Dear Editor,

A story that I have been following in the international media lately concerns the debate raging in the British Parliament about altering the rules of succession to the Throne of the Commonwealth Realms.

As early as April 2011 there have been proposals from the current ruling coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats that the centuries-old rules of agnatic primogeniture should be cast aside in favour of something that’s more egalitarian. There has also been a proposal to remove the ban on Catholics or persons married to Catholics ascending the throne.

In November of that same year, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting (CHOGM) in Perth, Australia, the leaders unanimously agreed with the British that the rules should be altered to facilitate what they call “equal primogeniture”. They also agreed to form an intergovernmental committee spearheaded by New Zealand to thoroughly comb the proposals so that governments of the member states involved can draft similar proposals when the bill is being tabled in their respective parliaments.

Since last week, however, the British Government has tabled a green paper in the House of Commons spelling out the basic tenets of the new succession act, hoping to get the succession to the Crown Bill passed before July, which is the time predicted for the royal family to receive its newest member.

Other Commonwealth realms are still lagging behind with no word forthcoming on when they will start debating the succession bill in their own parliaments, since laws passed in the British Parliament would have no effect on the other nations involved.

While I admit that the intentions of Prime Minister Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Clegg may be honourable in trying to eliminate gender bias and religious discrimination from the system, so as to keep the monarchy up to date with the times, questions have been raised in several quarters as to whether or not these proposals have been carefully considered.

Among those concerned are the upper hierarchy of the Church of England and also the Prince of Wales, who is the current heir to the throne, both of whom warned that the succession bill may have unintended consequences if it is hurriedly passed rather than carefully considered.

In an article published on the Parliamentary website on Monday, January 21, 2013 a committee of the House of Lords also expressed its concerns on the issue. In doing so it warned the House of Commons not to fast-track the bill, given the significant constitutional implications it may have in the future. The committee also echoed Prince Charles’ warning about unintended consequences of altering the rules.

I must confess that I heartily agree with those who have raised concerns about the new rules of royal succession. Several issues arise, such as the relation between Church and State in the UK, the ground-breaking precedents that will be set as it relates to the system of peerages, and the legal backlash that could follow in years to come should a younger son stake his claim to the throne using a long catalogue of historical precedent or areas of statute law, such as the Act of Settlement, as a legal argument.

Politicians from all over the Commonwealth, and particularly Britain, should remember that wars have been fought before over the very issue they are debating now. One can take a look at the Battle of Hastings or the decades-long War of the Roses to see what I’m talking about.

While I will admit that another outright confrontation of that nature from rival claimants to the Crown is highly unlikely, disputes over succession rights may take many forms.

This rush by the political elite to get this bill passed without careful consideration or without consulting the general population is evidence of their arrogance and desire to impose their will upon everyone else, a view that was shared by an article published in the Daily Telegraph.

Like others before who have expressed concern over the bill, I am also of the view that the issue is too sensitive to be rushed. Legislators must spend time and due consideration to discuss all areas involved that will have major implications for the future of the Commonwealth realms. If this is not done, then it’s better to leave well enough alone.

Jason Green

sirj_green@hotmail.com