Wasn't it heartening to see the recent news out of London?

Apparently, they're thinking of changing the rules of monarchical succession. It seems that the idea of putting women behind men, no matter what their birth order, is causing a little discomfort in 21stcentury Britain. And the stricture against Catholics -- well, that's just embarrassing in a contemporary democracy.

So the Mother of All Parliaments will begin a debate this month to reform the 1701 Act of Settlement, a change that will require not only its consent but also that of Canada and the other erstwhile colonies that still maintain a constitutional stake in Britain's monarchy.

When it happens, little princesses will enjoy the same pride of place as their little prince brothers. And any wayward royal who courts a Catholic will do so with impunity. Said Catholic could marry into the Family without first converting to the Church of England, as Autumn Kelly had to do before marrying Peter Phillips, Princess Anne's son and member of the Line of Succession club. How grand -- I mean, for fans of everything trivial and unimportant.

Because, on a one-to-10 scale of meaninglessness, amending the Act of Settlement probably ranks an 11.

Here's what democratically minded reformers should really be setting their sights on: abolition. Get rid of the monarchy altogether. In civilizations that long ago accepted equality as a social cornerstone, what possible justification could there be for even the notion of monarchy? For the idea of elevating fellow humans to the very top of the heap for no reason other than birth?

Seriously.

In Canada and the other former colonies, which long ago did away with class (at least class based solely on birth), the idea of monarchy is particularly anachronistic. But even in England, where class still defines and snobbery remains a virtue, the concept of monarchy has started to look out of place.

That's what happens when nations evolve on democratic operating principles.

It explains the existence of British republican activists, some of them far more vehement than any found here.

Which is understandable. If royal visits cost Canadians a bundle, imagine the assault on British taxpayers, who must support the whole extended Family of overpaid underachievers, with their entrenched senses of entitlement, their castles and fripperies, their endless "dutiful" appearances, their deeply vacuous activities.

It also explains last month's incident on the streets of London. Yes, of course you had to feel for Prince Charles and Camilla as their limo ran smack into gangs of rioting demonstrators, mostly young people infuriated by their government's exorbitant tuition fee hike. It must have been every bit as frightening as the photo evidence -- Camilla's shocked face -- suggested.

But when some protesting wag began a chant of "Off with their heads," was it so hard to see why?

What desperate student, suddenly face to face with two pampered dilettantes in evening attire -- dilettantes who live off the same government that's about to destroy him -- wouldn't feel a frisson of revolutionary fervour?

If you haven't yet seen The King's Speech, go.

The movie features impeccable acting, rich evocations of time and place, and a narrative of personal bravery. The story of King George VI's efforts to conquer a debilitating stammer and speak publicly to vast audiences is undeniably inspiring. But while it may not have been intended, the film also offers dismaying evidence of the deep sense of royal entitlement that seems to be as natural to a Windsor as nectar to bees.

In the movie, George VI is a man with many fine qualities -- but sometimes the democrat in you just wants to slap his upper-crustiness silly, along with that of his queen-consort and two precious princess daughters.

It really is time to stop the nonsense and deep-six the monarchy. Time to stop pretending that it is even remotely justifiable, socially or morally.

The chances of that happening, of course, are dim. In Britain, too many people confuse this kind of positive evolutionary change with a denial of their own history. And in Canada, we've managed to turn abolition of the monarchy into a virtual constitutional impossibility.

But being hooped constitutionally doesn't mean we have to keep panting after monarchs and heaping on them and their families the kind of attention warranted by genuinely important institutions and people. We can suggest that our media stop acting like swooning schoolgirls every time a royal comes to town, produces a baby or gets married.

We can call them on those absurd fluff pieces (the Wills-Kate nuptials, anyone?) that are all colour, glitz, sexy packaging -- and no substance. If we really want to examine the anachronism that is the monarchy, let's not worry about extraneous issues like royal weddings or lines of succession.

Let's get right to the body of the institution. Off with its head.

Janice Kennedy is a columnist for the Ottawa Citizen.