A letter to the Sunday Times, the first paragraph of which was published on 1st May 2011.
Rather than barring Catholics specifically from the throne, the 1701 Act of Settlement stipulates British sovereigns be “heirs of the body of the Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover, being Protestant” (“Race is on to change law of succession”, News, April 17). The act thus excludes all those who are not of the Protestant faith, not just Catholics. This is consistent with the requirement that the sovereign is also the supreme governor of the Church of England.
It is also not the case as stated in the article that “endorsement” is required from the Commonwealth of any changes in the succession law. It is entirely a matter for the 16 realms which retain the British monarch as their Head of State to decide individually. This is because Headship of the Commonwealth itself is a quite separate matter: there is no formal provision for that post to be filled by the British monarch after the present Queen.
A letter to the Sunday Times which was published on 11th July 2010.
The Rolling Stone article that appeared in News Review under the headline “Downfall of the Jedi general” (June 27th) states that the purpose of the now-sacked General McChrystal in going to Paris in April was “to keep up the fiction” that America had allies in the war in Afghanistan that “has become the exclusive property of the United States”.
In fact, Britain has suffered more losses proportionately to deployed forces and population than any other country, including the United States. Last week saw the 314th death (not to be confused with casualties, as there are more than 1,000 of these). No other Nato country, except Canada, comes near these proportionate sacrifices. Is the expensive British embassy in Washington telling the American people about this? One suspects it is not.
A letter to the Sunday Times which was published on 4th November 2007.
In your editorial ‘Right not to remain silent’ (Comment, last week) you state that “one of the unspoken truths is that there is little the government can do to control immigration” because as Britain is a “member of the European Union, many of these people can come and go as they please”. However, one may ask what scale of national catastrophe will we have to endure before the really unmentionable subject of leaving the EU is contemplated.
While the latest of a sequence of projections and corrections (for 2005) gives a net flow of 190,000 people coming each year, what has not been so clearly broadcast is that this figure derives from about 550,000 coming in (including about 90,000 returning British citizens) minus about 360,000 leaving (about 170,000 British). Thus there was estimated a net inflow of foreign nationals of 270,000 and a net outflow of 80,000 British, an increase of 350,000 in the relative size of the foreign population. This is projected for each year to 2050.
This would mean that in the lifetimes of almost everyone under 40 the foreign-born population will have grown relative to the native population by more than 15 million, twice the population of Greater London – about the same change proportionately as has been inflicted on the Tibetan people by the enforced immigration of ethnic Chinese.
Britain’s catastrophe can be averted by stopping immigration completely, for say five years, until the British people have had a chance to pronounce on whom and how many they want to settle here.
A letter to the Sunday Times which was published on 8th February 2004.
Minette Marrin’s article on the Muslim headscarf (hijab) is positively Huttonesque in its conclusions. Most of it explains that wearing the hijab (sometimes virtually a mask) is not so much a religious duty as a mark of separateness.
Marrin then stresses that there are other signs of Muslim children drawing away from British society, with groups like Al-Muhajiroun (which celebrated September 11th) propagandising on their behalf.
Yet bizarrely Marrin concludes that a minority of a minority should, in the name of freedom, be allowed to break a school dress code upheld by the majority of parents.
As a devout Englishman I believe in the democratic principle. If a majority of parents want to have a school uniform or dress code, then they and the head teacher should be free to have it, free of interference from busybodies such as the Commission for Racial Equality and Al-Muhajiroun.
