United Kingdom: No more sexism in the monarchy
At a summit of the 16 nations of the British Commonwealth, the heads of government abolished the principle of male primogeniture.
“Girl power has finally reached the royal court,” said The Mirror in an editorial. At a summit of the 16 nations of the British Commonwealth in Australia last week, heads of government abolished the principle of male primogeniture. From now on, a woman can succeed to the throne even if she has a younger brother. That means, in practice, that the eldest child of Wills and Kate will one day rule, no matter its gender. This “constitutional earthquake” is, of course, long overdue. And the queen supports it, said James Lyons, also in The Mirror. At the summit, she spoke of female potential as something “that is yet to be fully unlocked,” and encouraged her subjects to “find ways to allow all girls and women to play their full part.” The nations also struck a blow for religious tolerance, repealing the law that bans the monarch from marrying a Catholic.
Just imagine how different history would be if this change had come earlier, said Giles Hattersley in The Times. The 1701 Act of Settlement forbade a first-born girl to claim the throne if she had a younger brother, and prevented any Catholic from becoming monarch. Had that act never been passed, the royal line would have eventually “traveled through the Italian houses of Savoy and Este as well as the German house of Wittelsbach.” Our current monarch would be Franz, Duke of Bavaria, a 78-year-old German bachelor, while his distant cousin, our own Elizabeth II, would be living out her days as a German princess at her “modest pile near Hanover.” If male primogeniture had been abolished a bit later and Queen Victoria’s eldest daughter had claimed the British throne, her son Kaiser Wilhelm II would have become king of England, creating an Anglo-German empire that would have “prevented the first world war” and “perhaps even the second.”
Far be it from us to argue against female succession, said The Telegraph, but why now? The current queen has been an unqualified success as monarch, and she approves of the change. “Yet tinkering with the constitution is never as predictable or easy as one thinks.” Recall the flap over trying to reform the House of Lords a few years ago, which generated countless hours of debate but no consensus. It’s not as if the country has been clamoring for new laws of succession. In fact, “the cynical may argue” that the timing of the change is politically convenient for Prime Minister David Cameron. He is “known to be worried by what focus groups have told him about his appeal to women voters.”
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Even so, “it’s a decision no one is likely to oppose,” said Matthew Denison in the Express. If you stack up our four queens—Elizabeth, Anne, Victoria, and Elizabeth II—against the dozens of kings, the women come out ahead. The reign of Elizabeth I was a golden age of Shakespearean drama and saw the defeat of the Spanish Armada. Anne beat the French and united England with Scotland and Wales. Victoria reigned over the British Empire at its highest point. “Royal history gives a resounding thumbs-up to the idea of a queen as reigning monarch.”
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
-
Are 'judge shopping' rules a blow to Republicans?
Today's Big Question How the abortion pill case got to the Supreme Court
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published
-
Climate change is driving Indian women to choose sterilization
under the radar Faced with losing their jobs, they are making a life-altering decision
By Theara Coleman, The Week US Published
-
'A great culture will be lost if the EV brigade gets its way'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Harold Maass, The Week US Published
-
Trump, billions richer, is selling Bibles
Speed Read The former president is hawking a $60 "God Bless the USA Bible"
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
The debate about Biden's age and mental fitness
In Depth Some critics argue Biden is too old to run again. Does the argument have merit?
By Grayson Quay Published
-
How would a second Trump presidency affect Britain?
Today's Big Question Re-election of Republican frontrunner could threaten UK security, warns former head of secret service
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
'Rwanda plan is less a deterrent and more a bluff'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By The Week UK Published
-
Henry Kissinger dies aged 100: a complicated legacy?
Talking Point Top US diplomat and Nobel Peace Prize winner remembered as both foreign policy genius and war criminal
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Last updated
-
Trump’s rhetoric: a shift to 'straight-up Nazi talk'
Why everyone's talking about Would-be president's sinister language is backed by an incendiary policy agenda, say commentators
By The Week UK Published
-
More covfefe: is the world ready for a second Donald Trump presidency?
Today's Big Question Republican's re-election would be a 'nightmare' scenario for Europe, Ukraine and the West
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
Xi-Biden meeting: what's in it for both leaders?
Today's Big Question Two superpowers seek to stabilise relations amid global turmoil but core issues of security, trade and Taiwan remain
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published