Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis. If the Act of Settlement, which bars Catholics and those marrying Catholics from succeeding to the British throne be amended, so be it. But please, keep European human rights laws out of it. It is a narrow-minded approach to a very complex problem. Which means anyone attempting to argue the case from a solely EU law standpoint will botch up a 300-year-old law.

The Sovereign, aside from being a British head of State, i.e. subject to EU law, is also the head of State of a score other countries which, thankfully, are not associated with the EU and, according to the Statute of Westminster, are to be treated as equals. Canada had its Constitution patriated in 1982, thus any change to the way the Monarch in Right of Canada is chosen will have to be validated by Canadian authorities, and others.

Laws evolve, and laws dealing with outdated turmoils even more so. It would be stupid, however, to attack a solid law with a jackhammer without considering its repercussions. The stability of the whole Anglican world is at stake. The unity of the Commonwealth is on the scales. Should the amendment be rejected by a national Privy Council, the Commonwealth Realms would have split dynasties. The rift in the Anglican confession could become even larger.

As always, the Law of Unintended Consequences applies. So, drivers of legislative evolution, tread carefully. And do the world a favor: for once, don't invoke an oft-misinterpreted law to justify a change which is meritorious in and of itself.