Britain has many quaint and ancient laws which have never been properly repealed. Either genuinely, or merely according to urban legend, even to this day it is supposed to be unlawful to enter Parliament wearing a suit of armour, to ask a taxi-cab passenger if they have the plague, to show a child aged under 10 a naked mannequin while in Scotland, or to be found in a state of drunkenness inside a pub. As late as 2001, it was still technically illegal for a Jew to live in Leicester. Today, given that city’s growing Muslim population, this same restriction is still informally true, just not in writing (yet).
Another picturesque old semi-mythical British law is that a Catholic is not allowed to become Prime Minister, an alleged hangover from the days before the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829, prior to which filthy Papists like myself were barred from most meaningful fields in public life, like politics and higher education. The same prohibition once stood for Jews in this country, who did not win initial Emancipation until even later, in 1859. It is sometimes said that this antique rule preventing a Catholic or a Jew from becoming PM still applies, although in truth it probably doesn’t. What is not in serious dispute is that, under the terms of current, never-repealed law, any Catholic – or Jewish – PM must not personally advise the Crown about the appointment of Church of England bishops. As the CofE by convention passes a name, or pair of names, to the PM to look over for each newly appointed bishop before appointment, this could theoretically pose an obscure constitutional problem for Burnham should he now become Prime Minister, as expected, following his depressingly large June 18th victory in the Makerfield by-election.
Why? Because Andy is a Catholic – the first open holder of the office in our nation’s history. So, for him to fulfil his necessary role in approving Anglican bishops, he would arguably need to commit what lingering remnants of UK anti-Catholic legislation specifically calls a “high misdemeanour”. The long-term crypto-Catholic Tony Blair got around all this by virtue of waiting until he had left office before publicly converting to Rome, whilst Boris Johnson, although baptised a Catholic, later switched to Anglicanism as a teenager (albeit he then married his latest wife in an RC ceremony while still in office, arguably meaning Boris both had his Catholic Communion-cake and ate it). Disraeli, by the way, although born Jewish, converted to Anglicanism aged 12, avoiding religious restrictions on holding high office that way.
Catholic tastes
For his own part, Burnham is very much tepid in his alleged ‘Catholicism’, which seems every bit as lapsed as a 1993 Blockbuster Video Membership Card. In 2009, he told the Guardian that the three most important things in the Holy Trinity of his life were “Everton FC, the Labour Party and the Catholic Church – in that order”. He accidentally left off the word “Myself” in the number one position, which is and always has been the true graven idol Andy most worshipped.
Although his faith is as shallow as a baptismal font, unlike Bojo, Burnham has never officially left the Roman Church at all. Yet there is a potential way for him around the relevant religious constitutional restriction nonetheless. If you look at his predictable left-wing opinions on various queer matters in particular, then Andy doesn’t genuinely appear to be a Catholic at all: so, problem solved!
In a 2015 interview, Burnham called the conservative-minded Pope Benedict XVI’s professed desire to make the Catholic Church actually follow traditional Catholic teaching upon such matters as homosexuality and men using the wrong toilets “terrifying”:
I’m Catholic by upbringing, but I’m not particularly religious now. My kids go to a Catholic school, so I still believe in the values and the grounding it gives you [i.e., when reduced down to a simplistic socialist-type ‘help the poor’ message, like in liberation theology]. I’m a very big believer in that. But because of my background, when I voted [in favour of gay marriage and transgender issues] it always caused a kind of tension in terms of [actual Catholic] people I know, friends, family… I find that quite difficult because if I think of the church of my youth, and the priests that I knew, the feeling and overriding mood was quite forgiving really, quite humane, humorous, irreverent, even the priests. That’s my memory of the church that I grew up with. And it seemed at some point with the change of Popes [to Benedict] to click into a more judgemental mode and became much more obsessed with sexuality and issues related to sexual behaviour.
This indicates Burnham himself was “obsessed with sexuality”, too, does it not? When it comes to his faith, just like when it comes to everything else in his politics, Burnham seems unable to make up his mind about what he really believes, if anything. He reminds me of those famous lines from the Porter’s Scene in Macbeth (themselves a reference to a verbally slippery Jesuit priest, the Gunpowder Plotter Father Henry Garnet):
Faith, here’s an equivocator, that could swear in both the scales against either scale; who committed treason enough for God’s sake, yet could not equivocate to Heaven.
If and when Burnham Wood moves to Downing Street, like Shakespeare’s Weird Sisters before me, I predict disaster will occur, particularly in the bond market. Henry Garnet tried to blow up Parliament via gunpowder, but in some alarmist views, Burnham may do so constitutionally, thanks to his never formally repudiated faith. However, if he’s really worried about being barred from potential future office, he does have a simpler solution than ritually recanting his beliefs or sending an abusive message to the Pope, or undergoing a sudden, excommunication-causing gay marriage: pretend to convert to Hinduism instead.
