ENGLAND A MONOCULTURE

 

- TOLERANT-A CLEAR IDENTITY-A OLD COUNTRY-A SENSE OF CONTINUITY

-NOT MULTICULTURAL.

 

*

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH

Wednesday, June 7,2006

 

*

 

Britain is an old country and our ways deserve respect.

 

by

 

Simon Heffer

 

There are few things more enjoyable than when a Leftie admits, or pretends to admit, he was wrong.

 

We saw it a year ago when Trevor Phillips, commissioner-in-chief of the Commission for racial Equality, said that

 

MULTICULTURALISM

 

-had not been a huge success, and that those from other cultures who came here were better off learning to be British.

 

[‘When in Rome do as the Romans do’ so those fortunate to find a home in England need to concentrate on English culture and those who go West or North of the border will soon get to know how to integrate with the local scene.

We have a Queen of England -We have a Church of England- just about so long as the Man of many Faiths does not get his way. We have English Law -just about, and so many things of English origin and practice that we would be repeating ourselves to declare an interest.

 

The term British we leave as an overall label to embrace England as a partner with the other sister nation states in our island home and we hope one day our neighbours will come to the realisation that their interests should also include the interests of the People of England who by the way are getting quite fed-up with the way they pay the lion’s share of their increased benefits without the right to have their solely English issues raised in OUR House of Commons the concern of English MPs ONLY. ]

 

 

To Continue:

 

I think [Trevor Phillips] he was sincere. I am less sure about Gordon Brown, who bores about Britishness almost daily.

 

It is a sort of thing that allows a socialist such as Mr Brown to fake some point of contact with conservative-minded patriots.

 

It is also his way of trying to hide the fact that his own party’s policies have split up the United Kingdom and made his position, as a Scot sitting for a Scottish seat who wants to be Prime Minister mostly of

ENGLAND

 

-somewhat precarious.

Not all the Left has, however twigged that

MULTICULTURLISM

 

-is rather last century.

 

Someone of whom I hoped we had heard the last, the former

 

Archbishop of Canterbury-Lord Carey

 

-made a predictable intervention in this debate from beyond the grave last weekend.

 

He proclaimed that the Coronation of our next monarch must be an “interfaith” event. The ceremony must, he added, “have “very significant changes”, so that it is “inclusive” of other religions in Britain.

 

Lord Carey clearly has in mind what Private Eye would term a “Rocky Horror” coronation service. Never mind your archbishops, or even your Christians, your imams, your rabbis, ayatollahs, your assorted holy men and other diverse priests, layers -on-hands and speakers-in-tongues: in accordance with the professions of religious belief on the 2001 census forms, I expect to see a few Jedi knights in the sanctuary, while devotees of Ras Tafari smoke ganja at the high altar. And, as one of the realm’s noisiest atheists, I hope for a part in the proceedings, too, that I might feel “included”.

 

Having long regarded the Church of England as many people regard EastEnders, I have steeled myself not to intrude in its private grief, but to lament the largely self-inflicted decline of this great institution. Though it has, to my great spiritual regret, nothing to offer me personally, I can appreciate not merely the potential it has to succour and strengthen millions of believers, but also its role in

OUR CULTURE

 

OUR CONSTITUTION

 

OUR NATION

 

At the heart of this remains the great legacy of the

 

REFORMATION

 

 

-that the

Monarch

 

is Supreme Governor

 

of the

Church of England.

-which is the Established Church of this Realm.

 

As the 37^th of the 39 Articles (“on the Civil Magistrates”) puts it,

 

“the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this

Realm of England.

 

Quite right: and were we to update that Article as we fetishistically seek to update everything else, we might also add that no mullahs, rabbi, Jedi or Rastafarian has any jurisdiction here.

 

However, intrude into the Church’s grief we now must: for Lord Carey’s successor on the throne of St Augustine, Dr Rowan Williams, who in many regards seems even more to inhabit the wilder shores of the theology than Lord Carey, is having none of this nonsense.

 

He has picked up on the threat issued by our probable next monarch, the Prince of Wales, in 1994 about how (in that very “ last century” spirit) the Prince wanted to be

 

“Defender of Faiths”

 

Some of us boring old pedants saw the stupidity of this at the time. It is not in a King’s job description to defend “faiths”, and cannot be unless the whole constitutional arrangement that binds Church and State is unravelled.

