This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/unthinkable-mixed-up-monarchy

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Unthinkable? A mixed up monarch Unthinkable? A mixed up monarch
(4 months later)
The coalition has gone to enormous – and in its own narrow terms – admirable efforts to iron out the sexism in royal primogeniture. Legislation has been passed, the Commonwealth consulted and governments such as Canada nudged into rewriting their own statute – all to make sure that the Queen's prospective great-grandchild and heirs will enjoy a secure place in the line of succession, irrespective of gender. Five out of every eight years during the past 200 have been presided over by a Queen not a King, so the effect in practice feels less important than the principle. But what principle? Even if younger brothers can no longer usurp big sisters, the monarchy will still hardly be an equal opportunities employer. Applications from first-borns of previous office holders will still be very much encouraged – with implications for the chances of ethnic minority and working class candidates which can only be called institutional discrimination. Doing away with the Windsors completely might seem the only response – it is certainly the cleanest solution. But if the Kingdom is determined to cling to its crown, then why not a melting-pot monarchy? The Middleton family tree reveals the Duchess of Cambridge to be 1/32 coal miner, and now genetic tests have revealed a smaller (one part in several hundred) drop of Indian blood in the Duke. Until the Commonwealth is ready to run with Tony Benn's suggestion of a rotating head, encouraging royal marriages to mix things up more radically could be the way to go.The coalition has gone to enormous – and in its own narrow terms – admirable efforts to iron out the sexism in royal primogeniture. Legislation has been passed, the Commonwealth consulted and governments such as Canada nudged into rewriting their own statute – all to make sure that the Queen's prospective great-grandchild and heirs will enjoy a secure place in the line of succession, irrespective of gender. Five out of every eight years during the past 200 have been presided over by a Queen not a King, so the effect in practice feels less important than the principle. But what principle? Even if younger brothers can no longer usurp big sisters, the monarchy will still hardly be an equal opportunities employer. Applications from first-borns of previous office holders will still be very much encouraged – with implications for the chances of ethnic minority and working class candidates which can only be called institutional discrimination. Doing away with the Windsors completely might seem the only response – it is certainly the cleanest solution. But if the Kingdom is determined to cling to its crown, then why not a melting-pot monarchy? The Middleton family tree reveals the Duchess of Cambridge to be 1/32 coal miner, and now genetic tests have revealed a smaller (one part in several hundred) drop of Indian blood in the Duke. Until the Commonwealth is ready to run with Tony Benn's suggestion of a rotating head, encouraging royal marriages to mix things up more radically could be the way to go.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.