skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Britain: Cameron Proposes Abolition of Male Primogeniture in Royal Succession
David Cameron has formally begun the process that could allow a first born daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to accede to the throne.
...He writes: “In the UK, we have found it increasingly difficult to continue to justify two particular aspects of the present rules on the succession to the Crown.
“The first is the rule which says that an elder daughter should take a place in the line of succession behind a younger son. We espouse gender equality in all other aspects of life, and it is an anomaly that in the rules relating to the highest public office we continue to enshrine male superiority.”
Mr Cameron told MPs that he wants to change the rules. As well as ending male primogeniture, the Prime Minister hopes to open the way for members of the Royal Family who marry a Roman Catholic being able to succeed to the Crown.
In his letter to the 16 prime ministers, Mr Cameron said it was rule is a historical anomaly as it does not apply to those who marry spouses of other faiths.
Thirdly, he is calling for an end to the permission to marry rules, and limit to the first six in line to the throne those descendants of King George II who require the Monarch’s consent before they marry.
Read the rest
here.
5 comments:
I can't help but believe this is more about gently and "democratically" wedging the monarchy out of existence. And by "democratically", of course, I mean following the modern tendency of elected officials to accrue more and more power to themselves and say that they're allowed to hold all of the power because it's "what they were elected to do".
I love how backwards the logic behind democracy and republicanism has become... officials are supposed to be elected in order to exercise authority that has been granted to them by the people, but instead it has turned into they get to exercise whatever power they choose because they were elected by the people (usually a very slim majority of the people at that).
Anyway, that's a rant that's quickly going off topic... but something about this succession situation suggests "Greeks bearing gifts" to me...
I know it will never happen, but if Cameron goes through with this, I hope that Her Majesty refuses the Royal Assent to such a measure, and dares Cameron to depose her for it. I know that the sovereign is to act only according to the advice of her ministers, but when the politicians start to mess with the monarchy itself, I should like to think that all bets are off.
If the Queen were to take a stand like that it might be the end of the monarchy. But monkeying with the succession like that is tantamount to the end of the monarchy already.
This is neo-republicanism. The so-called Conservative Prime Minister is a subject of the Queen. She is not the "highest office in the land" - she is Queen by the will of God, and as Her Majesty's servant, David Cameron has crossed the line with this nonsense.
There is nothing wrong with female monarchs, as I am sure HM Queen Elizabeth would agree. Some of the best and greatest sovereigns in British history have been women.
If the Queen is meeting with the PM's, she will have her chance to "advise and warn" on this matter. She cannot, under the present understanding of the British Constitution, refuse her assent if the law is passed (though it would be a good thing if she had a veto, at least a temporary one).
That said, I also think the proposal is another sneaky pint of grease on the slippery slope. The present system has worked well enough, and there is no substantial need to change it right now. Keep PC crap off the monarchy -- it has been nitpicked enough over the last 100 years.
"She cannot, under the present understanding of the British Constitution, refuse her assent if the law is passed (though it would be a good thing if she had a veto, at least a temporary one)."
This is true, according to "custom," but interms of strict legality, the "royal veto" (which is absolute, and cannot be overriden by a "supermajority," however large) still exists, even though it has not been used since 1707. (George III threatened to use it several times, in the 1780s and in 1800 or 1801, and on each occasion his Cabinet ministers backed down.)
Post a Comment