Skip to comments.Britain mulling changes to royal succession rule so first-born girl could take throne
Posted on 04/16/2011 8:21:29 PM PDT by TheDingoAteMyBaby
LONDON - Britain's government has begun the process of reviewing the ancient, discriminatory rules of royal succession, so that if Prince William and Kate Middleton's first child is a girl she would eventually become queen.
The current rule that puts boys ahead of their sisters "would strike most people as a little old-fashioned," Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said Saturday.
It is just two weeks until the prince and Middleton get married at London's Westminster Abbey, and Clegg said many people may agree that the rules should be changed so that if the couple's first child were a girl, she would eventually inherit the throne even if she had a younger brother.
(Excerpt) Read more at ca.news.yahoo.com ...
Not compared to the whole hereditary head of state bit!
It seems to me that the British royalty would have an inherent inclination to maintain—not do away with, historical traditions.
After all, the royal family is itself an “ancient” and “discriminatory” tradition.
Better check with Sir Robert Filmer first!
It’s not as if they’ve never had actual female figureheads, as well as actual leaders, before.
“Its not as if theyve never had actual female figureheads, as well as actual leaders, before.”
Elizabethian era, Victorian era...
no person should ever be above the rest.... those that believe they are should be treated most harshly.....
So why the first born?
“Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.”
The entire concept of “royalty” is ancient and discriminatory. Why not just do away with THAT entirely, if “ancient” and “discriminatory” are the criteria to do away with things.
Every historical custom is discriminatory, in that every tradition says “we do things this way because that’s how we do it”.
This sh1t is ridiculous.
Yes but the feminists will bitch that it was because there were no male heirs before them, and that’s not the right way to become the leader.
One would question why an offspring automatically is the right choice to be a ruler just because dad and mom were, that’s no guarantee their child is the best person to take over when they’re gone. Male or female.
Exactly, what if Kate gives birth to twins?
How about abolish the ceremonial monarchy altogether??
“Cuz’ Tourists are money!
Would this be sharia law compliant?
Then hear me, gracious sovereign, and you peers,
That owe yourselves, your lives and services
To this imperial throne. There is no bar
To make against your highness’ claim to France
But this, which they produce from Pharamond,
‘In terram Salicam mulieres ne succedant:’
‘No woman shall succeed in Salique land:’
Which Salique land the French unjustly gloze
To be the realm of France, and Pharamond
The founder of this law and female bar.
Yet their own authors faithfully affirm
That the land Salique is in Germany,
Between the floods of Sala and of Elbe;
Where Charles the Great, having subdued the Saxons,
There left behind and settled certain French;
Who, holding in disdain the German women
For some dishonest manners of their life,
Establish’d then this law; to wit, no female
Should be inheritrix in Salique land:
Which Salique, as I said, ‘twixt Elbe and Sala,
Is at this day in Germany call’d Meisen.
Then doth it well appear that Salique law
Was not devised for the realm of France:
Nor did the French possess the Salique land
Until four hundred one and twenty years
After defunction of King Pharamond,
Idly supposed the founder of this law;
Who died within the year of our redemption
Four hundred twenty-six; and Charles the Great
Subdued the Saxons, and did seat the French
Beyond the river Sala, in the year
Eight hundred five. Besides, their writers say,
King Pepin, which deposed Childeric,
Did, as heir general, being descended
Of Blithild, which was daughter to King Clothair,
Make claim and title to the crown of France.
Hugh Capet also, who usurped the crown
Of Charles the duke of Lorraine, sole heir male
Of the true line and stock of Charles the Great,
To find his title with some shows of truth,
‘Through, in pure truth, it was corrupt and naught,
Convey’d himself as heir to the Lady Lingare,
Daughter to Charlemain, who was the son
To Lewis the emperor, and Lewis the son
Of Charles the Great. Also King Lewis the Tenth,
Who was sole heir to the usurper Capet,
Could not keep quiet in his conscience,
Wearing the crown of France, till satisfied
That fair Queen Isabel, his grandmother,
Was lineal of the Lady Ermengare,
Daughter to Charles the foresaid duke of Lorraine:
By the which marriage the line of Charles the Great
Was re-united to the crown of France.
So that, as clear as is the summer’s sun.
