The Queen sounded a note of caution yesterday over Gordon Brown's revolutionary plans to bring equality to the monarchy.
Buckingham Palace said no changes to the laws and traditions of the Crown could be made until every country where the Queen is head of state had given its approval.
That means years of delay while 15 legislatures – including those of Australia, New Zealand and Canada – quibble over the Prime Minister's proposals.
Behind the Queen's insistence on cast-iron support from the Commonwealth is thought to lie her deep concern about the role of Christianity in Britain and the unforeseen impact of any reforms.
Mr Brown aims to remove the 308- year-old legal barriers that prevent a Roman Catholic or anyone married to a Catholic from becoming King.
He also intends to sweep away primogeniture, the ancient principle that says a man must always take precedence over a woman in line to the throne.
The surprise announcement that Downing Street and the Palace were in talks over reforms was made by Mr Brown's aides during a visit to Brasilia on Thursday.
Yesterday the Prime Minister accepted that Commonwealth countries must have a say, but added: 'I think in the 21st century people do expect discrimination to be removed and they do expect us to be looking at these issues.'
A spokesman for Buckingham Palace, however, said: 'This entire issue for us depends on obtaining agreement from each of the 15 realms of which the Queen is head of state. If an agreement were to be reached, then we would assess the situation. But not until then.'
It was underlined yesterday that the Queen is deeply committed to her overseas dominions and wants to be seen as taking her lead from them, not from the British Government.
And while Buckingham Palace was neutral over Mr Brown's reforms and the equality agenda that informs them, the Queen is known to be concerned over their impact on Christian belief and practice in Britain.
She is a serious Anglican and is aware of the possibility that Christianity may be sidelined if reforms to the monarchy culminate in the severance of the historic constitutional links between the Church of England and the state.
Mr Brown's reforms would mean the repeal of the Act of Settlement, the 1701 law designed to prevent the return of the Catholic Stuarts.
The abolition of primogeniture would open up the succession to women – for example Princess Anne would become fourth in line after Charles, William and Harry, and would overtake her brothers, Princes Andrew and Edward.
In the Commons, few MPs attended a debate on Liberal Democrat Dr Evan Harris's private members Bill calling for the same reforms.
It was effectively scuppered as Justice Secretary Jack Straw said Dr Harris's Bill was 'not the appropriate vehicle' for reform.
Tories meanwhile accused the Government of trying to divert attention from economic troubles.
Former minister Nicholas Soames said: 'This is an extraordinary thing to be talking about when the G20 summit is starting next week. It is a very, very odd time to raise it.'
By Steve Doughty and Rebecca English
ANALYSIS: Changing the act of succession would put a question mark over the monarchy
The Act of Settlement has long been a target of the political Left, who believe the 308-year-old pillar of the constitution is an offence against human rights.
Primogeniture, the automatic precedence of men over women in line for the throne which goes back as long as history has been written, is even more offensive to the diversity and equality lobby.
Campaigning against what the Left see as the twin evils of the Act and primogeniture began seriously at the turn of the Millennium, when the Guardian newspaper led the cause.
The Human Rights Act, which went into effect in 2000, gave a powerful boost to the idea.
Unhappiness has recently been shared by senior members of the Government. Justice Secretary Jack Straw launched a review of the Act of Settlement at the end of last year, calling it 'antiquated' and saying it discriminated against non-Protestants.
Leading Roman Catholics find the law irritating, although there has been no obvious sign of discontent among the millions of ordinary Catholics.
But the trouble with pulling down pillars of the constitution is that you never know what may fall with them.
Tinkering with either the 18th century law or the principle of primogeniture would put a question mark over the future of the monarchy, at a time when its popularity has been rocky.
The Act of Settlement was a law to ensure that the Roman Catholic Stuart dynasty, chased off the throne in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, could not return.
It barred any Catholic monarch or any monarch from marrying a Catholic, and paved the way for the arrival in 1714 of the Hanoverian dynasty with George I, the monarch from whom the present Queen is descended.
Repeal of the Act might even call into question the right of the Queen to be monarch.
The remnants of the Stuart dynasty now living in southern Germany might feel they had a better claim to the throne.
Removal of the Act of Settlement would threaten the position of the Church of England, England's state religion since 1534, when Henry VIII broke with Rome.
This would not worry some Church leaders. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said last year that disestablishment was 'by no means the end of the world'.
It would, however, be a further blow to Christianity and leave a major constitutional problem.
The role of the CofE is knotted deeply together with that of Parliament and the monarchy in centuries of constitutional law and practice.
The Church crowns the monarch and the monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church. Neither role could continue were the Church to be disestablished.
An end to primogeniture would be seen as a blow to the hereditary principle, already eroded by the removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords.
By Steve Doughty
Source: dailymail.co.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment