Peers could not be elected to the Commons prior to 1992. Viscount Cranbourne was only permitted to sit in the Commons prior to 1992 because he wasn't a peer yet. He inherited his hereditary title in 1999. I find it odd that you, as a Kiwi, feel you know more about UK politics and law than a Pom on so many issues. Have you considered PDL is more across the affairs of his own country than you are?
Peers still cannot be elected to the House of Commons even though most of them can no longer sit in the House of Lords. Someone may sit in the House of Commons and have what appears to be a peerage title. This is because the heir to a peerage may have as a courtesy title his father's second ranked peerage. Example: A peer may have the titles Duke of Blankshire, Earl Uptown and Baron Newtown. His eldest son would hold the title Earl Uptown as a courtesy title. The Duke of Blankshire cannot sit in either House of Parliament unless he is elected as one of the representative hereditary peers to be elected to the House of Lords. Because he is a peer he cannot be elected to the Hosue of Commons. Earl Uptown, son and heir of the Duke of Blankshire, could be elected to the House of Commons. When the current Duke of Blankshire dies and his heir, Earl Uptown, becomes the next Duke of Blankshire he, i.e. Earl Uptown, would lose his seat in the Commons (if he were a member).
Hi folks back again ( or ) depending on your view. Just to recap; it's my opinion that although it is legal to use forms of worship other than the 1662 prayer book, it doesn't appear as though the church obeys the "but the powers of the General Synod under this subsection shall be so exercised as to ensure that the forms of service contained in the Book of Common Prayer continue to be available for use in the Church of England." part of the law. And I'm sure a quick look at Romans will convince you Christians should obey the law. In 1981 it was felt that the church wasn't doing this and the Prayer Book Protection Bill was introduced to parliament, to correct this and here are some exciting extracts from the debate. -------------------------- Three years ago I introduced a Bill in your Lordships' House in an attempt to enable the laity, who have the new services foisted on them against their will, to enjoy the Prayer Book if they so wished in its place, through a ballot of all members of the Church electoral roll. It would be decided by the ballot whether they preferred to have the Book of Common Prayer at the three main services on Sundays. Then last summer Profesor Martin organised a Gallup Poll for the BBC programme "Everyman", which showed that more than half who claim adherence to the Church of England are unhappy about Series 3; about 70 per cent. want the traditional marriage service and nearly 80 per cent. would prefer to leave the Lord's Prayer alone. One bishop has questioned the priests ordained in his diocese since 1974 over what had gone on at the theological colleges where they received their training, and he found that, though the Prayer Book may have appeared as an item in various courses of worship and liturgy, there was no systematic instruction in it. And the position over worship was even worse. Among the diet of Series 2 and 3 use of the Prayer Book varied from occasional or optional to never at all. More evidence has been adduced by Professor Martin in the latest issue of the Prayer Book Society's Journal, Faith and Worship, in which he says that wherever he has preached evensong at theological colleges he has never heard the Prayer Book, and Professor Martin adds that at Westcott House, which is perhaps the foremost theological college, they do not have the Prayer Book at all, or indeed have anything else except Series 3. Further argument for more protection for the Prayer Book now becomes clear, if we consider that if the present trend of liturgical manner continues, it will induce some ministers to forget or even to know the Prayer Book and so no choice will be left between the Prayer Book and the Alternative Services. ------------------------- I could go on and some people probably think I do. Call me cynical but another reason for alternative services is as Lord Sudeley says in the debate. "Then, we know about the colossal sums to be obtained from the publication of religious texts through the massive sales of new versions of the Bible, and while the Prayer Book is not copyright the Alternative Service Book is and it attracts a copyright fee of 10 per cent.; that is to say, 35p or 40p a copy. So if 1 million copies are sold this means about £400,000 to the Church". The 1981 Prayer book Bill wasn't passed as it ran out of parliamentry time. Was this the end of the issue--Oh no--- stay tuned for the year 1984.
I agree. Common Worship is based on what appears to be a loophole. The intent of the law that is still on the books was for the 1662 BCP to remain what people actually heard in CoE services. We have a similar situation here in the US, although not as pervasive. Since almost all the 1928 BCP purists have either died or just left, there is a lot more conservatism toward the 1979 American BCP than was the case just 10 or 15 years ago. Nevertheless, there are “alternative rites” that threaten to displace the BCP in certain circles in the US, contrary to clear legislative intent on our side of the pond. It just highlights how difficult imposing uniformity really is and how short-lived it often turns out to be.
Do we Anglicans see the imposition of uniformity as a good or a bad tendency, within the principle of obedience to the teaching of Jesus Christ and his apostles, though? Could CW be seen as an essential reform needed to render Anglican worship relevant and meaningful to 21st century congregations, many of whom may not now understand idiomatic Shakespearean 16th century English, not in common usage today? The English Church should not become by imposition, a nostalgic 'Language Museum' and possibly an increasingly quaint irrelevance to the nation within which it is established. .
I prefer to worship God in modern English - a language I understand. If I worshipped Him in an obscure dialect of Mongolian God would still understand me. What I want to do is understand what the priest, ministers, my fellow worshippers and I are saying. The Book of Common Prayer (1662) (with or without 1928 additions) is available to be used. No one is preventing its use.
