Letters have flooded in to The Guardian on the proposed repeal of the Act of Settlement. One which caught a readers' eye deals with the issue of the Commonwealth realm's approval of such changes to the succession:

In your report on government plans to amend legislation governing the succession to the throne (End of the Anglican crown - 300 year bar to be lifted, September 25) you suggest that this would require "the consent of member nations of the Commonwealth". This is slightly misleading. There is general agreement that it would only be necessary to obtain the consent of the 15 other "Commonwealth realms" - members that retain the Queen as their head of state. Nevertheless, the requirements for unanimity across the Commonwealth realms, and for any changes to be legislated for in each of these states, are significant obstacles to reform.

Earlier this year, the British government announced it had dropped plans to change the succession law. They dropped plans to get rid of the sexist and anti-Catholic Act of Settlement 1701, which thanks to the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988 is also part of New Zealand law.

One of the benefits of becoming a republic is ridding ourselves of this pointless historical anachronism, one that is at odds with constitutional reality (the de facto head of State, the Governor-General Anand Satyanand, is Catholic, representing a Protestant monarchy - but no-one in New Zealand really cares).

Janice Turner at The Times writes:

"...if the Act of Settlement is amended, changes need to be far more sweeping, better to reflect the new celebrity nature of monarchy: "Vote for king by texting 0801 if you want Wills, 0802 for Harry..."

Voting for a King? That would be democracy wouldn't it - that would defeat the whole purpose of having a monarchy, right?

But seriously, Turner does raise the issue of the expectation of democratic participation from today's youth. They're used to voting people off Big Brother or New Zealand Idol, so it's not like the expectation of electing a head of state of our own seems so strange.

AAP and The Daily Telegraph report British Ministers have decided not to go ahead with the proposed amendment of the Act of Settlement 1701 to remove the sexist provisions of the succession law. This is despite a poll by The Daily Telegraph finding 78% of those surveyed wanted the law changed. The monarchy will continue to discriminate against women, putting males before females, because the British government does not want to get stuck into the legal complexities of change:

"To bring about changes to the law on succession would be a complex undertaking involving amendment or repeal of a number of items of related legislation, as well as requiring the consent of legislatures of member nations of the Commonwealth"

The BBC, The Daily Telegraph and The Times all report that the British government is to begin consultation on reforming the succession