News that David Cameron is supporting changes to the laws regulating the crown’s succession was met with a firestorm of protest by lobby group, Christian Voice.

The activist organization claimed that the current laws, which give preference to firstborn males, are rooted in the Bible and cannot be changed without seriously compromising the integrity of the monarchy.

In a public announcement on 18 October, Christian Voice pledged to take all possible action to block the proposed changes, which seek to amend the 1701 Act of Settlement.

The group also said that they were putting together a Parliamentary Briefing Paper outlining the legal and scriptural reasons for maintaining the current rules.

The present laws of succession, rooted in traditions going back at least to the time of the Norman invasion, were condemned by David Cameron last week as ‘an anomaly’ that allegedly helps to ‘enshrine male superiority.’

Although the previous Labour government supported a change to the rules, it was not until the lead-up to the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton that the issue was again thrust into the national limelight. Policy makers began to point out that if the royal couple’s first-born child happens to be female, it would be unfair to deprive her of the throne. Leicester East MP Keith Vaz even went so far as to argue that the present rules constitute a case of ‘sex discrimination.’

Robin Phillips, press secretary for Christian Voice, commented today, “Fairness isn’t the pertinent issue here. An hereditary monarchy is already about as unfair as you can get. If we were to alter the succession rules in order to not ‘discriminate’ against firstborn females, then it would be hard to answer those who are using similar arguments to suggest that the monarchy should be completely abandoned. A representative of the anti-monarchy group Republic recently wrote me saying, ‘once we concede the principle that the throne should be open to women, the debate will raise a lot more questions: why not a second born daughter? Why not someone else’s daughter? So, we are looking forward to this debate to enable us to highlight the unfairness of the hereditary principle in and of itself.’ If we begin pandering to the idol of equality and political correctness, we may find that we have inadvertently unlocked a Pandora’s box that can only culminate in ceding ground to those republicans who wish to dissolve the monarchy completely.”

Phillips pointed out that “Critics of male-preference primogeniture often speak about it as a simple matter of getting the Commonwealth countries to agree to amend the Act of Settlement. What they normally fail to take into account is that the Act of Settlement was only legal in the first place because it was rooted in centuries of English common law. Tampering with the common law in order to meet the demands of political correctness is something that William Blackstone warned against back in the 1760s when he wrote his Commentaries on the Laws of England.”

When asked about the Queen having ‘let it be known’ that she supports such a change, Mr Phillips replied, “Her Majesty the Queen is certainly free to support the present proposals if she so desires. However, we must not forget that her fundamental obligation remains to be ‘ever mindful of the Law and the Gospel of God as the Rule for the whole life and government of Christian Princes.’ Her primary responsibility as our sovereign is to conform the monarchy to the standards of God’s laws. We will be arguing in our briefing paper that scripture supports male preference primogeniture and we trust that Her Majesty the Queen will take our arguments seriously.”

The Prime Minister will raise the issue for discussion at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting later this month. If his proposals are eventually implemented, then a first-born daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge could become Queen.

Further Reading

Gender Equality Takes Centre Stage
 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

6 COMMENTS

  1. He did ask the dominions ( Common wealth) and the amendments were made illegally.

    The allowing of protestant monarchs to marry catholic spouses is illegal as he would have to get a royal assent from the queen who currently sits as a forfeited Crown. The Act of Settlment forbids an already crowned monarch from being reconciled to the church of Rome and all things papist this would also obviously includ the marrying of a catholic.

    The queen met with the pope ( john) in 1961 and as a consquence according to the ACt of Settlment she has no regal power ( power to pass acts and collect taxes) . The ministry of justice seem to think that reconciling only meant that she must not have holy communion at a catholic church , as Christians and speakers of the english language we know that reconciliation is to go back ( basically repeal all of the laws that King Henry established when he broke away from Rome)

    We have been urging David Cameron and the Privvy council to do the right thing- ask the Queen to step down and annull her laws passed as a forefeited monarch, this includes the joing of the EU which we are spending Billions on every year. Once this has been done then it can be proper for any amendments to be made if the law allows.