THOSE who travel in haste often repent at leisure.
And nowhere is this better exemplified that the Government’s unseemly rush to change the rules of succession.
Many wiser heads are calling for more reflection.
The Bill, which receives its Second Reading next week, would change the status quo in two ways.
The first born would inherit the throne, be they male or female.
And any heir to the throne would no longer be forbidden to marry a Roman Catholic.
These proposals are the result of lengthy consultations, we are told, both with the Palace and the Commonwealth, although Prince Charles has voiced reservations recently.
There’s no doubt that the expectant Duchess of Cambridge has pushed this Bill higher up the agenda.
Her child is due in July.
What concerns me is that, once again, the Deputy Prime Minister is in charge, following his disastrous and ill-judged attempts to reform the Lords and our voting system.
Altering our ancient constitution should be carefully, indeed reverently, thought through.
The laws governing succession are 660 years old and any change could stir up a constitutional wasps’ nest.
For example, if the eldest child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge marries a Catholic, who in turn raises their child as a Catholic, how could that child become Supreme Governor of the Church of England?
Almost 500 years of Anglicanism – which, remember, was born out of a decisive rejection of Rome – could be placed in jeopardy.
Our country would no longer be united under an officially established church, undermining the role of the monarch, as defender of the faith.
We have no mandate to tinker with our constitution.
Nor does Mr Clegg.
We must protect our ancient traditions.
They are there for a reason.