In the comments section of his previous post, Svar (awakeiron) linked a CNN story about the two changes that the British government has just made, in law, to the laws of succession; namely, that now, a first-born girl will take precedence, in line for the British throne, ahead of any brothers that may be born after her (until now, she would get passed over and her next brother would take precedence over her); also, that a monarch will now be permitted to marry a Roman Catholic (previously, under the Act of Settlement, they were forbidden to do so).
But what will change, practically speaking, with the new rules?
True, in the personal lives of any children born to Prince William and Princess Kate, and their descendents, it may forever be different than it might otherwise have been. But practically, what effect will this have? Absolutely nil. The United Kingdom is of course a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute monarchy as it was in the past (e.g. in the days of King Henry VIII). As such, the personality of the person on the throne has little bearing on how Britain will be governed, unlike in the days when monarchs had considerable power, making laws, having enemies executed, etc. So really, little will change fundamentally with this largely symbolic gesture. Why, then, was it so critical to do it?
And as for the other change, the monarch will still be the titular head of the Church of England, i.e. the Anglican Church. As such, I presume that any Roman Catholic he or she might choose to marry, will end up having to convert to the Church of England – just as they would have had to, anyway, under the old rules; after all, nothing could have stopped someone Roman Catholic from converting to Anglicanism, in order to marry a monarch; thus, what has changed? Absolutely nothing, far as I can tell.
So, as far as I can see, this is a largely empty gesture, made for purely symbolic reasons. Yet, of course, the government of the U.K., and their mainstream media lapdogs, are acting like this was a hugely important decision – even though little of consequence has changed… Which raises the question: why was this highly important to do? Especially for a supposedly ‘conservative’ administration, as David Cameron would claim his Conservative-Liberal-Democrat coalition nevertheless is. Did the Lib Dems put him up to this?
Or did he simply want to go down in the history books, as having made this ‘historic’ change?
All I know, is that David Cameron is no conservative, by any stretch of the word, due to his feeling the need to bow and kowtow to political correctness, in this matter.