The Spectator's Notes | 23 April 2011

The coalition wants to change the ‘discriminatory’ law of succession and allow any first-born daughter to ascend to the throne.

The coalition wants to change the ‘discriminatory’ law of succession and allow any first-born daughter to ascend to the throne. People witlessly nod their heads at the idea that male primogeniture is an ‘anachronism’. Mr Murdoch’s Sunday Times has decided that such a change would be ‘a perfect wedding present’ for Prince William and Kate Middleton. I think they’d prefer an electric toaster. Why, after all, is primogeniture itself not an anachronism? Why is succession by blood allowed at all? Once you start asking these questions, it is hard to stop; that is what republicans intend. Luckily, our monarchy is constructed not on rationalist principles but by history. History teaches that a hereditary system must be secured by consent. The method of succession does not matter in itself: what matters is that it is agreed. The idea that the ‘rightful’ king has been denied his crown can destroy civil peace. It is why the abdication crisis in 1936 was taken so seriously, and why it is malicious to suggest that Prince William should succeed instead of his father. So change is delicate. The notion that reform should be introduced just because it looks 21st century and makes the Liberal Democrats feel a bit happier is pitifully shallow. Luckily, it has to be pondered by all 16 countries of which Elizabeth II is Queen, and it involves amending or repealing the Bill of Rights, the Coronation Oath Act, the Act of Settlement, the Royal Marriage Act, the Union with Ireland Act and the Regency Act. By the way, under the present ‘discriminatory’ arrangement, queens have reigned for 123 of the past 174 years.