In the shape of Rishi Sunak, the United Kingdom has already had a Hindu Prime Minister, a circumstance which seems to have caused absolutely zero constitutional issues. How come? Because, while once specifically banning Catholics and Jews from holding high office, the anciently drafted laws of the land never even thought of banning any Hindus from being PM – or any Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Jains or Jedi either, for that matter. The reason is obvious: there just weren’t any meaningful numbers of such exotic individuals present in this country up until round about this time yesterday, so banning them during days of yore would have made about as much sense as a school banning mobile phones in 1679.
The Book of Knob
And yet, were Andy Panderer to indeed make it to Number 10 as PM and displace Sir Keir Starmer (the first Satanist to hold the position), there is one core modern-day religious altar at which he will very definitely be required by the Neo-Establishment rules of our unwritten constitution to worship: that of multiculturalism. According to the New Faith’s key catechisms, one of the main doctrines of this faith is “We have always been a nation of immigrants”.
Well, yes: white Catholic, Irish, European or Jewish immigrants, maybe. That much is true; such people do have a demonstrably long and significant history here. Even anti-immigration Nigel Farage’s own ancestors were probably fleeing French Huguenots, as sinister leftist cult-priestesses like the one below never tire of pointing out to apostates:
But, right now, the modern multi-culti cult demands catechism-like acknowledgement of so much more: Stonehenge was built by black people, Beachy Head Woman was an African, Queen Charlotte and James I were Jamaicans, as surely was Edward the Black Prince. So it says in the Book of By the Numbers, and if you do not stand up and swear that you believe so upon a copy of the Bible (i.e., the Equalities Act 2010), then YOU ARE A DESPICABLE HERETIC AND MUST BE BURNED!
To be considered fit for high office by the British state these days, you really are formally required to believe all this, or at least to stand up and say you do, upon pain of complete social cancellation by the Banish Inquisition. Andy Burnham certainly pretends he believes all this false dogma, clutching his leftist rosary to chant out the below severe anathemas after Sir Jim Ratcliffe was excommunicated by the faithful earlier this year for daring to blaspheme that Andy’s former mayoral city of Manchester was being “colonised” by mass immigration:
These comments go against everything for which Manchester has traditionally stood: a place where people of all races, faiths and none have pulled together over centuries to build our city and our institutions, including Manchester United FC.
Faith, what an equivocator! Technically, I suppose, Burnham is correct that many immigrants down the centuries did indeed help build both Manchester and its biggest football club, as he implies – but they were all white Christian immigrants, whether full-on actual believers or not, in terms of Irish navvies who carved out its famous Ship Canal, and Scottish and Northern Irish sportsmen like Matt Busby and George Best. To claim otherwise, as Andy reverently does, would be like saying there were plenty of Muslims here in the days of the Crusades – they just kept their heads down for a while.
Should Burnham enter office as Prime Minister and begin to run into potential constitutional difficulties because of his faith – his Catholic one, not his migrant-worshipping one – some enterprising journalist should stop and ask him: if we really have always been a nation of non-white, non-Judeo-Christian immigrants, as you pretend to believe, how come Rishi Sunak never encountered any age-old laws aimed at preventing a subcontinental Hindu like himself from occupying Number Ten? What would his unconvincing answer be to that, one wonders.
Yet more equivocation. For someone who says his Catholic faith has now largely dwindled away into the summer sky, to be replaced by a magic gay rainbow, Andy Burnham remains remarkably Jesuitical in many of his prevaricating pronouncements in public life.
Every sanctimonious, self-serving word of his is no more than pious cant from a pious – well, you can finish that final pun off for yourself. I couldn’t possibly do so personally; I was raised a good Catholic.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Yes the Hugenots were fleeing death and forcible conversion by the French RC state, just as the Jews were invited back to England by Cromwell. Roman Catholics do have an ongoing problem, their CEO’s politics carry a weight of infallibility [ following the Pople declaring himself infallible in 1870]. The Pope declared Queen Elizabeth I a legitimate target for assassination, an RC fatwa. That was a terrible thing to inflict on Englilsh RCs who instantly became likely assassins and so very suspect, not to be entrusted with national interests. This has worn off with time,although conflicts of interest do occur today, this the new Pope, to whom Lord Frost last year swore allegiance, declared the handing over of the Chagos Islands ‘ a triumph, presumably conflicting with his British allegiance?
One last important point: Steven Tucker wrote “Even anti-immigration Nigel Farage’s own ancestors were probably fleeing French Huguenots, as sinister leftist cult-priestesses like… [Tessa Dunlop] never tire of pointing out to apostates.”
Dear Tessa Dunlop,
The French Huguenots who escaped the horrific POGROMS decreed by the French Catholic kings, who were urged to do this by their Catholic mothers or mistresses, brought with them useful skills and innovations such as the Kentish Oast Houses, as well as “knowledge of important techniques and styles, which had a significant effect on the quality of the silk, plate glass, silversmithing, watchmaking and cabinet making industries of those regions to which they relocated. ”
The 50,000 French Huguenot refugees in England came over the course of more than 50 YEARS.
