One of those who was faithful was Charles I, who had his head chopped off by the Roundheads immediately before they installed a short-lived Republic.
]]>After all, claiming that the countries of Europe (ours included) is ethnically pure is pretty silly.
But that’s as far as I’ll go…
]]>There hasn’t been a fully English English monarch for well nigh a thousand years, since Aethelred II (which rather puts pay to the whole “thousand years of history” nonsense the English nationalists always come up with). And he only counts if you accept the Saxons as English – they were also invaders/immigrants. As were the Celts, for that matter…
]]>Primogeniture doesn’t work like that: The Normans were French. The Stuarts were Scottish (and, in the case of King William III, Dutch). The Hanoverians were German, as were the Saxe-Coburgs.
]]>Equally I would think it right and just for the King of England to be English.
If Muslims want a Muslim King I think there might be a vacancy opening in Iraq…
]]>There’s nothing in law that forbids someone of any other religion from becoming king/queen, but they would almost certainly have to convert to the CofE before they could be crowned under clause III of the same Act (to my knowledge as yet unrepealed), which states “That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law established”.
The Coronation Oath also includes an oath to “maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the gospel and the Protestant reformed religion established by law, and will you preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this Realm, and to the churches committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them, or any of them” – although I suppose the wording is ambiguous enough so that you could technically have a monarch who was of a different religion as long as they continued to act as the figurehead of the CofE and didn’t make any moves to disestablish the Church.
Whether or not you could be a good Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist etc. while promoting the cause of another religion and having to “join in communion” with it is debatable, but I’d imagine the wording is ambiguous enough so that all that would really need to be paid is lip service. It’d still be a tad constitutionally dodgy, though…
]]>I expect you’re right here.
“””Were the future HRH to hail from Moss Side, however, there really would be an uproar”””
Good grief yes.
]]>