Hey I completely get what you guys think. I quite agree, if you want a modern, relevant, intelligible to younger people, service then there is much to commend it. But there are the older; reactionary, stick in the muds, pedantic, rememberers of old laws/rules sort of people who might like to insist on their rights to lobby to have the 1662 available but of course not exclusively. And I think we they should be able to do so. I'm of course not one of these old rule rememberers, but it still riles me that well into the era of ball point pens at school, they denied promising to provide ink for those who use fountain pens. I suspect there was only one person still using one at the time.
We now leave the year 1981 and the Prayer Book Protection Bill and move to the year 1984 and the Prayer Book Protection Bill. Yes different year, different Bill but with the same name as in 1981. I get the impression that the 1662 service was on the rapid decline due to its near invisibility in many theological colleges. This probably coincides with the period these colleges became; hip, trendy, with it, modern etc ( which is not necessarily a bad thing). The 1662 was not taught in some colleges, and little in others and the new priests coming through them weren't exposed to it, and no doubt not taught their legal obligations about it. Now I don't think this was a conspiracy, but just the way things evolved. I'm not a conspiracy expert apart from one - was it really Rudolf Hess or a body double in Spandau Prison as there was no sign of the bullet wound he received in his shoulder in Rumania in 1917- if anyone is interested. And now for some exciting extracts from the 1984 Hansard recording of the debate. Lord Sudeley (again) At the outset I should also like to thank the most reverend Primate the Archbiship of Canterbury for being present this evening. I also wish to thank the Archbishop most warmly for his public statement on the Prayer Book in the Daily Telegraph on 23rd February. The statement has been described as generous and personal. It says that the Prayer Book should be properly taught in theological colleges, and it seek to help over the position of the Prayer Book at parish level. Hitherto, it has been difficult for the laity to disagree with the incumbent who prefers the new services. Knowing this, the Archbishop has written that it is the responsibility of all Church people—clergy, as well as laity—who love the Prayer Book to show boldness with fervent zeal. There is secondly the question of what the bishops as a whole have been unwilling to do. In consequence of the success of this Bill in 1981 the bishops passed a series of resolutions to improve the status of the Prayer Book in the Church of England stating in particular that it should be further taught and used in theological colleges and that the adequate use of the Prayer Book at parish level should be discussed at bishops' councils. I am afraid, however, that the bishops have hardly troubled to implement their own recommendations. To consider first the theological colleges, which many would regard as the key to the whole issue, letters went out to their principals from the president of the Prayer Book Society, Sir John Colville, and the replies show that the position has hardly changed since the bishops passed their resolutions. Out of a total of about 14 theological colleges, it is true that three or four use the Prayer Book for worship for about a third of the time, but these are the same group as did so before the bishops made their resolutions. Rite B in the Alternative Service Book, which can be relatively traditional in language largely along the lines of Series 2, is almost completely neglected and in some colleges a total monopoly has been established for the more modern Rite A. Is investigation required of whether candidates seeking ordination are turned down because they prefer the Prayer Book? This may be suggested when some colleges justify their present practice on the grounds that ordinands do not want services other than the modern Rite A. Two colleges regard the Prayer Book as out of date. Another college declared that the highly structured service of the Prayer Book in old English with little participation was difficult to get used to. Another college said that if the young clergy preferred the new service, the college itself was not to blame. Consideration had to be given to the services that the ordinands knew before their training and would find after their training in the parishes that they served. In his correspondance with the Secretary-General of the Synod, a Member of another place called attention to how the new edition is biased against the Prayer Book, and hopefully a side result of this debate will be yet a further edition in which the phrasing of the pamphlet will be fairer. The present new edition states that, while legally decisions about options are for the incumbent, he may wish to take account of the view of the parochial church council or the congregation. Why here is there no mention of the right of the laity on the parochial church council to insist on the Prayer Book, and why is there no mention in the new pamphlet of consultation between the incumbent and the parochial church council about the options to be used within any given rite. As it is, the incumbent may agree to use Rite B with options which bear little or no resemblance to the Prayer Book, while the congregation may not even know about the options which exist in the style of the Prayer Book itself. --------------------- There is of course numerous other useful extracts and you can read the whole debate (30 pages) here. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1984/apr/11/prayer-book-protection-bill-hl Again another spelling mistake in Hansard Archbiship not Archbishop, they still haven't corrected ackowleged yet.
Although the book itself was never sanctioned or authorised by Parliament, the House of Bishops allowed its publication for general release and declared that they did not regard use of its contents as inconsistent with loyalty to the Church of England. Since 1969 Canon B5 has allowed the Minister to make and use variations in services which are not of substantial importance or contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter. Furthermore most of the services proposed in 1928 are now 'legal' as a result of various aspects of the Common Worship overall provision. So far as I'm aware the only services not covered by something or other are the 1928 Baptism and Confirmation services.
Thanks for the info Adrian63. Contrary to what some people may think I'm not against using alternative services or insisting that the 1662 service be used only. What concerns me is the "Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure 1974 No.3" Section 1(b) says "but the powers of the General Synod under this subsection shall be so exercised as to ensure that the forms of service contained in the Book of Common Prayer continue to be available for use in the Church of England." It is this part of Canon Law I think is not being adhered to. What do you think?