Royalty and Equality: A Contradiction in Terms

Monarchy and equality are two terms that are seldom found together.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that they are, by definition, mutually exclusive.  Not according to Nick Clegg it would seem, who has suggested that Prince William’s as-yet-unborn first daughter should enjoy equal (divine) rights as her equally hypothetical brother, so long as she’s born before he is.  Why the need for such a constitutional reform?  As Mr. Clegg explains:

"My own personal view is that in this day and age the idea that only a man should ascend to the throne I think would strike most people as a little old-fashioned."

I agree with Nick (again).  This is the man who was quite unfairly lambasted in the media recently for suggesting that internships and work-experience placements should be awarded on merit and not by virtue of familial connections.  The reason for the media’s distain?  He himself had benefited from daddy’s connections in securing his first job.  In other words, he got the job because of who his father was.  After all, how could anyone who’s been the beneficiary of an unjust system ever be able to seek to reform that system so as to prevent future injustice?  Perhaps then, given that his background means he can’t take a stand against nepotism, his only hope now is to ensure that such nepotism is at least gender-neutral.

My problem is this: how can anyone keep a straight face whilst arguing that the laws of royal secession with regard to gender are unfair “in this day and age”, without considering the whole rotten system of monarchy as being equally unjust and fundamentally discriminatory?  Let’s be clear about this.  William and Kate’s first-born may or may not be a girl.  But regardless of what the happy couple find between their new child’s legs, we can be assured of certain other factors in advance.  The child will be called Windsor.  That means, whether it’s a boy or a girl, the monarch-in-waiting will be white, English and Protestant.  The child will be preordained as the future head of a developed, liberal democratic state by virtue of nothing other than their DNA.  That strikes me as a little old-fashioned.

Forget gender – our system of monarchy is racist.  If you accept that racial differences are arbitrary, the product of nothing more than the superficial and meaningless nuances of genetics, then you should accept that your genes should never be a deciding factor when it comes to gaining employment.  Who your parents are should never be acceptable as the necessary - and indeed the only - qualification to hold any position, let alone the position of Head of State.  We can make exceptions for jobs in a family business, I’ll accept, but not when that family business enjoys the public subsidies and legal privileges that are afforded to Windsor and Sons plc.

Then there’s the small matter of religion.  I don’t care which God (if any) you suppose that you have a special and spiritual relationship with.  And whilst I am a little concerned by those who believe that they are afforded preferential treatment by their imagined creator on the grounds of who their parents were, I’m not going to stand in their way, so long as they stay out of mine.  The problem with the royal family is that they don’t.  Not only do they live their life of obscene wealth and privilege at the expense of you and I, but their constitutional status and religious leanings stand in the way of any British Catholic (with the audacity to win the popular support of the people in a free and fair election) from holding the post of Prime Minister.  Unless of course they want to marry one of those awful papists, in which case they can forget about their claim the sizeable haul of family silver and the crown of the United Kingdom.

My only hope is that Clegg’s latest suggestion is a clever attempt to draw attention to the far-greater obscenity of monarchy that the mere preference for boys over girls.  He is, after all, an atheist with a Catholic wife. 

The next step in all this will involve having to ‘consult’ with the rest of the Commonwealth about a move towards equal divine rights for princesses.  Might I suggest that we should be asking countries such as Cameroon, Ghana and Kenya to address such things as the widespread use of female genital mutilation within their borders, before seeking their blessings on whether or not a woman should get first dibs over her wee brother about who gets their face on some stamps?

Gender inequality is still, unfortunately, a serious and pressing problem in our world.  Let’s deal with it where it matters most first.  The monarchy, no matter what comes of this suggested reform, will always be exclusionary, discriminatory and morally indefensible.  Until the Queen or one of her brood is elected by the people of this country, they might as well put one of the corgis on the throne.