King Pepin’s title and Hugh Capet’s claim,
King Lewis his satisfaction, all appear
To hold in right and title of the female:
So do the kings of France unto this day;
Howbeit they would hold up this Salique law
To bar your highness claiming from the female,
And rather choose to hide them in a net
Than amply to imbar their crooked titles
Usurp’d from you and your progenitors. —Shakespeare, Henry V
Wow. Someone actually said that? Queen Victoria was the longest reigning English monarch in their history. Margarette Thatcher their first female PM.
What if Kate isn’t able to have any children?
He says that as if it's a bad thing
As long as they have laws preventing Catholics from sitting on the throne, I really don’t give a cr_p about England or the people there.
They should end their occupation of Northern Ireland as well; the “colonial era” has been over for decades.
Go watch the queen give her next commands to the Brit Parliament when it convenes every year, disgraceful. I love the Brits, but the royals are an embarrassing blight that should be ceremonial only.
Did I mention the House of Lords?
I like Leslie Nielsen in one of the “Naked Gun” movies, explaining the role of the police department in protecting the British queen during her upcoming visit: “For no matter how silly the idea of having a queen may seem to us...”
Regardless of my own feelings on Monarchy, I have to raise issue with some of your points. At the State Opening of Parliament, the Queen does not give ‘her next commands’, in fact she outlines the government’s agenda for the coming parliamentary session.
The speech is entirely drawn up by the govt. and approved by the cabinet.
She has no real power, Parliament is independent of the monarchy, as symbolised by ‘Black Rod’ at the opening ceremony, who, as Her Majesty’s representative, has the door slammed in his face!
Why? You operate a hereditary allocation of wealth system in the US. You die, your earthly goods and chattels pass to your blood relatives. It’s the same principle.
Should have been done some time ago. Needs to be done in the next few months. What happens if Kate and Will have a baby daughter?
The throne would go to the next oldest male descendant of Charles, ie Harry. And then it would go to his descendants.
Northern Ireland is not occupied. Unless you think that Palestine is "occupied" by the Israelis. It is British because the majority of people there want it to be. When that is no longer the case, sayonara bogland.
The queen doesn't give any commands to the Brit Parliment. That speech she reads is written by the government, not her.
The hereditary principle has been abolished in the House of Lords. Has been for years.
Anyone recall the actor on Saturday Night Live (70s or early 80s) who portrayed Prince Charles selling a book called “How to Pick Up Girls”? It was pretty funny: “I’m not particularly bright, I’m dangerously inbred...”
I know it was a British actor/comedian, but I can’t recall his name. I want to say it was one of the Monty Python members.
It seems like something Eric Idle would do. But, Dana Carvey did do some Prince Charles skits on SNL in the 1990’s.
“Northern Ireland is not occupied.”
It very obviously is, and I won’t bite at your attempt to intertwine it with non-related matters that can be sorted out by those effected. Demographics will sort it out eventually; Britain doesn’t want it anymore anyway (as it transformed from as industrial base to a population on the dole), but rather maintains a presence at the behest of the Protestant minority they transplanted there centuries ago to displace the native population.
I dont know what all this nonsense about "intertwined with non-related matters is" - unless you think that the will of the people is unimportant. Interesting concept to adhere to.
I think that’s the best thing. Queen Elizabeth II should be the last reigning Monarch of England.
They are a plurality, not a majority, and Roman Catholics are far and away the largest religious group there. I think the will of the people is very important, though the US is a republic, not a democracy.
The US may be a republic, but it still operates on democratic principles, so the point stands. It is, is it not, "government of the people, by the people, for the people"?
Not your decision to make.
Listen to it. In every instance the queen states "my government". As if a government of free people were just so much property.
We do not have inherited power, we have inherited wealth. Wealth that is earned, fairly or not, but it is earned. Any power that is derived from that wealth is always subject to the consent of our free people.
The queen and the royals, by accident of birth, claim dominance over the Brit Parliament and Brit people. Free Irishmen never put up with it and neither will I. My ancestors paid in blood for every freedom we have and I would never soil their sacrifice with any even symbolic nod towards any king or queen or royals of any kind.
We do not have inherited power, we have inherited wealth.
Garbage! Of course you do. You may not like it, but it's inevitable. Wealth brings power.
Wealth that is earned, fairly or not, but it is earned.
