Commonwealth Forums

My Lords and Gentlemen,

I am very pleased to see the interest this august House has taken in my first question concerning the Constitution, viz., the matter of parliamentary recesses. So, I am now taking this opportunity to raise two more matters of import, which I desire the Parliament's ruling upon.

First, there is the question of naturalization. It was my intention, as stated in the King's Speech, to transfer the power of naturalizing citizens to Parliament, with the idea being to improve the efficiency of the process by making it public. However, this has never been formally discussed. Do the Lords and Gentlemen of this House have any commentary on this issue?

Secondly, there is the royal succession. Now, the procedures for succession to the Throne have been relatively consistent for some time now: a council of Peers and other notables select the next King from their number, unless there is an appointed heir. I propose to leave that system unchanged. However, some years ago it was suggested that, if we created a Church, the Archbishop should not only crown the King, but also preside over the meetings, etc., to choose him. His Majesty has approved such an arrangement, and I think it would be a good way of giving the Church a long-term role in Hanoverian society. Any thoughts?

I agree that Parliament should naturalize citizens. I dont agree that the CHurch needs to head the committee to choose a new king or queen though. It is one thing to have the church handle the ceremony another to let the church lead said committee/

My Lords and Gentlemen,

It should be pointed out that the Archbishop will be a member of the Council of Accession anyway, as one of the Lords Spiritual. Furthermore, in the absence of Prince Justin, he will be the highest-ranking member, and hence may lead the Council by default anyway.

My Lords, Gentlemen,

I thought I would pipe in on this issue. I am in full support of having the Archbishop of Bergen preside over the Council of Accession-- as Monsignor McQueeny stated, it would give the Church a traditional, lasting and very meaningful role in our society. If the Archbishop is suitable to Crown the monarch, he is perfectly suitable to lead in the proceedings to find a monarch. This wouldn't, I assume, make the Archbishop able to override or choose the King or Queen on his own, but be rather like the Dean of the College of Cardinals?

My Lords and Gentlemen:

With regard to the naturalization issue, I am in full support of transferring the authority to grant citizenship to His Majesty in Parliament, with administrative aid as necessary from the Treasury.

As for ascension, I am in favor of the system currently in place, but would appreciate clarification before I am prepared to allow the Primate of the Church status as chair of the Council. (My qualms are not related to the present Archbishop of Bergen, but rather to the general integration of church and state and future clergymen.) Will the Primate have any more influence over the decision of the Council than another peer might, or would he merely be presiding over the Council's business?

My Lords and Gentlemen,

The Archbishop's role would, of course, be purely administrative and ceremonial. As the Noble Lord, the Prince of Emden, mentioned, his role would be like that of the Dean of the Sacred College at a Papal Conclave.

My Lords and Gentlemen, in that event, I would be entirely in support of everything my right honorable friend has proposed.