Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Britain mulling changes to royal succession rule so first-born girl could take throne
Yahoo News ^ | April 16, 2011 | Sylvia Hui

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: britain; england; princewilliam; royalfamily; royals; uk; unitedkingdom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last

1 posted on 04/16/2011 8:21:37 PM PDT by TheDingoAteMyBaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby
The current rule that puts boys ahead of their sisters "would strike most people as a little old-fashioned,"

Not compared to the whole hereditary head of state bit!

2 posted on 04/16/2011 8:44:19 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby

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.


3 posted on 04/16/2011 8:48:58 PM PDT by Immerito (Reading Through the Bible in 90 Days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby

Better check with Sir Robert Filmer first!


4 posted on 04/16/2011 8:58:30 PM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby

It’s not as if they’ve never had actual female figureheads, as well as actual leaders, before.


5 posted on 04/16/2011 9:02:00 PM PDT by skr (May God confound the enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skr

“It’s not as if they’ve never had actual female figureheads, as well as actual leaders, before.”

Elizabethian era, Victorian era...


6 posted on 04/16/2011 9:15:35 PM PDT by Beowulf9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Immerito

no person should ever be above the rest.... those that believe they are should be treated most harshly.....


7 posted on 04/16/2011 9:18:50 PM PDT by sentient
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby

So why the first born?


8 posted on 04/16/2011 9:19:10 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby

“Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.”


9 posted on 04/16/2011 9:20:15 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Love MP


10 posted on 04/16/2011 9:26:09 PM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby

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.


11 posted on 04/16/2011 9:28:17 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skr

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.


12 posted on 04/16/2011 9:30:59 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Exactly, what if Kate gives birth to twins?


13 posted on 04/16/2011 9:34:41 PM PDT by TheDingoAteMyBaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby

How about abolish the ceremonial monarchy altogether??


14 posted on 04/16/2011 9:43:41 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

“Cuz’ Tourists are money!


15 posted on 04/16/2011 9:48:45 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby

Would this be sharia law compliant?


16 posted on 04/16/2011 9:55:30 PM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 814 of our national holiday from reality. - That 3 AM phone call? Voicemail...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby

CANTERBURY
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


17 posted on 04/16/2011 10:05:33 PM PDT by onedoug (If)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beowulf9

Wow. Someone actually said that? Queen Victoria was the longest reigning English monarch in their history. Margarette Thatcher their first female PM.


18 posted on 04/16/2011 10:25:35 PM PDT by jmacusa (Two wrongs don't make a right. But they can make it interesting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby

What if Kate isn’t able to have any children?


19 posted on 04/16/2011 10:59:01 PM PDT by johnthebaptistmoore (If leftist legislation that's already in place really can't be ended by non-leftists, then what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby
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.

He says that as if it's a bad thing

20 posted on 04/16/2011 11:03:57 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Radioactive plume to hit USA. President Obama and family fly to Brazil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby

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.


21 posted on 04/17/2011 3:33:16 AM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2
Amen, all freedom loving peoples should have no interest in a minimally talented and generally undeserving family that represents feudalism and obsolete inherited power.

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?

22 posted on 04/17/2011 9:04:17 AM PDT by gandalftb (Fighting jihadists is like fighting an earthquake, harden yourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb

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...”


23 posted on 04/17/2011 9:58:05 AM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb

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!


24 posted on 04/17/2011 10:40:51 AM PDT by Mitch86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

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.


25 posted on 04/17/2011 1:04:19 PM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby

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?


26 posted on 04/17/2011 1:05:22 PM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnthebaptistmoore

The throne would go to the next oldest male descendant of Charles, ie Harry. And then it would go to his descendants.


27 posted on 04/17/2011 1:08:07 PM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2
The sovereign is governor of the Church of England. How can the governor of the Anglican communion be an adherent of another denomination? The way to solve the problem, of course, is to disestablish the CofE.

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.

28 posted on 04/17/2011 1:11:35 PM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb
You think inherited power doesn't exist in America? That it doesn't exist in every land under the sun? The Brits are just acknowledging the reality that everyone else is too cowardly to admit.

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.

29 posted on 04/17/2011 1:15:31 PM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: All

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...”


30 posted on 04/17/2011 2:28:00 PM PDT by TheDingoAteMyBaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby

Dana Carvey?


31 posted on 04/17/2011 3:22:57 PM PDT by johnthebaptistmoore (If leftist legislation that's already in place really can't be ended by non-leftists, then what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: johnthebaptistmoore

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.


32 posted on 04/17/2011 3:26:18 PM PDT by TheDingoAteMyBaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby

It seems like something Eric Idle would do. But, Dana Carvey did do some Prince Charles skits on SNL in the 1990’s.


33 posted on 04/17/2011 4:23:11 PM PDT by johnthebaptistmoore (If leftist legislation that's already in place really can't be ended by non-leftists, then what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

“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.


34 posted on 04/17/2011 5:40:31 PM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2
It very obviously is not. There is a Protestant Unionist majority in Ulster. It is not as large as it once was, but it is still a majority.

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.

35 posted on 04/17/2011 6:25:42 PM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

I think that’s the best thing. Queen Elizabeth II should be the last reigning Monarch of England.


36 posted on 04/17/2011 6:31:59 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

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.


37 posted on 04/17/2011 6:33:43 PM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2
Protestants? Catholics? Plurality? What has that to do with it? The issue is not the religious affilliation of the people, but the constitutional status of Ulster. Not all Protestants are unionists. Not all Catholics are nationalists (although those who aren't have been mostly tarred and feathered into oblivion). Not that it matters. Britain, like the US, has a civic not an ethnic definition of citizenhood. Whatever their faith, or indeed lack of it, I believe they are the ones who should decide how they are governed, and by whom.

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"?

38 posted on 04/17/2011 7:51:16 PM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican; GeronL

Not your decision to make.


39 posted on 04/17/2011 7:52:41 PM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mitch86; kearnyirish2; Vanders9
The Brit Cabinet writes the speech and it purports to set the legislative agenda for the coming year. Why don't they just email it to everyone? Here's why: here's a link to the 2009 "Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid_8364000/8364950.stm

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.

40 posted on 04/17/2011 8:52:37 PM PDT by gandalftb (Fighting jihadists is like fighting an earthquake, harden yourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb
You don't think its because not everyone has access to email or anything?

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?

41 posted on 04/18/2011 12:57:39 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb
The queen and the royals, by accident of birth, claim dominance over the Brit Parliament and Brit people.

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.

42 posted on 04/18/2011 1:00:58 AM PDT by Winniesboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby

This would be filed at the bottom of my list of things to worry about.


43 posted on 04/18/2011 1:14:18 AM PDT by antceecee (Bless us Father.. have mercy on us and protect us from evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

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.


44 posted on 04/18/2011 2:16:39 AM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb

Well put; Irishmen are citizens, not subjects.


45 posted on 04/18/2011 2:18:45 AM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: antceecee

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.


46 posted on 04/18/2011 3:08:36 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2
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.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 don’t 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.

47 posted on 04/18/2011 3:25:18 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2
They have no problem being "subjects" when it suits them.

Incidentally, you do realise there is no such thing these days, don't you?

48 posted on 04/18/2011 3:28:05 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

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.


49 posted on 04/18/2011 3:30:12 AM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2
The people of the Dixie States (ALL of Dixie) supported independence for ALL of the southern States in a landslide - so how come they aren't independant now? What happens when (and it will be when, not if) the majority of people in Texas and California vote to join Mexico? You gonna fight them?

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.

50 posted on 04/18/2011 3:53:28 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson