The world according to Prince Charles

The End of Life as we know it? According not to the Mayans, but to our very own Prince Charles. That is if the first royal born happens to be a girl.

We are in the 21st century, an age rampant with the propagation of feminism, forward thinking and a push for equality with the most renewed and fervent vigour, yet our King in waiting, Prince Charles is failing to keep up with public opinion regarding the gender laws surrounding the Royal succession.

Essentially he is still upholding the most archaic of opinions that should this proposition be passed and should the primogeniture rule favour a female heir that the monarchy would somehow be weakened and the entire society of the Upper classes of Britain be destabilised and potentially compromised through “unintended consequences”.

Even though a Royalist myself, it must be acknowledged that there is a growing opinion in modern British culture that the monarchy is out-dated, out-moded and has long since outlived its relevance. Though still definitively considered the epitome of all that it means to be British, it has been demoted to figurehead status and is not thought to any longer hold much ‘real’ power in government.

Therefore, this latest outburst coming from not the most popular of royals, does not serve to dissipate this view that the monarchy need to modernise. He has, perhaps grossly, overestimated the role the monarchy plays in today’s society and only serves to appear quite out-of-touch if he believes that the passing of this law will cause our entire class system to crumble. In making a comment such as this it highlights how much inequality, gender or otherwise is underpinned and fuelled by our own class system of which the Royal family is at the pinnacle.

Why can’t our sovereign nation be governed just as well by a female as a male? Females are amongst some of the most successful monarchs in British history, often proven assets, not liabilities to their nation. Not the least of which include: Elizabeth I, who is credited for facing down what was the most significant threat from Spain that this country has ever faced: the Spanish Armada in 1588, our reigning queen; Elizabeth II, the second longest reigning British monarch in history, only exceeded by yet another female; Queen Victoria. Both the latter have steered their country through many a perilous event and revolutionary change, surely this has garnered the right for a female heir to have the same rights as a male would? The concern over the potential religious controversy is understandable and credible should this hypothetical female heir choose to marry a Roman Catholic.

However, having moved on from the time of Henry VIII can this not be reduced to a personal issue, a familial dispute that given this proposed provision will be a bridge that can be crossed when come to as opposed to a deterrent for an enactment to move the monarchy into this century? If female monarchs have proven anything it is that anything a man can do, they can do, if not better then at least just as well.

Ashlea Williams (pictured above)