Of all the anachronisms associated with the royal family, few root it more firmly in the past than the convention that men take precedence when it comes to succeeding to the throne. So-called male-preference primogeniture, a royal tradition dating back at least 1,000 years, may have been logical in the days of warrior kings. It is not any more and the government has it in its sights. Vera Baird, the solicitor-general, strays from usual legal protocol when she describes the tradition as a “load of rubbish” , saying she intends to take action to integrate the royals “into the human race”. Ministers aim to repeal the 1701 act which enshrined it in law. They also want to lift the ban on royals marrying Roman Catholics. Trevor Phillips, Britain’s all-purpose equality watchdog, has weighed in with his own support.

This change, if it happens, has been a long time in coming. The debate about male-preference primogeniture has been going on for decades. Ten years ago Lord Archer attempted to pilot his Succession to the Crown Bill through parliament which would have made men and women equally able to succeed to the throne. During the debate then Lord Williams of Mostyn, a government minister, revealed that the Queen, who had been consulted, had no objection to the change and favoured the equal treatment of sons and daughters. The bill foundered, however, and nothing happened.

That should not be allowed to happen again. In the past 30 years male succession has been scrapped in Sweden, Norway, Holland and Belgium and plans are afoot to do so in Spain and Denmark. A repeal of the law now would not have immediate consequences, since any changes in the line of succession would not be retrospective. Barring a series of unforeseen events the issue may come to a head only when Prince William has children and perhaps a daughter is ready to succeed him to the throne. By then this relic should have been consigned to the dustbin of history, where it belongs.