Jimmy Akin

Happy and Blessed Easter to one and all. My post on Queen Camilla generated some great comments, so I thought I’d do a follow-up:

I know precious little about the British monarchy, but it does seem interesting. I think that tales of palace intrege would be particularly interesting. Could you recommend a book or two on the subject? Thanks!

Unfortunately, I don’t know of a general history I can recommend (suggestions welcome!). I do recommend focusing on particular individuals or houses that interest you and look for books on that narrower focus. One such historian, who has written a number of books on British royals, is Alison Weir, although I disagree with her conclusion that King Richard III is the most likely murderer of his nephews, the princes in the Tower. Sure, he’s a prime suspect, but the traditional case against him is far from conclusive. (Indeed, I think one of the reasons he has persisted in the popular mind as a villain is thanks to Shakespeare’s play, which Shakespeare probably wrote at least in part to please Tudor England.)

The monarchy never really recovered after Henry VIII–yes, yes, I’ve heard of Elizabeth, and even Victoria. But Henry was the most destructive man in English history. It just takes some things longer to disappear than others, once they’ve been mortally wounded.

True enough, although there were moments of greatness, as another reader recounts:

I like to think of the Queen Mum stepping over the rubble left by bombs in wartime London. The reign of the Royals of the ’40s (after the Duke of Windsor and Wally sailed off in their yacht), and the gov’t of Winston Churchill, by inspiring London during the Blitzkrieg and overseeing Britain’s "finest hour," represented one of the few bright spots in the dull to dumb to slapsticky British history that Henry VIII and his apostasy begat.

If only there the moments of greatness were extended to generations of greatness….

Just skip over Charles and go straight to William.

Were that the case, I would again be a fan of the Windsors (at least for a while). However, although I cannot find confirmation of this online, I believe I’ve read that Charles has already indicated that he has no intention of stepping aside for William. Hard to blame him, as he’s been the twentieth-century’s Edward VII (Queen Victoria’s son); but stepping aside would be the noble thing to do.

The elimination of the monarchy poses an interesting political question – if the royalty were eliminated, what would the United Kingdom and the other countries do to fill the "Head of State" position?

Since my interest is in British history, not British constitutional law, I don’t know; but I assume the prime minister would become the head of state. For all intents and purposes, he already is anyway. Queen Elizabeth II is a great lady, but really a figurehead monarch.

The traditional response would be to look for a better royal house, as was done with the Bloodless Revolution in 1688.

No thanks. The so-called "Glorious Revolution" ousted the rightful king and last Roman Catholic monarch, James II, in favor of his Protestant daughter and her husband. Indeed, the "Glorious Revolution" was also responsible for the Bill of Rights 1689, which ensures that no Roman Catholic or royal married to a Roman Catholic will ever again ascend to the British throne.

I also thought I’d never say this, but . . .

GO RALPH NADER!

Excerpts:

The courts not only are refusing her tube feeding, but have ordered
that no attempts be made to provide her water or food by mouth. Terri
swallows her own saliva. Spoon feeding is not medical treatment. "This
outrageous order proves that the courts are not merely permitting
medical treatment to be withheld, it has ordered her to be made dead,"
Nader and Smith assert.

(Cowboy hat tip: Southern Appeal.)

Thomas Sowell argues that the clear meaning of the law Congress passed to help save Terri is being ignored by the courts:

When a case goes up to a higher court on appeal, the issue before the appellate court is not whether they agree with the merits of the decision of the lower court. In a criminal case, for example, the issue before the appellate court is not whether the defendant was guilty or innocent, but whether the trial was conducted properly.

In other words, the defendant is not supposed to be tried again at the appellate level. So, no matter how many appellate judges rule one way or the other, that tells you absolutely nothing about the fundamental question of guilt or innocence.

Similar principles apply in a civil case, such as that of Terri Schiavo. Liberals can count all the judges they want, but that does not mean that all these judges agreed with the merits of the original court’s decision. It means that they found no basis for saying that the original court’s decision was illegal.

What the law just passed by Congress did was authorize a federal court to go back to square one and examine the actual merits of the Terri Schiavo case, not simply review whether the previous judge behaved illegally. Congress authorized the federal courts to retry this case from scratch — "de novo" as the legislation says in legal terminology.

That is precisely what the federal courts have refused to do. There is no way that federal District Judge James Whittemore could have examined this complex case, with its contending legal arguments and conflicting experts, from scratch in a couple of days, even if he had worked around the clock without eating or sleeping.

Judge Whittemore ignored the clear meaning of the law passed by Congress and rubberstamped the decision to remove Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube.

As dissenting Judge Charles Wilson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals put it, the "entire purpose of the statute" is to let federal courts look at the case "with a fresh pair of eyes." But, by the Circuit Court’s decision, "we virtually guarantee" that the merits of the case "will never be litigated in a federal court" because Terri Schiavo will be dead.

GET THE STORY.