I think it's obvious Elizabeth II was all for a big law change in her reign and the latest revelations don't alter that

 

When you're the longest reigning monarch in British history and feted internationally as one of the most successful leaders your country has ever produced, a change that makes it more likely one of your female descendants will get the same chances as you seems a no brainer. Which is why I think the latest headlines about Elizabeth II being ''lukewarm'' about the new succession laws that gave women equal rights with men are well off the mark.

Let's look at the allegations, first. A new book, Power and the Palace, by Valentine Low examines how Buckingham Palace approached this big alteration, arguably one of the biggest in the history of the Monarchy. It started in 2011, when the then brand new Prime Minister, David Cameron, began talking to his then Australian counterpart, Julia Gillard, about switching things up. William and Kate had just got married, the pressure on the new princess to have a baby was mounting and the PM, rather sensibly, thought it was important to make royal rules 21st century friendly. And that's where the claim comes in. The book says that those involved found Elizabeth II far from engaged with the process that would mean her female descendants could never be bumped by a younger brother.

Furthermore, the book says, the then heir to the throne, Charles, found it hard to get briefings on what was going on, leading to some awkwardness. This has been interpreted in some quarters as Elizabeth II 'not being keen' on princesses taking the throne when this new material doesn't even indicate that. It shows, quite clearly, what a very good constitutional Monarch she was. This was a political decision and one she left to the politicians and for several good reasons.

Firstly, the late Queen was always clear that she didn't meddle in politics. She listened, she advised, she offered counsel, she might even give examples of past events that bore a similarity and how different outcomes had developed but she never told an elected politician what to do. She was always very clear. The will of the people elected its government and its parliament and the will of the people ruled. She reigned but it wasn't her role to disturb the work of those chosen to wield power by the population. The book makes that clear in another example to which a lot of time is devoted. In 2019, Queen Elizabeth II was involved in a row when it became clear Boris Johnson wanted an extraordinary prorogation of parliament as the row over Brexit continued. Despite misgivings about the protocol of such a process, her ministers had decided on it and she acquiesced. Whatever advice she gave in private, in public she followed the edicts of the people chosen by the people to govern.

Secondly, it was clear that the change had to be made. She knew better than anyone that a woman was just as capable of ruling as a man and that centuries of sexism were being put aside by her stellar example. The notion that the status quo could remain was ridiculous. And her politicians had caught her up and were willing to start the not inconsiderable task of overturning the rules that had been in place since Monarchy began. What Queen Elizabeth II also understood was that this change would only happen if every one of the 15 realms in which she reigned agreed to it. And once they did, she happily gave royal consent - perhaps the happiest person involved in the whole scenario.

For this was a woman who had seen the destruction that the throne could bring. She had known and loved her uncle David who had become King Edward VIII and given it up for love. She had seen the impact of that on her father. And she knew, as she grew older, of the discussions that had taken place about putting another brother on the throne instead of George VI. For in December 1936, as the Crown wobbled, there had been talk of the youngest surviving brother, the Duke of Kent, taking the throne, in part because he had a male heir while Albert, soon to be George VI, only had girls in his family. Elizabeth II saw her own daughter, Anne, displaced in the succession twice by younger brothers despite the princess growing up to be one of the most competent members of her family. Elizabeth knew relatives, like her Norwegian cousin Astrid, who had been denied a place in the succession full stop because of their gender. She knew how much it mattered and she also knew how much it mattered that her politicians did it rather than her sweeping in and demanding it. For that could be seen as personal bias. She handled the situation with exceptional tact and oversaw the biggest change the Monarchy had known in terms of succession.

And she gave her own, tacit seal of approval a little later. When Kate did announce she was expecting a baby, Queen Elizabeth II quickly did the one thing in her power to show her approval of the change. She issued Letters Patent that gave HRH to all children of the eldest son of the eldest son of the Monarch. Until that moment, only a boy would have been given that privilege meaning a first born girl would have been titled 'lady' even though she could never be displaced in the succession by a younger brother. Elizabeth II knew exactly what she was doing and the new revelations only underline that.

Power and the Palace by Valentine Low is published on September 11 2025.