Theresa May, Last UK Primer Minister? ACE for H.M. the Queen and Prince William?

The Peace of God to all that belong to the Light,
Dear Readers,

Today is a Historic day in British History since for second time in all the existence of The United Kingdom a woman was promoted to
the office of Prime Minister, this time the conservative leader Theresa May became chosen, after the unexpected resignation of
David Cameron.

Please read:

www.msn.com...=1

Mrs May is second woman after Margaret Thatcher to arrive to this so high office, and it is arriving in certainly critical, so challenging
times, after a referendum that has decided the exit of Britain from Europe in about two years, and a subsequent decision of the Scottish Nationalists
to arrange their own second referendum for the Independence as a consequence of the Brexit.

next.ft.com...

Here it is the profile if the New Prime Minister, who if Scotland decides their independence could be the last one of the United Kingdom, as we
have known it. It is not clear if a Scottish exit from UK will also trigger similar decisions in Ulster ( North Ireland), and Wales.

en.wikipedia.org...

Will be a conservative Prime Minister tolerant with an Independent Scotland or will oppose fiercely any attempt of secession?

Also the suddenly arrival of a woman for Primer Minister, in times that have been defined as of transition in between the realm of Queen Elizabeth II and any possible successor can either slow down the momentum that Prince Charles had gained in favor of abdication under his friend and ally David Cameron, and possibly change dramatically the final outcome of all this process.

Theresa May has stated in her speeches since two months ago that a potential alliance in between the Scottish Nationalist Party and the Labour party is extremely dangerous, that she see the present moment as the vesper of the worst constitutional crisis since the Abdication of Edward VIII, something really meaningful, since she has used the key word "abdication'.

www.express.co.uk...

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

The Queen will find in Mrs May a formidable ally to ground her own decision to continue for more years in the Throne, as a symbol of National unity and stability, and also to see the way to bypass the Prince of Wales in what along years have been matter of a lot of speculations in the media, a direct transition from Elizabeth II to her grandson, and also favorite, Prince William Duke of Cambridge.

One thing is sure His Royal Highness will have a lot of work to do to be able to convince Mrs May to endorse him against the decisions of his mother, to try to impose his macho rhetoric that the country needs to have a Adulterer King instead of a devote Queen as a head of State and Church for this turbulent times.

To accelerate a transition to a new Monarch right now does not look even advisable under the arise of the nationalisms.

The thread is open of course for all members compelled to give their opinions to all the possible scenarios that this new May Era in British History represents.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

There is diddly/squat chance of Brenda trying to stop German Charlie from becoming King - despite the fact that in my opinion he'll be a bloody awful king.

Just noticed first female pm initials MT and now we have TM with second female pm ..............

a reply to: Wolfie_UK

Yes, you are quite right, it is an interesting coincidence of initials. One thing is also meaningful, Britain has a past of successfully surpassed crisis and even of rebirth of its grandeur under women leadership:

The two great Queens Elizabeth I and Victoria, that defined the creation and the climax of the British Empire, and also Primer Minister Margaret Thatcher who performed a terrific so effective role into face the war with Argentina in 1981 for Falkland Islands, when the south American country was looking for the continental support to their expansionist ambitions.

Thanks

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light
In order to survive at all, the royal dynasty depends on being taken for granted and conveying a sense of stability and continuity.
That is why the Abdication crisis of 1936 was such a threat in its time. The Queen remembers that, which is why there is no chance that she will want to create new uncertainties either by abdicating herself OR by trying to change the legally binding rules of succession.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Well, the rule that caused the abdication of Edward VIIIth is that no Monarch can marry a Divorced person, because the crown is appointed by God and also the Monarch is the head of the Church of England, and that is precisely the situation of Prince Charles right now.

Please check:
en.wikipedia.org...

Charles MountBaten, Prince of Wales, is married with Camilla Parker-Bowles, a woman that was marry all the time of her relationship and now is divorced , and moreover, her husband also is still alive and marry second time.

