons at the time.
Catholicism was explicitly identified with the threat of foreign domination and invasion – by Spain or France – and domestic subversion (think Guy Fawkes or the purges of foolish James II) not to mention the incitement to murder (Muslims would call it a fatwa) - issued against the aforementioned Elizabeth, Henry VIII's brilliant child, by the Pope.Catholicism was explicitly identified with the threat of foreign domination and invasion – by Spain or France – and domestic subversion (think Guy Fawkes or the purges of foolish James II) not to mention the incitement to murder (Muslims would call it a fatwa) - issued against the aforementioned Elizabeth, Henry VIII's brilliant child, by the Pope.
That was then and this is now. The new 2011 census reminds us all that only 59% of Britons call themselves Christian – down from 72% a decade ago – and church attendance (though not mosque attendance) is worse than ever. Does it still matter? Of course it does. Whatever side you take on sensitive social issues – abortion, divorce and remarriage, embryo experimentation, assisted dying, child and teen abuse and, of course, gay marriage – the debate is heavily influenced by religious views, consciously or otherwise, for better and worse. Let's not go there today.That was then and this is now. The new 2011 census reminds us all that only 59% of Britons call themselves Christian – down from 72% a decade ago – and church attendance (though not mosque attendance) is worse than ever. Does it still matter? Of course it does. Whatever side you take on sensitive social issues – abortion, divorce and remarriage, embryo experimentation, assisted dying, child and teen abuse and, of course, gay marriage – the debate is heavily influenced by religious views, consciously or otherwise, for better and worse. Let's not go there today.
A Catholic heir – raised as such by his/her Catholic parent – would not easily become supreme governor of the Church of England, defender of the faith (a papal title Henry VIII liked enough to keep), or faiths in the plural, as Prince Charles once put it in an ecumenical moment. It is a problem that could be overcome by severing the link between church and state, as many on both sides of the argument advocate, solving the church's gay marriage problem in passing.A Catholic heir – raised as such by his/her Catholic parent – would not easily become supreme governor of the Church of England, defender of the faith (a papal title Henry VIII liked enough to keep), or faiths in the plural, as Prince Charles once put it in an ecumenical moment. It is a problem that could be overcome by severing the link between church and state, as many on both sides of the argument advocate, solving the church's gay marriage problem in passing.
But disestablishing the Anglican church would also be complex and protracted at a time when we are all worried about the economy and much else, not least our relationship with Europe and, within these islands, with Scotland and those rioters in Belfast. There are even substantial property issues at stake – not just those gorgeous village churches which the Catholics would love to get back. Some think already that they might revert to shared use.But disestablishing the Anglican church would also be complex and protracted at a time when we are all worried about the economy and much else, not least our relationship with Europe and, within these islands, with Scotland and those rioters in Belfast. There are even substantial property issues at stake – not just those gorgeous village churches which the Catholics would love to get back. Some think already that they might revert to shared use.
Not my problem, you may mutter. Indeed no, but even in a secular society churches, mosques, temples, synagogues, not to mention chapels, are an important community focus, part of the Cameroon vision of the "big society" which (so the Times reports today) is failing for lack of charitable funds (not least from government). It's tricky.Not my problem, you may mutter. Indeed no, but even in a secular society churches, mosques, temples, synagogues, not to mention chapels, are an important community focus, part of the Cameroon vision of the "big society" which (so the Times reports today) is failing for lack of charitable funds (not least from government). It's tricky.
So is the aristocratic angle. According to Simon Heffer, who frets a lot about such things, if the crown can pass to an elder daughter, logic and fairness dictates that a great title – in some cases great estates as well – must be able to do the same. I'm sure that can be fixed too, but Heffer (who implies that he is the source of the Mail's page one story, picked up elsewhere) reports that the Whitehall officials who drafted the succession bill were blissfully unaware of the complications. Fools rush in where angels set up inquiries, as the old saying goes. So is the aristocratic angle. According to Heffer, who frets a lot about such things, if the crown can pass to an elder daughter, logic and fairness dictates that a great title – in some cases great estates as well – must be able to do the same. I'm sure that can be fixed too, but Heffer (who implies that he is the source of the Mail's page one story, picked up elsewhere) reports that the Whitehall officials who drafted the succession bill were blissfully unaware of the complications. Fools rush in where angels set up inquiries, as the old saying goes.
Well, we don't need an aristocracy, do we? In theory not, but I notice that most societies seem to acquire them one way or another. In the US, the passport to the elite is usually money; in China it is membership of the Communist party, preferable via a grandpa who marched with Mao; in Russia, membership of the KGB is the best way to power, oligarchy and riches.Well, we don't need an aristocracy, do we? In theory not, but I notice that most societies seem to acquire them one way or another. In the US, the passport to the elite is usually money; in China it is membership of the Communist party, preferable via a grandpa who marched with Mao; in Russia, membership of the KGB is the best way to power, oligarchy and riches.
And so on. Even in mature western democracies, politics has reacquired a dynastic tinge, as it never lost one in class-divided India; those Blairs and Prescotts, Ballses and Milibands, those Clintons, Bushes, Gores (and Gandhis). As the ever-fascinating Jared Diamond, here to peddle his new book, The World Before Yesterday, seemed to be suggesting in the Observer we dismiss the wisdom of ancient societies – along with their particular savageries – at our peril. In New Guinea, they strangle widows, here we send them to care homes such as Winterbourne View.And so on. Even in mature western democracies, politics has reacquired a dynastic tinge, as it never lost one in class-divided India; those Blairs and Prescotts, Ballses and Milibands, those Clintons, Bushes, Gores (and Gandhis). As the ever-fascinating Jared Diamond, here to peddle his new book, The World Before Yesterday, seemed to be suggesting in the Observer we dismiss the wisdom of ancient societies – along with their particular savageries – at our peril. In New Guinea, they strangle widows, here we send them to care homes such as Winterbourne View.
To be aware of the risk that we can easily destroy old values and institutions is not the same as saying we should not reform and sometimes remove them, only that we should tread cautiously. At a pre-Christmas lunch, I heard David Cameron say that what most surprises him about government was that there are far more impediments to getting things done than he'd realised in opposition. Tony Blair could have used the same words.To be aware of the risk that we can easily destroy old values and institutions is not the same as saying we should not reform and sometimes remove them, only that we should tread cautiously. At a pre-Christmas lunch, I heard David Cameron say that what most surprises him about government was that there are far more impediments to getting things done than he'd realised in opposition. Tony Blair could have used the same words.
But such impediments are also safeguards against folly, the Health and Social Care Act, for example, the disastrous Tory reform of pub ownership, and Blair's relaxation of licensing laws, or Gordon Brown's ill-judged reform of the Bank of England. Blair and Brown were cheekily left off the royal wedding list in 2011, the one for the hunting ban, the other for sinking the royal yacht, according to semi-insider, Dominic Lawson.But such impediments are also safeguards against folly, the Health and Social Care Act, for example, the disastrous Tory reform of pub ownership, and Blair's relaxation of licensing laws, or Gordon Brown's ill-judged reform of the Bank of England. Blair and Brown were cheekily left off the royal wedding list in 2011, the one for the hunting ban, the other for sinking the royal yacht, according to semi-insider, Dominic Lawson.
How ironic if house-trained pillars of the upper middle class such as Cameron and Nick Clegg accidentally succeeded where Guy Fawkes failed.How ironic if house-trained pillars of the upper middle class such as Cameron and Nick Clegg accidentally succeeded where Guy Fawkes failed.