London, GB | Formerly of New York, Buenos Aires, Fife, and the Western Cape. | Saoránach d’Éirinn.

You call this journalism?

The decline of the British newspaper, continued

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH is asking its readers to believe that Gordon Brown is going to repeal the Act of Settlement barring Catholics from the throne and that furthermore this would make Franz, Duke of Bavaria the heir to the throne of England (c.f. “Act repeal could make Franz Herzog von Bayern new King of England and Scotland”, by Richard Alleyne and Harry de Quetteville, Daily Telegraph, 7 April 2008). In reality, the British Parliament does not have the authority to unilaterally repeal the Act, since by convention it must consult with the sixteen commonwealth realms. (Hence why Edward VIII had only the options of either dumping Wallis Simpson or giving up the throne; London had consulted the dominion governments and they said they would not accept Mrs. Simpson as Queen, end of story). Thus Gordon Brown would actually need to consult with and receive unanimous approval from the governments of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Granada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu, in addition to that of the United Kingdom.

Why, then, does the Daily Telegraph neglect to point out this necessity, seemingly obvious to anyone with more than a passing knowledge of the British constitution? Was the newspaper simply ignorant about the subject? If so, why did they choose to print an article about it without seeking further information from the plethora of readily-available sources? Or perhaps the newspaper did know but decided to ignore it in the interests of sensationalism? Either way, the proof is in the pudding: standards at the Daily Telegraph are not what they used to be.

Published at 7:14 am on Monday 7 April 2008. Categories: Monarchy Newspapers.
Comments

The decline of Cusack’s blog: it’s readers? Tut tut!

— Peter 7 Apr 2008 8:49 am

Mea culpa.

— Andrew Cusack 7 Apr 2008 9:47 am

Perhaps they feel that in our enlightened age, none of the dominions would dare object. Political correctness can work in papists’ favour.

— Steven 8 Apr 2008 12:44 pm

Even if the Crown Commonwealth didn’t object, obviously the line of succession cannot be retroactively challenged. There are constitutional concepts like precedence and the fact of rule, which cannot be overturned by a simple repeal of legislation, even if the quacks at the Telegraph deliberately don’t understand this. I was only too happy to give them a pasting of my own.

— The Monarchist 8 Apr 2008 3:32 pm

This is an interesting post, and the Telegraph article is interesting also, but if it came down to it, if Parliament can amend the Act of Settlement so as to remove the prohibition on Catholic succession, surely it could do it without changing dynasties from Windsor to Wittelsbach by making the amendment prospective rather than retroactive.

— El Jefe Maximo 8 Apr 2008 10:00 pm

Thank you, Andrew, for clarifying this matter. Most Americans do only have a passing knowledge of the British constitution.

— elena maria vidal 9 Apr 2008 3:03 pm
Leave a comment

NAME (required)

EMAIL (required)

WEBSITE (not required)

COMMENT

Home | About | Contact | Paginated Index | Twitter | Facebook | RSS/Atom Feed
andrewcusack.com | © Andrew Cusack 2004-present (Unless otherwise stated)