In contrast, nearly 50,000 Third World Immigrants came from Africa and India in ONE YEAR ALONE: 2022.
And they are still coming, bringing drugs, murder, rape, paedophilia, bestiality and demanding a lifetime of welfare benefits, and exemptions from British laws on animal welfare, safety equipment, carrying weapons and monogamy.
THAT, Tessa Dunlop, is the difference.
Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre | August 24, 1572 | HISTORY
“King Charles IX of France, under the sway of his mother, Catherine de Medici, orders the assassination of Huguenot Protestant leaders in Paris, setting off an orgy of killing that results in the massacre of tens of thousands of Huguenots all across France.”
“A list of those to be killed was drawn up, headed by Coligny, who was brutally beaten and thrown out of his bedroom window just before dawn on August 24. Once the killing started, mobs of Catholic Parisians, apparently overcome with bloodlust, began a general massacre of Huguenots. Charles issued a royal order on August 25 to halt the killing, but his pleas went unheeded as the massacres spread. Mass slaughters continued into October, reaching the provinces of Rouen, Lyon, Bourges, Bourdeaux, and Orleans. An estimated 3,000 French Protestants were killed in Paris, and as many as 70,000 in all of France. The massacre of Saint Bartholomew’s Day marked the resumption of religious civil war in France.”
Then there was King Louis XIV who regarded it as his sacred duty to wipe out the whole Protestant faith in France, sending pastors to be GALLEY SLAVES like criminals, and actually banning Protestants from leaving France. Total extermination was his aim.
Edict of Fontainebleau – Wikipedia
“In his edict given at his Palace of Fontainebleau in October 1685, Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes and ordered the destruction of Huguenot churches as well as the closing of Protestant schools. All members of the Reformed Church in France that were abroad were to have their possessions confiscated if they did not return within a period of four months from the decree. All pastors that did not convert would be subject to the pain of the galleys. Any ‘recently converted’ individuals found to be secretly practicing Protestantism would likewise face a similar punishment. The edict made official the policy of persecution that was already enforced since the dragonnades that he had created in 1681 to intimidate Huguenots into converting to to Catholicism, renewing efforts to forcibly convert those north of the Loire valley. The edict was particularly unique in its official ban on emigration, proving itself to be distinctly repressive… Read more »
Assuption, the mother of all feckups,you assume Burnham will be PM, the knoves are already out, so I wouldnt be so sure……
“What would his unconvincing answer be to that, one wonders.”
Don’t be silly ….. it will be “You’re a Faaah Rite bigot.”
The Scottish, Irish and Welsh are not immigrants to the UK. They are all natives to the British Isles. One of my Great Grandfathers came from ireland when it was in the UK and two others from Scotland – I am not descended from immigrant stock.
Steven Tucker wrote: “how come Rishi Sunak never encountered any age-old laws aimed at preventing a subcontinental Hindu like himself from occupying Number Ten?”
Answer: For the same reason that most politicians never encounter any protests from British Citizens against the Treasonous Commonwealth Voting Rights allowing citizens of about 100 foreign countries to vote in British elections, thereby disenfranchising British Citizens by swamping their democratic votes. And that reason is:
VERY FEW BRITISH CITIZENS EVEN KNOW ABOUT THESE LAWS, so that when these laws are mentioned, everyone SNEERS, SCOFFS & DISMISSES the truth out of hand.
I didn’t know about these laws until you mentioned them here. I think they are wrong and should be changed.
The Law of This Land stating that only Protestants may hold the posts of Monarch or Monarch’s Prime Minister is the only thing standing in the way of the Global Caliphate hoisting the Black Flag of Islam over Parliament.
The Commonwealth Voting Rights law is just treasonous.
“And it seemed at some point with the change of Popes [to Benedict] to click into a more judgemental mode and became much more obsessed with sexuality and issues related to sexual behaviour.”
No Andy, that’ll be you and the creepy rainbow fetish cult you slavishly support.
Steven Tucker wrote: “Because Andy is a Catholic – the first open holder of the office in our nation’s history. “
Erm … aren’t you forgetting THE LETTUCE? The Catholic Lettuce Liz Truss?
She held the post of PM illegally, as did Hindu Sunak, Jewish Starmer, and even Closet Catholic May, as Lord Michael Gove once pointed out.
The Law of This Land says clearly that NO CATHOLIC, JEWISH, or by extension Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Buddhist, Maori Cannibal, Pagan Wiccan Voodoo Idiot or anyone but a PROTESTANT may legally hold the post of MONARCH or MONARCH’S PRIME MINISTER.
Centuries of religious intolerance and idiots still yap on about “we are a tolerant people” to support their multi-culti, diversie-wursey, fantasy obsession.
No we are not!
We have a two word Anglo-Saxon imperative which demonstrates that nicely
To tolerate means to endure, put up with and there are some things up with which we shall not put.