So the Queen doesn't need to by pass any rule to decide that the next King will be her grandson. The Abdication of Charles is an event that if rules and traditions were followed might have occurred even decades ago.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

Prince Charles had gained in favor of abdication under his friend and ally David Cameron

the two never got on, let alone be allies.
charles will become king unless he dies, he sees it as his destiny.
the snp and labour are poles apart, get educated.

a direct transition from Elizabeth II to her grandson, and also favorite, Prince William Duke of Cambridge.

guesswork or total b******t, your thread isn't worth pulling apart, drugs are a bad thing.

a reply to: stinkelbaum

The only thing In which I agree with you is that drugs are a bad thing, a person must be totally narcotized to don't see clearly that a man living with a woman that is divorced is violating the most essential moral norm to be monarch of a Christian kingdom as well as head of a Church.

The Great mistake of Charles is that he marry a divorced woman when as a widower, even after his many years in previous adultery, he could marry any single one and retain his rights to the throne.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

originally posted by: The angel of light
Well, the rule that caused the abdication of Edward VIIIth is that no Monarch can marry a Divorced person, because the crown is appointed by God and also the Monarch is the head of the Church of England, and that is precisely the situation of Prince Charles right now.

That was not a legal rule. That was a social attitude prevailing at the time. Modern society is so filled with divorced people that it is unlikely to prevail now.
The only LEGAL rule is that he cannot be a Catholic or be married to a Catholic. Otherwise the Act of Settlement (1702, I think) prescribes strict rules of descent.

The Queen will not raise questions like that, because they would automatically bring with them the "Do we really need a monarchy?" questions, and she will NOT want those questions to come to the fore again.

a reply to: DISRAELI

It is funny to see that you changed from respect to traditions and well established protocols to an appeal for modernization. I can assure you that Wallis Simpson was not Catholic at all, as a matter of fact she came from an Episcopalian family of Pennsylvania.

Now, Charles is currently married with a woman that comes from a Catholic background, Camilla Shand (Parker-Bowles) apparently was Baptized in the Roman Catholic church, either as a child or converted as an adult, but by sure her first marriage was Catholic, since her husband is from that faith, so are also her children, so she is considered still married with him by the Holy See, since annulation was not granted or even proceeded.

The first husband of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall , Andrew Parker Bowles, is still Roman Catholic and their children were raised in Catholic education.

www.duchess-of-cornwall.co.uk...

en.wikipedia.org...

Interestingly the second wife of Andrew Parker Bowles died in 2010, so he is a widower and then according with the Roman Catholic church, since his second marriage was not through the church, he is still the legit husband of Camilla in the eyes of God.

us.hellomagazine.com...

Any person can divorce in our modern life, and continue his or her life in someway, but to be a Monarch of a Christian Nation and a Head of a Christian church is another completely different story.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

originally posted by: The angel of light
It is funny to see that you changed from respect to traditions and well established protocols to an appeal for modernization.

I wasn't "appealing" for anything, because I was not trying to argue what morally should happen.
From my knowledge of English history and society, I was attempting to explain what would happen, in practice. There's a difference.

I can assure you that Wallis Simpson was not Catholic at all, as a matter of fact she came from an Episcopalian family of Pennsylvania.

I can assure you that I never suggested that Wallis Simpson was Catholic.
Read my post again, line by line.
My case is that Wallis Simpson was rejected because of a social prejudice against divorced people as such, which would probably not be present now. Whether it ought to be present is beside the point. I am trying to lay out the realities of the situation.
I pointed out that this prejudice was not a LEGAL rule. I then added that a LEGAL rule does exist which would have affected Charles if he were married to a Catholic.

Charles is currently married with a woman that comes from a Catholic background,

If she regarded herself and conducted herself as a Catholic, then you would have a case. There is a member of the royal family even now (Prince Michael of Kent, if he is still alive), who is excluded from the succession, by law, because he married a Catholic. There are aristocratic families in Europe which would have a better claim, by descent, than the current family, but they were ruled out in 1714 because they were Catholic. The rule is well-known and in active operation.
However, the subject has not been brought up in the case of Charles, so I would imagine that Camilla identifies, if asked, as non-Catholic.

...................

originally posted by: The angel of light
a reply to: DISRAELI

It is funny to see that you changed from respect to traditions and well established protocols to an appeal for modernization. Thanks,
The Angel of Lightness

There's more that that changing around here, It seems like a whole post has disappeared.

