Brandjack News

By Quentin Langley

There are few countries in which a case of acute morning sickness can have constitutional implications, but for sixteen Commonwealth realms, that is the case today.

Monarchy is, let's face it, a question of branding as much as the constitution. Hence its legitimate place in this blog. A head of state – except when also head of government, something rather unusual in decently run countries – is purely symbolic, and monarchs are very much more effective symbols than presidents. A visit by the British Queen or the King of Spain to, say, the US, is sure to be a much bigger deal than any visit by the president of Germany or Italy – whoever they happen to be at the moment.

But what does a case of acute morning sickness – with all its implications for the soap opera that is world's most famous family of celebrities – have on the constitution? Well, acute morning sickness has a positive correlation with multiple pregnancies, and the succession to the throne in the Commonwealth realms is governed by male cognate primogeniture. Both men and women can succeed, but the male line takes precedence, so a son born to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will succeed ahead of an older sister. This cannot have any implications until they have at least two children, and only then if they have a girl followed by a boy. But the possibility of a multiple pregnancy suggests that such a scenario might be mere months away.

While a change to the line of succession was discussed at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference last year, it is unlikely that there would be significant objection from any of the affected countries. It is important that the line of succession be free from controversy. It also seems worth noting that women have a pretty good record in office. In any list of Britain's greatest ever monarchs, Queen Victoria and both Queens Elizabeth would be likely to feature strongly. 

We must not blow this issue out of proportion, though. Monarchy, as long as it exists, is never going to be an equal opportunity employer. And, in the 290 years since governance passed from the monarch to a prime minister, the UK has had two queens regnant and only female prime minister. Canada and Australia have each also had just one female PM. Of the major Commonwealth realms, only New Zealand (the first country to give women the vote) has had two women at the head of its government. If we judge monarchy not by the number of instances women have been at the top, but by the length of time, women do even better, holding office for some 42% of the time since 1721, throughout the 63 year reign of Queen Victoria and the sixty years and counting of Queen Elizabeth II.  

Nonetheless, the time to act on this issue is now, when it does not affect any particular person, since first and second in line to the throne are both male anyway. But the timescale for which this is the case just got a whole lot shorter.