That a sectarian ban exists at the heart of our constitution should be unacceptable per se
EVERYONE learned during their schooldays that the longest word in the English language was antidisestablismentarianism. But how many of us knew what it meant? And how many of us ever expected it to become a political cause célèbre that could change t
he future course of British history?
Last week, Gordon Brown inadvertently brought the word back into modern usage when he said it was time to reform the 308-year-old laws that govern royal succession in this country, stripping out discrimination against women and Catholics. Brown told an interviewer: "I think, in the 21st century, people do expect discrimination to be removed and they do expect us to be looking at these issues."
Brown has already raised this with the Queen and won the backing of the Tories. Ministers will now start detailed discussions with Buckingham Palace on revisiting the 1701 Act of Settlement with a view to repealing the law of 'primogeniture', which gives precedence to male heirs over female heirs. They will also look at the law that says a monarch loses the right to the throne if he or she becomes or marries a Catholic.
I admire Brown for taking this on, especially at a time when he has rather more pressing matters on his mind. It could yet prove to be one of the things for which he will ultimately be remembered because this is the kind of decision that can change the course of history. Take a moment to apply it retrospectively and it throws up some fascinating scenarios. It could have seen Kaiser Wilhelm II, emperor of Germany, claim the British crown in August 1901, after the death of his grandmother Queen Victoria and her eldest daughter, also called Victoria. Would Britain then have fought two world wars against Germany? How many millions of lives would have been saved if the law of succession had been different? It makes a fascinating (if futile) parlour game (even if you don't have a parlour).
Yet while the Prime Minister deserves respect for taking this on, I wonder if he has the balls to take it to its logical conclusion. Because, make no mistake, he has a fight on his hands if the end point of this discussion is the disestablishment of the Church of England. And his opponent will be the Queen herself.
The excuse for inaction given by previous prime ministers – including the self-styled reformist Tony Blair – was the practical difficulty of changing this law. Any reform would have to be sanctioned by the 15 countries of the Commonwealth where the British monarch is still head of state. Now, that is indeed a headache. It could take many years. But to use it as a convenient excuse for inaction is cowardly.
Criticism of religions is quite rightly a contentious matter, especially at a time when gods, in their various guises, are being used to justify so much violence in the world. Anyone peacefully observing their faith needs to be protected and their views respected. But where religions lose their right to protection is when their beliefs infringe on the fundamental rights of others, particularly the right to equal treatment in the eyes of the law.
And this is where the debate about reforming the monarchy gets into tricky terrain. Because in my view you cannot remove the prejudice inherent in the current laws of succession unless you take a sledgehammer to one of the foundation stones of the Church of England: the convention going back to Henry VIII that the English monarch is head of the Anglican church.
Brown's initiative has flushed out some dusty prejudices. One critic complained in the Daily Telegraph yesterday that by trying to introduce modern notions of equality the PM was treating the monarchy "as though it is just another public-sector job, like those advertised in the Guardian". The sneer is unmistakable. As is the apparent belief that the Royal Family stands above such trifling matters as the law of the land.
Scrapping the tradition of primogeniture will surely meet with little serious opposition. The British monarchy in the past 200 years has been dominated by two extraordinary women. To continue to load the dice against anyone lacking a Y chromosome makes no sense. Such thinking is – quite literally among commoners – an offence.
But there are signs this weekend that the Palace will dig in its heels over the prospect of a left-footer ever sitting on the throne. The Queen's objection is, apparently, that Christianity may be diminished in the life of the country if the connection with the head of state is severed. To which, as a Scot, my obvious response is: "What country might that be, ma'am?" I see no evidence that the Anglican church fares better than the Scottish Kirk because it can hang a 'By Appointment' crest above the door, like a Braemar bakery.
Antidisestablishmentarians say reform undermines the notion that this is "a Protestant country". They talk as if a Romish armada had been sighted off Plymouth Hoe. Well, anything that undermines religion (of any hue) playing any part in the constitution and governance of this country is absolutely fine by me.
Of course, it is true that in practical terms the Act of Settlement affects the rights of a tiny number of people – in the current climate, whatever gal happens to catch the eye of Prince William in his favourite West End nitespot. But the fact that a sectarian ban exists at the heart of our constitution should be unacceptable per se.
The Church of England is already riven with schisms over female bishops and gay clergy, and the last thing it needs is Brown lobbing a constitutional hand grenade into the pews. But this is a date with the 21st century it simply cannot avoid.
