The act, passed at a time of widespread fear of Catholics, lays down that only Protestant heirs of Princess Sophia, granddaughter of James I, may take the British throne. Neither Catholics, nor those who marry a Catholic, nor those born out of wedlock, may remain in the line of succession. The act remains the crucial cornerstone of the British constitution, exercising an extraordinary hold over the monarchy and imposing limitations designed to tackle the imperatives of a political crisis at the dawn of the 18th century. But it is scarcely relevant to the 21st. Because of it, dozens of people have been barred from taking their place in the order of succession.
Sons also take precedence over daughters and the right of succession belongs to the eldest son.
The act institutionalises religious discrimination and male primogeniture. This leaves the statute in force but puts pressure on the government to reform it, since the UK has signed up to the convention and pledged that it will comply with convention rights. The Guardian argues in an editorial today that in the new millennium Britain should be given the choice whether to keep the royal family or to become a republic. The paper's editor, Alan Rusbridger wrote last week to the attorney general, Lord Williams of Mostyn, asking for an assurance that he will not be prosecuted, given that he has no intention of advocating overthrow of the monarchy by force. In his letter, he argued the Treason Felony Act breaches article 10 of the European convention, the right to freedom of expression.