Goverment puts off royal equality

Back on 20th April, I wrote a post about how the government was seeking to amend the Act of Settlement so as to end the practice of male-preference primogeniture and allow a female heir to take the throne ahead of a male one.

Now I read in today's Guardian that the Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, has ruled out any changes for the forseeable future arguing that it would be complex because the Commonwealth countries would need to be consulted and other legislation would need to be amended or repealed. Now really, is it that difficult? I seriously doubt that it would take anything more than, say, an Act of Settlement (Amendment) Bill to pass through Parliament and it's job done.

What the rest of the Commonwealth do is up to them, but I seriously doubt any of them would object presented with a fait accompli that, as the Guardian points out, is actually supported by Her Majesty. Maybe they should look at getting their own heads of state. The idea that the English monarch is head of state of a country like Australia or Canada is nothing more than an absurd historical anomaly. They should become republics as soon as possible.

If I were David Cameron, I would seize upon this and introduce the amendment bill. This would give the Conservatives a rare edge over Labour in the equality debate. What better way for him to show Conservative commitment to the equality of women than by bringing it to the throne, the very pinnacle of the state. What's more, how could Labour possibly oppose it?

[BTW, going back to the Guardian, Polly Toynbee wrote a good analysis of the mess Labour is in at the moment, though I disagree with her proposed solutions]