WHEN, FOLLOWING yesterday’s enlightened decision at the Commonwealth summit, Queen Elizabeth’s 16 “realms” get round to passing the required legislation to overturn male primogeniture, an eldest daughter will be allowed to succeed to that most archaic and reactionary of institutions, the British throne. And an heir to the throne who marries a Catholic – the bar is only on Catholics – will no longer have to renounce his/her right to the throne.
Strange how, as this Republic elects its distinctly 21st century head of state, our neighbour struggles to bring its own feudal procedures for renewing that office into the 20th. And, ironically, it took a Tory-led government to bring about an egalitarian “breakthrough” that for 13 years defied Labour. Such changes have been somewhere in the political in-tray since Anthony Eden succeeded Winston Churchill in 1955 when a civil service memo suggested it was time for a change.
There is now a certain urgency, following the marriage of Prince William and Catherine Middleton and the prospect of imminent additions to the line of succession. Even the idea that a daughter would then be passed over for a younger son, might, horror of horrors, raise questions about the institution itself. On the other hand, the prohibition on anyone with a Catholic spouse from succeeding also affected the Queen’s eldest grandson three years ago. But then his bride-to-be conveniently took soup, resolving the problem.
Of course, the biggest anomaly was passed over. Removing the ban on a non-Protestant monarch would require the long overdue disestablishment of the Church of England for which there is also an unanswerable democratic case. All too much though for our “modern” politicians for whom, despite occasional republican grumblings from the public, the monarchy also remains an article of faith.