 

More to the point, the notion of defending “faiths” imposes the King on secular legal matters -for the practising of faiths other than that of the Established Church is defended in fact by various Acts of Parliament- in which he has no place.

 

Although one has never been entirely sure that the Prince of Wales has fully grasped this point, he is NOT a politician; and few things these days are more political than the right to profess assorted faiths that NOT traditional to this country.

 

Dr Williams said of the Prince in 2003 that “Unless something really radical happens with the Constitution, he is, like it or not,

 

Defender of the Faith

 

-and he has a relationship with the Christian Church of a kind that he does not have with other communities”.

 

THAT IS SELF-EVIDENTLY THE CASE.

 

Of course, were our Queen to emulate her late mother (and I fervently hope she does) there will be no Coronation for another 20 or so years.

 

Perhaps the needless vandalism of

 

OUR CONSTITUTION

 

-will have been completed by then.

 

Perhaps there will be a different heir to the throne [Prince William]. Perhaps the moon will be made of green cheese. Until such times as these things happen, Dr William’s view must prevail, and his predecessor would be best advised to keep his bizarre views to himself.

 

For the Coronation Service, religious though it be, is about more than religion.

 

When the time comes, only a relatively small section of our people (and by no means just Christians, let alone Anglicans) would savour the religious significance of the EVENT.

 

For the rest of us, the symbolism will transcend the religious. Some will see the CONSTITUTIONAL point, and realise how the traditional form of words and practices provides us with a Monarch who will carry on business as usual.

 

For most of those watching the their plasma screens, however, the day will be about a sense of familiar NATIONAL IDENTITY

-embodied, however much or little they realise it, in the person of the

NEW SOVEREIGN.

 

Now, Lord Carey might argue that altering the service to “include” Shias, Sunnis, Hindus, Zoroastrians and Jehovah’s Witnesses would not altar that symbolism:

 

But he would be WRONG!

 

It is not only that too many of our people have seen newsreels of the last Coronation 53 years ago, and therefore have a fixed cultural idea of what it is supposed to be. It is about the NEW MONARCH, and the CEREMONY of CORONATION of which he is the heart, fitting in with what his people understand, implicitly or explicitly, about THEMSELVES, and the NATION of which they are A PART.

 

It is Trevor Philip’s point writ large: -it is about a country being given its cultural stability partly by

HISTORY and TRADITION

-and about people buying into that when they choose to become A PART of the COUNTRY.

 

That is what inclusiveness means: It is how countries as diverse as France and America both do things. It is about having a template of Frenchness or American-ness, and welcoming people into that civilisation and THOSE humane values by asking them to participate in them. We still, despite the attempts of such VANDALS as LORD CAREY, have a core CULTURE in this COUNTRY.

 

Christianity and the expectation that Christianity will, for historic reasons prevail and be accepted as prevalent, are central to that CULTURE. And a few events in the nation’s life symbolise such an understanding more than the traditional coronation service.

 

The next CORONATION will be a formal renewal of

OUR WAY OF LIFE

And

OUR VALUES.

 

It will formally recognise not only the legitimacy of the MONARCH in the eyes of GOD and the BRITISH constitution, but also of the identification of the vast majority of his subjects with the process of doing so. For that reason above all others it must be clear, comprehensible and in keeping with public expectations of such an event.

 

WE ARE NOT A MULTICUTURAL SOCIETY

 

WE ARE A MONOCULTURAL ONE -TOLERANT OF OTHER CULTURES.

 

AND WHOSE CLEAR IDENTITY IS UNDERSTOOD BY THE PEOPLE - IF NOT BY THEIR LEADERS.

 

WE ARE AN OLD COUNTRY WITH A STRONG SENSE OF CONTINUITY.

 

AND ANYONE WHO TRIFLES WITH SUCH MANIFESTATIONS OF OUR ANTIQUITY AND STABITY DOES SO AT HIS PERIL.

 

* * *

[Font altered-bolding &underlining used-comments in brackets]

*

BRITISH CONSTITUTION

BY HENRY LORD BROUGHAM F.R.S.

MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FRANCE

MEMBER OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF NAPLES

1844

 

GOVERNMENT OF ENGLAND

 

 

CONSTITUTION OF ENGLAND

 

Before we commence with extracts from the above we need to investigate the term British and what it meant in 1908 and the confusion that has arisen since the devolution has occurred in Scotland in their Scottish Parliament and the Assembly in Wales.

 

To assist us in this regard we have the brilliant Constitutional History of England (1908) by the learned Professor F.W Maitland an authority of world renown.

