There is a report by Patrick Wintour in today’s Guardian that there are signs that the British Government may, at long last, be ready to tackle the endemic sexism and religious discrimination in the British Constitution. The bar may finally be lifted. Downing Street has drawn up plans to end the 300-year-old exclusion of Roman Catholics from the throne. The requirement that the succession automatically pass to a male would also be reformed, making it possible for a first born daughter of Prince William to become his heir.
The good news is that the Government is finally thinking of removing this unjust and embarrassing inequality. The bad news is the legislation is only likely to be passed if the present government is elected for a fourth term, and although it is theoretically possible that pigs might fly in certain circumstances, in practice, that is extremely unlikely. Any incoming Conservative government is likely to want to forget any such proposals because first, it breaks with tradition (and in the eyes of some, tradition is always right, however immoral), secondly, the notion of all people being equal is way for too liberal for some, and thirdly, any such legislation is likely to pave the way for the eventual separation of the church and state. Many believe that if the latter were to happen the British Isles would just sink into the sea and disappear.
The 1688 Bill of Rights , the Act of Settlement in 1701 and Act of Union in 1707 - reinforced by the provisions of the Coronation Oath Act 1688 - effectively excluded Catholics or their spouses from the succession. Neither Catholics nor those who marry them nor those born to them out of wedlock may be in the line of succession. The law also requires the monarch on accession to make before parliament a declaration rejecting Catholicism.
Ministers have long thought it anomalous that it is unlawful for a Catholic to be monarch but, until now, have not had the political will to risk reforming the law. The plans for reform were drafted by Chris Bryant, the MP who was charged by Gordon Brown with reviewing the constitution. They are with the prime minister’s new adviser on the constitution, Wilf Stevenson.
I am an atheist. My oldest child is a woman. One of my best friends is a Roman Catholic, and his oldest child is a woman. We live in a country where, should we wish to become a monarch, we would be excluded on the grounds of our religious faith and none. If we succeeded, our oldest children could not follow us in the role because of gender. That’s absurd and immoral.
Of course, there is another absurdity - the fact that some people are given immense privilege and tax-payers’ wealth just because they were born, or married into a particular family - but that’s another issue.
_____________
Update 27/10/08 Join my Facebook Group for Separation of Church and State.
_____________
I would not disagree with your logic, but I really, truly believe that there are other, far more important things for this government to deal with at this time.
UK Voter I suppose I would want to argue that human rights here have waited 300 years and it shouldn’t have to wait any longer. I agree that it may seem minor, but it weakens our stance on ending discrimination and sexism, and passing such a law may help bring about dissestablishment.
athinkingman,
Yes, the laws of your land sound quite primitive. Sometimes, it seems like here, in the Dominion of Canada, we are more advanced that in Britain–in regards to women, religion, gays, etc.
But sometimes they do some bizarre things here, too, and, when ask Canadian-born people what the heck that is, often, I am told that it has to do with the Queen or England or whatever.
In regards to renouncing Catholicism, it makes me wonder if that’s the reason why Tony Blair waited until his political career was over to convert to Catholicism. Or have other Catholics been PMs before?
Lorena
Apparently if the law is to be changed it needs the approval of other commonwealth countries - though I don’t know why. This may explain the occasional oddity in your Canadian experience.
With regards to Tony Blair and Catholicism, I think you are right. It would have been just too constitutionally complicated while he was in office. There were also other complicating factors such as civil partnerships, and changing abortion limits legislation. I can’t think of an openly Catholic Prime Minister, though doubtless, there may have been the occasional closet one smuggling the priest in for confession through the tradesmen’s entrance of Downing Street
I am sure all this would have been sorted out a long time ago if it had become a pressing issue ie if dear Charles had had daughters rather than sons or if he has wanted to convert to Catholism rather than eccentricity. It has been left, when you might expect it to have been changed, because it is a principle rather than something which involves real people (if the royals can be considered real)
Primogeniture in general has always struck me as odd. It is unfair that it should be the first born male child who inherits but also it has always seemed unfair to me that it should always be the first born. In the case of the Royal Family it is often the case that latter born children are far more suited to the role of Monarch than first borns. I think they should have some proper selection procedure - I’m sure the BBC would buy the rights to screening it and we could all vote in our preferences. I wonder what we would call it?
Although I suppose you could argue that it is the fact that they are unburdened by the thought of having to be monarch one day that makes latter born children more normal/suitable.
I had never thought before how low my chances have always been of inheriting the throne - even if I had discovered some hidden blue blood, the fact that I am a female, baptised (though seriously lapsed) Catholic would not stand me in good stead would it?
What a funny country this is. Because I think I might actually look quite good on a postage stamp!
I have seen several comments on this proposed measure and most seem to approve of it. Why has no one thought to ask why?
Why is this measure suddenly being proposed?
Government never does anything out of kindness or because it’s a Good Idea (and I certainly do not think it a good idea for there to be a Catholic on the throne - or any other kind of religious crank, for that matter).
So, with no visible Catholic claimants to the throne lurking in the wings, why is the government doing this?
Something stinks. Is William thinking about converting?
Ah, Silver Tiger is a cynic after my own heart! I am curious about why this is an issue now.
UK Voter — there is a time for everything. Do you spend every moment of your life thinking about Big Stuff? Of course not - little things (or “little” things) need attending to as well as big ones, and should be easier to fix. The fact that such “little” things often are not easy to fix is testament to the fact that they’re not all that little.