Succesion to the throne

[Kazz]

Okay people heard this mentioned on the radio today and wondered what your thoughts were.
At the moment a male child takes precedence to the throne.
Ie if Princess Anne had been born before Charles then he would still be next in line as a "Boy" takes precedence over a girl.

So I wondered would it not be better to "change the law now" before it becomes an issue as we have The Queen, Prince Charles then Prince William if William marries and has a daughter she will be next in line even if he has 5/6 daughters as soon as he has a son he will be next in line.

So should we change the law now?

[dandysmom]

Can a Yankee (and a feminist) express an opinion? Firstborn, regardless of sex!

[Mags]

I agree with Eileen, firstborn regardless of sex. Elizabeth has proved herself to be an excellent queen but that only happened because she didn't have any brothers ....... so I can't see what difference it would make.
Long gone are the days when women were second to men...;)

[Grete]

I agree with Mags and DM, firstborn regardless of sex.

[yola]

Absolutely! It is an outdated (and now outlawed) concept everywhere throughout the UK except where accendancy to the throne is concerned, so why should it still persist there?

[alexgirl73]

I'm a royalist to the core lol, and I agree that the outdated ascendancy laws should be changed. I think it is ridiculous that if Her Majesty had had a brother she would have been brushed aside in favour of him, especially when she has been a wonderful queen for 50 years.

[dandysmom]

The Japanese were having a problem with this also, as only a male could inherit.....so outdated!!

[Kazz]

So maybe now is the time to change it while we have no "female" directly in line and a good 10/20 years or more before it becomes an issue. If indeed it does for all we know William may have sons.

[Kazz]

The Japanese were having a problem with this also, as only a male could inherit.....so outdated!!


What did they do....Eileen

And think about it who have been the best "Monarchs" so far, male or female?

[dandysmom]

What did they do....Eileen

And think about it who have been the best "Monarchs" so far, male or female?

The Japanese haven't done anything yet about the law of succession, as a male heir has been born...:roll:

As to the second question if a Yank (but an Anglophile) can again express an opinion, I'd take Elizabeth I over George III any day.! And I have nothing but the greatest admiration for King George and Queen Mary for their conduct during the War , and your present Queen. IMO, it's the person, not their sex....

[Kazz]

Yeap and Elizabeth I wasn't a bad monarch either. ;) if William has a daughter he should call her Elizabeth.

[alexgirl73]

I agree Karen lol! But I have a sneaky suspicion it'll be Diana or such like!

[Donna]

I dont think we should have any royalty - but if we have to, then I agree women should have the right as much as men to be stuck on the throne.

Or how about taking a step further and saying women get chosen first over the men???? Like to see that happen!!!

[Grete]

Also goes along with the odd policy of if we have a King and he marries, she is called a Queen.

If we have a Queen and she marries, he is the Prince Consort..... Kind of odd.

[dandysmom]

Lol if Hillary wins the '08 election, there is talk of what to call Bill....

[yola]

Lol if Hillary wins the '08 election, there is talk of what to call Bill....

I'm sure some people have some ready suggestions for that one Eileen . . . ;)

[dandysmom]

I'm sure some people have some ready suggestions for that one Eileen . . . ;)

:-D Good one, Yola! The Republicans have been caling him that all along......

[Alan77]

Absolutely! It is an outdated (and now outlawed) concept everywhere throughout the UK except where accendancy to the throne is concerned, so why should it still persist there?

Exactly...so as it's an outdated concept, let's get rid of the whole monarchy, which is just as conceptually archaic. :)

[Jac]

I hope I dont get shot down for this.......but in my opinion the Royal Family are a complete waste of money plus all there hangers on.

Just think if we had no Royal Family the good that money could do. In one year we would be able to afford all the new schools, hospitals ect that we are crying out for. The NHS would be back on it's feet and we would have adequate housing for the people that need it. ie council tenants and people that cant get 5 times there salary for a mortgage.

Sorry if this post has offended anyone as it wasn't meant to. It's just how I feel.

[Kazz]

I hope I dont get shot down for this.......but in my opinion the Royal Family are a complete waste of money plus all there hangers on.

Just think if we had no Royal Family the good that money could do. In one year we would be able to afford all the new schools, hospitals ect that we are crying out for. The NHS would be back on it's feet and we would have adequate housing for the people that need it. ie council tenants and people that cant get 5 times there salary for a mortgage.

Sorry if this post has offended anyone as it wasn't meant to. It's just how I feel.

I don;t think the money would be used for that Jac it would just be wasted, but I am not an ardent royalist but I must admit I do like the pomp and ceromny that goes along with them and I do respect the Queen not sure if that extends to Charles or William though in my case.

[Darky]

I personally find the royal family in general to be quite outdated, but they're such a lovely little trait to have in a country. Sure they don't do much, and sure no-one should have that amount of money for not doing much these days, but I like them regardless. I suppose I'm just fond of tradition, even if it doesn't serve a good purpose.

As such, it would definitely make sense to change the law for "first come first served", regardless of sex. Afterall, we have a fantastic Queen, so she's proof enough that a male should not need to come first.