I am an unabashed monarchist – I feel that the constitutional monarchy we have best fits our peculiar historical and political history, and that there is no reason to try and “fix” what isn’t broken. However, I also believe that the Royal Family and the succession needs to be reformed.
The current situation is untenable in the modern world, with the discrimination against women and against non-Anglicans. It is completely out of place that someone can be excluded from being sovereig based on their gender or their religion, and there is …

It was proposed and rejected by the Attorney General just back in April, but now it has come up again:

Downing Street has drawn up plans to end the 300-year-old exclusion of Catholics from the throne. The requirement that the succession automatically pass to a male would also be reformed, making it possible for a first born daughter of Prince William to become his heir. (The Guardian)

About bloody time!
I can see absolutely no reason why this shouldn’t come in to reality. It is completely out of place in the modern world …

MPs have to swear an oath of loyalty to the Queen when they take their seat in the House of Commons. But anti-monarchy campaigners want to challenge this requirement in the courts on human rights basis.
There is also an early day motion proposed by Lib Dem front bencher Norman Baker proposing an alternative oath, claiming that “some honourable members would prefer to swear an oath of allegiance to their constituents and the nation rather than the monarch”. It has so far been signed by 22 MPs – 14 Labour, 7 …

With growing inflation, it’s no surprise that the Royal Family have spent more this year than last year. They’ve cost the taxpayer £40million in the past 12 months – an increase of £2million.
Or, to put that another way, 66p per person instead of 62p.
Personally, I think that represents outstanding value for money. For 66p you can’t even buy 66 penny sweets nowadays. It’s less than the price of this morning’s paper. I think it could get me 1 track off itunes – if I used that instead of buying CDs …

This was in yesterday’s Times:
The Attorney-General’s office has ruled out any legislation that would give equal rights of succession to the throne to daughters of a monarch. Nor will it repeal the law that bans the heir to the throne from marrying a Roman Catholic.
And this in the Telegraph two days ago:
Vera Baird, the Solicitor General, who is steering the new equality bill through the Commons, said the right of males to succeed ahead of their older sisters was “unfair” and “a load of rubbish”…Mrs Baird also wants to repeal …

Britain is a nation of monarchists, with 80% wanting Britain to retain it’s monarchy. I am not in the slightest bit surprised by this, as the monarchy is on the whole well-regarded by the people of Britain.
Also, the monarchy is a good thing for this country, as it keeps a constant and recognisable national figurehead. It also keeps us away from the need for a President, which would either (a) require a complete and unnecessary reorganisation of our entire political system to fit the idea of a Head of State …

There is one group which it is still legal to discriminate against in Britain – Catholics. Under the 1701 Act of Settlement, no British monarch may be or marry a Catholic. To do so would require abdication. This has come into the news because Peter Phillips, the Queen’s eldest grandson and tenth in line to the throne, may well have to renounce his right to the succession because his fiancée is Catholic.
Why is this acceptable in modern Britain? Even though the monarch may be by right “Supreme Governor of the …