And of course they are right. It is ludicrous in this day and age to debar a member of the royal family from the throne if they marry a Roman Catholic. Religious bigotry of this sort has no place in a modern Britain, though one could understand the fears which prompted the law back in the early 18th century. Similarly to suggest that a male child should always take precedence over a female in the rights of succession is likewise archaic. Princess Anne is the Queen's second born but is now only 10th in line to the throne behind Prince Charles and his male children, and other male cousins.
Suggestions are being made by those in the constitutional know that, despite cross party agreement that things should change, nothing will, mainly because of the fear that any such constitutional changes might open up a wider debate on the monarchy within the Commonwealth.
Would that be a bad thing? Would it not be an excellent moment for the nations of the Commonwealth to take a long hard look at their constitutional position and decide whether or not they wish to retain a Monarchy or become a Republic. And that list, of course, should include the United Kingdom.
2 comments:
That would indeed be a very good idea.
I expect once this Queen has gone, the monarchy will not long survive. It has remained popular because she has managed to live up to the job- her sucessors won't.
Thanks for your comment, Crushed. Actually I think you may be wrong there. According to the latest poll 76% want to keep the monarchy and it has survived worst times than this. People were saying when the Duke of Windsor abdicated that it was the beginning of the end for the monarchy but they were proved wrong.I am not a monarchist but if he gets the job before he gets Alzheimers, I wouldn't be surprised if Charles made a good King. He might be a pompous ass but he does recognise the changing face of Britain and the need to adapt.
Post a Comment