Anyway, here's my reply to a post by 'Disraeli' about the British constitution's legality re Catholics being a king or queen...not sure where, 'Disraeli's' post went to, but did cause me a lot of grief in trying to reply, knocked off-line, denied access to this site.

my remarks about Theresa May were also in that reply.

That legality could surely be challenged in the house of commons by vote easily nowadays.
The convention applied to Prime Ministers through no fault of their own, comes from the same source.
Interestingly enough, Theresa May is an Anglican, while also attending Roman Catholic schools in her day.

On the subject of May herself, it is pretty confusing. One/two of the things she did as Home secretary was firstly, refuse an offer from the EU, yes the EU, for compulsory quotas on refugees,

“May rejected the European Union’s proposal of compulsory refugee quotas. She said that it was important to help people living in war-zone regions and refugee camps but “not the ones who are strong and rich enough to come to Europe” ??
In May 2016, The Daily Telegraph reported that she had tried to save £4m by rejecting an intelligence project to use aircraft surveillance to detect illegal immigrant boats.??

“On 11 June 2012, May, as Home Secretary, announced to Parliament that new restrictions would be introduced, intended to reduce the number of non-European Economic Area family migrants. The changes were mostly intended to apply to new applicants after 9 July 2012. The new rules came into effect from 9 July 2012 allowing only those British citizens earning more than £18,600 to bring their spouse or their child to live with them in the UK. This figure would rise significantly in cases where visa applications are also made for children. They also increased the current two-year probationary period for partners to five years. The rules also prevent any adult and elderly dependents from settling in the UK unless they can demonstrate that, as a result of age, illness or disability, they require a level of long-term personal care that can only be provided by a relative in the UK.

An MP, who was concerned about this, addressed May in Parliament as to whether she had examined the impact on communities and families on modest incomes, but he received no direct response. Liberty concluded that the new rules showed scant regard to the impact they would have on genuine families.
The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Migration conducted an evidence based inquiry into the impact of the rules and concluded in their report that the rules were causing very young children to be separated from their parents and could exile British citizens from the UK.”

On top of that, there is an ongoing debate about the deportation of thousands of foreign students, because of fraud in compulsory English language tests, including the dead-of-night police activity, in the deportations, pretty much Ad Hoc, because of a BBC Panorama programme.

Thing is, this is selective xenophobic behaviour, for either political purpose, or just that she has preferences for her type of immigrant.

originally posted by: smurfy
That legality could surely be challenged in the house of commons by vote easily nowadays.
The convention applied to Prime Ministers through no fault of their own, comes from the same source.

As regards the monarch, the ban on Catholics is embodied in statute law (Act of Settlement), so the statute would have to be amended in the usual way.
I'm not aware of any religious ban relating to other members of the government.
The ban on Catholics in Parliament and elsewhere was abolished in 1820, I think (the result of which was the Irish Party which complicated politics for the rest of the century).

P.S. I can still see all the posts I wrote on this thread.

a reply to: Wolfie_UK

I noticed that too.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: smurfy
That legality could surely be challenged in the house of commons by vote easily nowadays.
The convention applied to Prime Ministers through no fault of their own, comes from the same source.

As regards the monarch, the ban on Catholics is embodied in statute law (Act of Settlement), so the statute would have to be amended in the usual way.
I'm not aware of any religious ban relating to other members of the government.
The ban on Catholics in Parliament and elsewhere was abolished in 1820, I think (the result of which was the Irish Party which complicated politics for the rest of the century).

P.S. I can still see all the posts I wrote on this thread.

I said, "the convention" and "Prime Minister" but even so, there are legalities to trip up a would be Catholic Prime Minister.

