Didn't hear this in the Queen's speech last week

Last week, the last annual State Opening of Parliament occurred, where Her Majesty The Queen read the annual goals of the House of Commons. By "Annual Goals of the House of Commons" that pretty much meant the Labour Party Manifesto for the election on or before 3 June that they've been dawdling on calling. One thing that wasn't mentioned in the Queen's speech that might catch many residents of the UK and Commonwealth off-guard is about to be proposed by prime minister Gordon Brown later this week when Commonwealth heads of government meet in Trinidad.

The Prime Minister wishes to remove provisions that bar Catholics from assuming the British throne and also discontinue the automatic elevation of male heirs. If other Commonwealth government heads agree to pursue similar bills in their respective parliaments, they will remove a roadblock installed to assure the succession of Protestants (namely members of the Church of England) since the Glorious Revolution 321 years ago. In the UK, the measure was introduced earlier this year by Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat MP from Oxford West. Government officials in March prevented the measure from coming up for discussion, but the Prime Minister indicated interest in debating the issue a later date, after meeting with members of the Royal Family about other possible changes to the line of succession.

Brown does make it a point to note that the measure is to ensure that no discrimination exists in the manner by which the Head of State of the 16 Commonwealth realms is selected, and for that should be applauded. Where opposition to the idea exists, principally from Australia and Canada (according to Brown & Harris during Question Time today), might need better justifying. If members of Kevin Rudd & Stephen Harper's respective governments object to the prospect of a princess assuming the throne over her younger brother, then there lies a serious problem. Ironic, considering that Canada gained Dominion status in 1867 from Queen Victoria and full independence from Westminster in 1982.

It again must be noted that in addition to being the sovereign leader of Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and 13 other countries, the person seated on the British throne also is the sovereign of the Church of England. As sovereign of the Church of England, he/she is responsible for appointing (by way of clerical committees fleshing out candidates for the Prime Minister to formally nominate) the spiritual leader of the church, the Archbishop of Canterbury. While the monarch's role is largely ceremonial in this process, they still retain by law the ability to not grant royal assent to the appointment of new bishops. Thus, it would make sense for the monarch, as a fellow member of the Anglican Communion, rather than a Catholic, Southern Baptist, Sikh, etc. etc., to make the appointment. Conversely, Catholics likely would not be fond of Anglican bishops sitting in the conclave to select the next pope, nor would a Latter-Day Saint be thrilled at the prospect of a seat on the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles filled by someone who has no intention of accepting the Book of Mormon as word incarnate.

This chief concern, coming as the Roman Catholic Church earlier this year announced plans to allow Anglican parishes which disapprove of changes within the Church of England to convert to Catholicism, needs adequately addressed and resolved by Commonwealth leaders this weekend should any such change to the rule of succession take place. Or, they can take the easy way out and either do nothing, declare a universal separation of Church and Crown, or abolish the monarchy altogether and become republics still aligned in an organization that British governments have gradually let become supplanted by the EU.