If wealth is inherited, how is it earned? Obviously it was earned by someone in the past, but not by the person who inherits it, who may or may not be a good custodian of it.
wealth is always subject to the consent of our free people.
You mean the government of the people has the right to simply take it off those who are undeserving of it? Isn't that the politics of envy? I thought we were in favor of fair tax on these boards?
The queen and the royals, by accident of birth, claim dominance over the Brit Parliament and Brit people.
They claim nothing of the kind. The Queen is a constitutional monarch. There is no doubt as to who is actually in charge.
Free Irishmen never put up with it and neither will I.
And they'll force that freedom on everyone else. If people demur, they can just be bombed into agreeing. And given the economic disaster that Eire is, you could ask "Hey, missing Lizzie yet?"
My ancestors paid in blood for every freedom we have and I would never soil their sacrifice with any even symbolic nod towards any king or queen or royals of any kind.
Given the nature of the current encumbent, how's electing your head of State working out?
They claim no such thing. A civil war was fought 350 years ago to establish once and for all the principle that Parliament, not the monarch, is sovereign.
Any power that is derived from that wealth is always subject to the consent of our free people.
The status of the British monarch as constitutional head of state is likewise entirely suibject to the consent of our free people, expressed through Parliament. The monarchy could be abolished at any time should the free people, governing through Parliament, so decide.
The 'my government' stuff is just one of those little anachronistic rituals which we have to keep going to keep American tourists happy...has absolutely nothing to do with the realities of power.
This would be filed at the bottom of my list of things to worry about.
Britain never let the population of the island decide its future; it sectioned off one piece it had loaded with its supporters and used that as justification for keeping it.
If southern California voted to join Mexico, I don’t think most Americans would view it as a legally binding arrangement and feel compelled to give it up. Would they?
The occupation of Northern Ireland is indefensible.
Well put; Irishmen are citizens, not subjects.
Unfortunately it could have dire consequences for those of us in the UK. If this isn’t altered, it could cause a major constitutional crisis. The radical left in the UK would dearly love to scrap the constitutional monarchy as they see it as a bar to their socialist paradise. If Kate and William are blessed with a daughter, they could use that as leverage.
That is simply untrue (and its also downright insulting to the Unionist people). The nationalist Irish members of parliament astutely guided through a home rule bill in 1912 and the British Government accepted it and passed it through parliament. It only required the King's signature to become law. It was the people of Ulster who rose up against the act. See the Ulster covenant.
In the second place, why would they want to do what you suggest? Is Northern Ireland so valuable a piece of real estate? Err, no. Its been nothing but trouble. Why would they want to hold onto it? For what purpose? Tyranny for tyrannies sake? Please...
If southern California voted to join Mexico, I dont think most Americans would view it as a legally binding arrangement and feel compelled to give it up. Would they? If Ireland was part of the United Kingdom and voted to secede, I don't think most Britons would view it as a legally binding arrangement and feel compelled to give it up. Would they?
You see? It's exactly the same argument. You complain that part of Ireland didn't have the right to opt out of independence, but you have no problem that a part of the United Kingdom voted itself out. The British argument is simple and it is clear. Self-determination. If people want out they can go, if they want in they stay. What is your problem with that? Forget how the horrid situation all began. At this instant YOU are the one who is arguing for coercion.
The occupation of Northern Ireland is indefensible.
As it's not an occupation, it doesn't need to be defended.
Incidentally, you do realise there is no such thing these days, don't you?
The people of Ireland (ALL of Ireland) would have supported independence for ALL of Ireland in a landslide. At the time, Northern Ireland was economically worthwhile (the Titanic was built in its shipyards, though Catholics weren’t allowed to work on it - there’s karma for you). It was only when globalization did to their industry what it had done to Britain’s industry that London lost interest in the whole thing.
The “unionist” people are visiting transplants, nothing else; their threats to bomb London if the British withdraw is the reason why it is still occupied.
I've never heard of unionists threatening to bomb London if the British withdraw. That's pretty crappy republican propoganda. Threaten to bomb Dublin yes. Threaten to defy and disobey a United Ireland government yes. And they are not bluffing either.
Just remember that the "visiting transplants" as you insultingly call them have been in Ireland longer than your people have been in Northern America.