Your long-serving, hard-working MP faces an awkward decision: will he vote aye on a Government bill, or vote no. Or simply stay away when the vote is taken – by taking refuge in 3:2 of the Beehive maybe.
Justice Minister Judith Collins (see here) has only just announced legislation that will be introduced to Parliament today to clear the way for changes to laws dictating the line of succession to the throne.
The Royal Succession Bill allows an elder daughter to precede a younger son in the line of succession, meaning the order of succession to the throne will no longer be based on gender.
“The new laws will apply to any children in the Royal line of succession born after 28 October 2011. This means the change will apply to the child of Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, due to be born in July,” says Ms Collins.
The dilemma for a bloke of Alf’s conservative disposition is whether to stick with his monarchist principles or support a Government bill that is sure to put us on the slippery slope to republicanism or worse.
As he has said on this blog before (see here), the intended changes to the royal rules of succession would be a step much too far in favour of bloody women’s libbers and a setback for blokedom.
The change means a first-born daughter of William and Kate will accede to the throne regardless of any other male siblings under these plans.
We seem to be taking our cue from the Brits on this stuff, and Alf had always supposed that the British PM too was a Conservative and therefore bound to resist nonsense like this, which obviously flows from the women’s liberation thing that has gone on for too long.
Praise be, we here in New Zealand can exercise a veto to stop it.
Mr Cameron has described the system as ‘an anomaly’ but requires the consent of all 15 commonwealth countries in order to change the law.
But instead of vetoing this constitutional outrage, and sticking to the way things have always been done, we will be passing our own legislation to give effect to this offence against common sense.
But wait. There’s more to this nonsense.
As well as the unanimous consent of the 15 Commonwealth countries the reforms would require a repeal or amendment to the Coronation Oath act of 1688, the Bill of Rights 1688, the Act of settlement 1701 and the Royal Marriages Act 1772.
The 1701 Act was brought in following the Glorious Revolution – when a Dutch invasion helped overthrow a Papist king – so that a Catholic could never sit on our throne again.
But bugger me, the British Prime Minister is also hoping to repeal the ban on the monarch being married to a Roman Catholic, although the King or Queen, as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would have to remain protestant.
Yep. Collins is going along with that Papist pap, too.
She said today –
The new rules will also allow a person married to a Roman Catholic to become King or Queen. Currently, prospective heirs who are married to Catholics are disqualified from succession.
The changes will not allow a Catholic to accede to the throne. The rules which require the Sovereign to swear an oath to maintain the Protestant religion will remain unchanged.
After its first reading, the Royal Succession Bill will be referred to a select committee where everyone will have the opportunity to have their say on the Bill.
Alf is well down the track in drafting his submission.