Dani Garavelli: Some more equal than others

The new rules are not expected to apply retrospectively. There will be no royal reshuffle, no: “Down four spaces goes the Duke of York and straight in at number four goes the Princess Royal” (which is a shame as any law that would see Anne usurp Beatrice and Eugenie in the pecking order has got to be a good thing). But it will end the ludicrous constitutional anomaly, whereby intelligent, competent females are passed over in favour of less able men.

And it’s not just women who are benefiting from this sudden fit of egalitarianism. From now on, prospective heirs to the throne are to be allowed to marry Catholics without forfeiting their place in line, although Catholics will still be barred from the throne.

The Queen signalled her approval of the end of male primogeniture in a speech at the opening of the summit of 53 Commonwealth countries in Perth, Australia, by talking about its theme, “Women as Agents of Change.” ‘It reminds us of the potential in our societies that is yet to be fully unlocked and it encourages us to find ways to allow all girls and women to play their full part,” she said.

So there we have it, centuries of discrimination overturned in the space of an afternoon; the dawning of a brave, new world where everyone has equal access to power, regardless of gender and religion (so long as they are born, or marry, into the House of Windsor).

And there’s the catch. However enlightened the monarchy becomes, however hard it tries to move with the times, it is, by its very nature, an elitist, unelected, unaccountable institution. In that sense, the new Royal Equality Act, which will usher in the changes, contributes to the creation of a more inclusive society in much the same way as eating “just” half a box of chocolates contributes to a calorie-controlled diet.

Still, it’s the thought that counts. Now at least we’re on a par with more modern monarchies, such as Sweden, Norway, Holland and Belgium, rather than Monaco or Liechtenstein.

Though why it took us quite so long is a mystery. It isn’t as if we were unsure that women would be capable of it. Two of history’s greatest and enduring monarchs – Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria – were women. Imagine what the world would have missed out on if Elizabeth’s younger half-brother Edward VI (and elder half-sister Mary) hadn’t died, or if Victoria’s three uncles had had surviving legitimate children.

Just as interesting is pondering what would have happened if gender had never been allowed to influence succession. Without male primogeniture, Henry VII would have been succeeded by Margaret Tudor, not Henry VIII. The English Reformation might not have happened; the heads of Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard might have stayed on their shoulders.

Without male primogeniture, Queen Victoria would have been succeeded by her daughter, also Victoria, who would have died seven months later, leaving her son Kaiser Wilhelm as her heir. Then, arguably, there would have been no First World War. But these are just idle musings; the important questions are: why are these changes happening now and what difference will they make?

The “why now” bit is easy. Pressure has been mounting for decades. The ante was upped in 2008, when the birth of the Earl and Countess of Wessex’s son James meant a female royal – their daughter Louise – was bumped (from seventh to eight in line to the throne) by a male sibling for the first time since anti-discrimination laws were introduced. But when William married Kate, and thoughts turned to the birth of a child likely to one day become king or queen, it became necessary to resolve the matter quickly.

Historically, the move seems ground-breaking; at least 11 previous attempts to tackle it have failed. Making gender irrelevant to succession sends out an important message both about how the UK views women and how the monarchy views itself. And the easing up on the prohibition of Catholic spouses should help mend bridges with the Catholic Church.

But the Royal Equality Act won’t make any practical difference for several decades. Its significance will be more symbolic.

The Royal Family may experience a temporary image boost for finally tackling this sexist anachronism. But what ordinary women really want are changes that will make an impact on their own lives: good, affordable childcare, equal pay and the destruction of the glass ceiling. Not the chance to see some privileged princess sit on a throne she has inherited rather than earned.