According to BBC News:
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg told MPs: “The current rules of succession belong to a bygone era. They reflect old prejudices and old fears.
Under current laws, dating back to the 1701 Act of Settlement, women are superseded by their brothers in succession even if they are the first born.
The current prohibition on the monarch being a Catholic will remain in force, but members of the royal family who marry a Catholic will no longer lose their place in line to the throne.
The deputy prime minister said the “narrow” bill…could be passed through Parliament quickly…
Nobility.org Editorial comment:—
It is no surprise that Nick Clegg, leader of Britain’s Liberal Democrats, would favor an egalitarian amendment to Britain’s millennial rules of male primogeniture in determining the line of succession to the throne. What is shameful is that the measure is being proposed by Cameron, leader of Britain’s Conservative Party.
In clamoring for this egalitarian change, Clegg uses the worn-0ut revolutionary cliché that male primogeniture is from a “bygone era” and “anachronistic” because it reflects the “supposed superiority of men.” “That anachronism is out of step with our society. It sends the wrong message to the rest of the world and it’s time for the rules to change.”
Clegg’s sole criteria in determining that male primogeniture is “anachronistic” is its opposition to revolutionary egalitarianism. For him, to be “modern,” to be “in step with the times,” means simply to embrace and celebrate the ever increasing cultural, moral and social demands made by libertinism and egalitarianism, the two metaphysical principles of the anti-Christian Revolution.
Clegg’s revolutionary rhetoric reminds us Prof. Plinio Correa de Oliveira’s denunciation: “Whenever the Revolution considers something to be consistent with the spirit of the times, caution has to be exercised, for all too often it is rubbish from some pagan time that it wishes to restore. What is new, for example, about divorce, nudism, tyranny, or demagoguery, all of which were so widespread in the ancient world?” (Plinio Correa de Oliveira, Revolution and Counter-Revolution [York, Penn.: The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property, 1993], 91.)