 

*

 

Nationality and Domicile

 

 

In speaking of king and parliament we are no longer speaking of what in strictness of language are merely English institutions; the parliament represents the United Kingdom, and king and parliament have supreme legislative power over territories which lie in every quarter of the globe.

 

Of this parliament we must speak.

 

Below it there are many institutions, some of which are specifically Scottish, Irish, Canadian, Australian, Indian; for example the judicial systems of England, Ireland and Scotland are distinct from each other, though at the supreme point they unite in the House of Lords.

 

It is of great importance to distinguish those institutions which like the kingship and the parliament are (we can hardly avoid the term) imperial institutions, from those which like the

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

-are specifically English, and I strongly advise you not to use the words England and English when you mean what is larger than England and more than English.

 

When we have dealt with the institutions, which have power over all the British dominions, we shall, being Englishmen in an English university, deal with some purely English institutions the High Court of Justice, not with the Scottish Court of Sessions -but let us keep this distinction firmly in our minds; if we are Englishmen, we are subjects of a sovereign whose power extends over millions and millions of men who are not English. [1908]

 

Let me illustrate this by a further remark. There are two conceptions, which are of great importance to students of international law:

 

-the one nationality, the other domicile.

 

Now there is no such thing as English nationality, and there is no such thing as British domicile. [1908]

The Englishman, the Scot, the Irishman, the Canadian, and the Australian -all of these have a nationality in common. [1908]

 

If there be a war between the United Kingdom and a foreign power, say France, all of them are enemies of the French, any of them who side with the French are traitors. [1908]

 

But there is no such thing as British domicile -

Because there is no one system of private law common to all the British dominions; a man is domiciled in England or Scotland or New Zealand, and to a very large extent the law under which he lives varies with his place of domicile.

 

If I abandon my English domicile, and become domiciled in Scotland, this will have important legal results for me, but my nationality remains what it was. So by England let us mean England, a land, which consists of fifty-two counties [1908]

 

We have included the above extracts from

The

 

CONSTITUTIONAL

HISTORY

OF

ENGLAND

 

by

 

F.W MAITLAND [1908]

 

-to show the destruction of the British Constitution over the past 75 years and particularly in the last nine years under Blairdom has shown that the title of British has led to much confusion as the foundation of that concept has now been undermined with the Englishman having to pretend that there is in fact a British Constitution when we have a Scottish Parliament and an Assembly in Wales no doubt in time to be a parliament.

 

The term BRITISH should ONLY be used when it concerns ALL the nation States within our island home -such as with Defence as virtually all other matters have been handed over to the other national bodies in Scotland and Wales.

 

Let us hear no more about Britishness but more about Englishness-Scottishness and Welshness because that is the situation we find ourselves in 2006.

 

To return to Britishness in our shared island there needs to be a return of an

English Parliament.

 

Only then will the term British regain its true meaning.

 

 

 

To continue:

 

BRITISH CONSTITUTION

 

BY

 

LORD BROUGHAM

 

*

 

CHAPTER VIII

 

THE National Resistance was not only, n point of Historical fact, the cause of the Revolutionary settlement, it was the main foundation of that settlement; the structure of the government was made to rest upon the people’s

 

Right of Resistance

[Even in 2006]

 

-as upon its cornerstone; and it is of incalculable importance that this never should be lost sight of.

 

But it is of equal importance that we should ever bear in mind how essential to the preservation of the CONSTITUTION, thus established and secured, this principle of RESISTANCE is; how necessary both for the governors and the governed it ever must be to regard the recourse to that extremity as always possible -an extremity, no doubt, and to be cautiously embraced as such, but still a remedy within the people’s reach; a protection to which they CAN and WILL resort as often as their rulers make such a recourse necessary for self-defence.

 

[DO YOU UNDERSTAND

TONY BLAIR?]

 

The whole history of the CONSTITUTION, which we have been occupied, in tracing from the earliest ages, abounds with proofs how easily absolute power may be exercised, [AS in 2006] and the RIGHTS of the people best secured by LAW be trampled upon, while the theory of a FREE GOVERNMENT remains unaltered. [AS in 2006] and all institutions framed for the CONTROL of the EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT [AS in 2006] and all the LAWS designed for the protection of the subject, continue as entire as at the moment they were first founded by the struggles of the PEOPLE, and cemented by their labour or their BLOOD.

 

The thirty renewals of

 

MAGNA CARTA