'A child of a ‘royal gay marriage’ should be an heir to the throne, even if the child is not genetically connected to the royal line, an MP says.
Labour MP Paul Flynn wanted to change the Succession to the Crown Bill so that an adopted child or one conceived using insemination would become monarch.
Mr Flynn told The Sunday Times: “The amendment is to future-proof the legislation to ensure that every conceivable situation is catered for.
Implications
“The legislation will guide and protect future generations of royals from unexpected conflict and discrimination”, he said.
In March last year Peter Bone MP warned of the constitutional implications of marriage being redefined. Mr Bone said if same-sex marriage is allowed, a lesbian Queen could reign on the throne with a Queen consort.
Rush
This would put the monarch’s role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England at risk, sparking a constitutional crisis. He also warned that a homosexual monarch who conceived a child by sperm donor or surrogate would raise further questions, as the donor would have a right to a peerage and could gain regal rights.
Speaking about the same-sex marriage plans, Mr Bone said the Government seems “to be rushing this through without thinking of the broader implications”.'
8 comments:
Disestablishment of the CofE is arguably an intended, though not spoken aloud, consequence of redefinition.
The long march through the institutions reaches the monarchy at last. The next catch phrase has to be "Royal bigots". Where's Peter Tatchell when you need him.
It is up to the Queen to refuse to sign the legislation and spark a constitutional crisis. She may lose the monarchy but gain the people and it would put politicians in their place - the time came for the Queen to make a stand in 1967, she now has another opportunity!
@Anonymous: Thanks for your comment. Being an American who doesn't know any better, I've been wondering if the Queen has any say in this travesty. So she does? When? If so, what are the chances that she'd stop this legislation?
Elizabeth
I would suggest that Her Majesty does have a say in this.
I would, however, also suggest that the forces that desire this legislation are more powerful than Parliament and the Monarch.
The real power lays with the banking institutions.
I would suggest that there are higher forces at play than banks.
'lies' with the banking industry, not 'lays'. The Queen is a member of Bilderberg, frankly, I doubt she cares (she IS an extension of the banking industry).
It would be nice to see your regular contribution to the Telegraph blogs again Laurence. There has been a valiant attempt to contain the trolling with familiar, disruptive, so-called Trad names excluded including some from abroad.
They return in other guises of course, but, for the moment, a more reasonable commentary is surviving without multiple reporting or interference in free speech for shallow amusement.
Post a Comment