Last week, the Prime Minister and Buckingham Palace engaged in discussions about the possibility of changing the rules of succession embedded in the 1701 Act of Settlement and in doing away with primogeniture.
Primogeniture ensures that royal women are overlooked in the succession until male alternatives are depleted whilst the Act of Settlement forbids any would-be monarch from marrying a Catholic.
There is no doubt that both of these rules seem slightly unusual in the UK of today with its cherished (and sometimes abused) virtues of equality and diversity. Both rules are very much products of their time. The ban on marrying a Catholic goes back to the less tolerant days where the memories of Europe’s religious wars were still fresh in the mind.
Primogeniture goes back even further to an unknown date. Perhaps the reason for such a tradition was the need to have a strong man leading the country in an age where war was a common and even expected occupation of rulers (although given this country produced war leaders like Boadicea, Elizabeth I and (some might say) Margaret Thatcher, one could question the logic of this as well).
So for better or worse we have inherited these oddities from our ancestors. The current question is though: should we expunge these quirks from our inclusive 21st century Britain? And if so what effect would it have?
Ending the ban on the monarch marrying a Catholic would seem to present some problems. Given that the monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church of England it would make sense that the royal line be firmly Anglican. Some have argued that tinkering with the Act of Settlement could open a Pandora’s Box of constitutional confusion on the role of the monarchy and the role of the Church of England, which could well be the case.
The justification for changing the rules to allow Catholics and older sisters to come closer to inheriting the throne seems to be that it will remove discrimination against Catholics and women.
Clearly no one wants to live in a society where women, ethnic or religious minorities and others face discrimination. But any legislation against such things should be introduced only where there is a perceived need, rather than for the sake of stamping the words “equality and diversity” all over Britain.