The relief acts allows Catholics ( and later Jews) to run for parliament but prohibited certain offices, and most relevantly prohibited a Catholic from advising the Queen or King on the the choice of Anglican Bishops when the position needs filling. Since the Queen no longer in reality chooses the Anglican Lords but does in Law still sign off on them, this seems to prohibit the advisor being the Prime Minister, and possibly excludes any member of a Cabinet led by a Catholic PM. It could be argued that the PM could recuse from Cabinet meetings, or delegate someone else, but modern cabinets are chosen by the prime minister, not chosen by the Monarch. The extent to how collegial the cabinet is depends on the PM, but in reality the PM is he head of Government, not just first amongst equals. It's not very equal. He can fire his sub-ordinates, whatever.
There is a trick in the book however, a non Catholic Lord Chancellor could take that role on, although the Lord Chancellor is a cabinet member...that's also tricky though as his advice could be considered suspect.
As for a Catholic Lord Chancellor, (it is possible to have one with special arrangements) then the need there would that the Prime Minister would have to be non Catholic and take on that role.
So it's complicated enough, and as for both Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor being Catholic...not much chance at all there.

I guess though, things may have to change. For instance, strictly speaking, Tony Blair should not have taken Roman Catholic communion while he was Prime Minister, but he did and 'got away' with it.
David Cameron wanted to abolish those limiting parts of the constitution for all.
If that means altering the role of the Queen as head or governor of the Church of England, that's something else since she is out of the democratic process anyway, other than she signs off to every Act of Parliament before it can become the law of the land...a bit cheeky really.

a reply to: smurfy

I sincerely found exaggerated and misleading the information posted that the maximum concerns to be part of the line of succession to the throne is to be married with Catholic.

If that would be the case Prince William, Duke of Cambridge should be also out of possibility, as well as his descendants, since his wife Catherine Minddleton is Roman Catholic by birth, baptized and confirmed as well.

en.wikipedia.org...

Such a speculation seems to me it is really absurd, since they represent the second and third in the line of succession.

latimesblogs.latimes.com...

Anyway thanks for the replies to the thread although I don't share many of what it was posted in this aspect.

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

Do you really believe that your new age nonsense garbled transmission of saccharin platitudes and cheap horoscope insinuation is in any way a form of actual prophetic ministry? I have looked at a few of your threads now & it's always the same pattern. You really need to give this up - get a grip on reality, take an interest in another forum within ATS, learn something, and stop spouting this BS. Really, I don't know why I even bothered to type this. And why is the new prime minister anything to do with you anyway? Do you really believe you're an angel sent to give messages to the Queen and her ministers of state? Seriously, snap out of it. I really hope nobody gets suckered into following along with your delusion.

originally posted by: The angel of light
I sincerely found exaggerated and misleading the information posted that the maximum concerns to be part of the line of succession to the throne is to be married with Catholic.

I suggest you actually read this link you posted.
latimesblogs.latimes.com...
Almost the first thing it says is that IF she was a Catholic, they would be barred from the throne by law.
"British law forbids a Catholic, or anyone married to a Catholic, from taking the British throne".
It adds that she had recently been confirmed into the Church of England.

If that would be the case Prince William, Duke of Cambridge should be also out of possibility, as well as his descendants, since his wife Catherine Minddleton is Roman Catholic by birth, baptized and confirmed as well.
en.wikipedia.org...

I see no wording on that page indicating that she is a Roman Catholic. Please indicate what words you have in mind. If you mean she was baptised and confirmed, that happens to Church of England people too.
Quoting again from the link you posted yourself;

... an item revealing that Middleton has undergone confirmation into the Anglican Church, otherwise known as the official religion of the country of Great Britain.

You are not English, are you? Please consider the possibility that when English people say something about English affairs, they might know what they are talking about. We are trying to educate you here.

a reply to: The angel of light

To be fair, the British aren't bothered about the gender of the Prime Minister - it's irrelevant. We've lived with female leaders for centuries and some have been great...some not so great. Women could even represent a higher proportion of 'great' leaders than their male counterparts.

It's hard to say whether May will be a uniting PM or a divisive one. The political climate points to the latter as it appears like the majority of vocal people prefer to be at each other's throats. There's a very good 'blonde' example of this in her choice of Boris Johnson for Foreign Secretary. That was a WTF moment. Tweedledee has gone (Gove) and she's kept Tweedledum (Boris).

As for the 'adulterer,' Prince Charles? He's OK and faithfulness to the 'other half' doesn't score high on (imo) on the list of qualities required for a figurehead. Saying that, he isn't as popular as his sons. William and Harry have much broader appeal and, in my opinion, Harry is 'one of the people' much more than the others.