Apparently Vera Baird, the Solicitor General says the Government are finally looking to changing this Act, which is the one that insists on male primogeniture for inheriting the Monarchy.
About time too, I say. When women are supposed to be equal, and her present Majesty has done such a fine job for the last 50 years or so, what is the point in making girls step aside for a younger brother?
And of course by doing it now, before Prince William gets married and has children, is the ideal time. Prince Charles is the Queen's eldest child and he has only two boys to succeed him - so there is nobody whose nose might be put out of joint by the change.
They are also looking to change the rule that says anyone wanting to be in line of succession can't be, or marry, a Roman Catholic. Do it, and let's finally get on with disestablishment of the church and state while we're about it, which has been rumbling about since Victorian times. (Every schoolboy should know that the longest word in the English language is antidisestablishmentarianism!)
LissaT
Pro 
What about floccinoccinihilipilification? Or even pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis?
I agree with you about the succession - women on the whole have been among our better monarchs.
My feeling is that the disestablishment of the Church of England is a much more complex matter than at first appears (not least because it can only be dissestablished by the monarch who would by the time s/he was asked to sign an act of disestablishement have sworn to uphold the established church at his/her coronation), and that as long as the monarch is its head s/he should be a practising member of the church and promise that his/her children will be similarly brought up. However, I can see no reason why members of the royal family shouldn't marry Roman Catholics without losing their place in the succession. Oddly they may marry people of other religions without any constitutional problems arising.