Our sexist monarchy

Started by hippie_cyndi, January 11, 2008, 09:44:26 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

fawbert

Queen Elizabeth I would never have been Queen Elizabeth I in the lifetime of a younger brother. King Edward VI reigned between 1547 and 1553, and Elizabeth reigned 1558-1603.
Fawbert


sandy


My point is that she had a little brother who only ruled 6 years--she on the other hand became one of the most revered and legendary monarchs in British history. I never said she would "reign" during his lifetime or before he became king. Henry's "mere female" child turned out to be one of the legendary monarchs in British history.

Elisevonblah

Well said, sandy. Most people forget that Henry even had a son.
Disclaimer: This is my opinion, I have no facts

fawbert

I don't ever forget that Henry had a son. The point I am trying to make is that we will have a problem with the Dukedom of Cornwall if the succssion laws are changed. The statute establishing the dukedom clearly says that the title and is destined for the eldest SON of the Sovereign. If one day the succession becomes gender-blind then chaos will reign. Say for instance that William's first born is a daughter, Princess Elizabeth, and then his second child is a son, Prince George. On William's accession (under the new rules) Prince George will become Duke of Cornwall, but not for life and only temporarily, because on the accession of Queen Elizabeth III the dukedom will transfer to her eldest son.

I d not think that the current Sovereign wants to see a change.




Fawbert


Lillianna

I must say that I don't want to see a change either. However, I still believe that it would be best for the parents to decide which of their children they deem to be most capable of succeeding them and carrying out certain roles effectively, whether royal or not. That way, the first-born does not automatically become the chosen one if he has siblings, but realises that he has to prove himself like everyone else, including his sisters and younger brothers.

A similar argument was raised these past days, but it was to do with the question of inheritance. This one line, I think, is relevant to this topic (in the above perspective):

QuoteEconomist Dr Nick Bloom has studied the management of family firms where the father passes the business on to the eldest son.

"We looked at 5,000 companies and we found that around a third of medium-sized manufacturing firms were family owned. In about half of them the eldest son was the CEO. They are very badly managed."

So handing down monumental responsibilities to the eldest son is not always a smart move...
"Happy are those who expect nothing, for they will never be disappointed."

Be careful of your thoughts, for your thoughts become your words;
Be careful of your words, for your words become your deeds;
Be careful of your deeds, for your deeds become your habits;
Be careful of your habits, for your habits become your character;
Be careful of your character, for your character becomes your destiny.
Anon.

Elisevonblah

QuoteThe point I am trying to make is that we will have a problem with the Dukedom of Cornwall if the succssion laws are changed.

Well the obvious solution would be that the Dukedom should pass to the eldest child regardless of their sex. There is no logical, rational, reasonable or scientific reason why a female heir could not inherit this title or any of the other titles associated with being the eldest child and the heir. The only thing that prevents this from happening is an outdated, sexist law that was made hundreds of years ago when women were not considered people. Of course unless there is some special duty  I am unaware of that one has to perform with their  :censored: then certainly a woman could not do that.

Disclaimer: This is my opinion, I have no facts

sandy

Why wouldn't QE II want to see a change? She was Queen for over 50 years and I wonder how she would have felt had she been replaced by a little brother in line of succession. I'm wondering why this sexist law is still clung to so desperately and avidly by some when it is so blatantly out of step with the times. We're living in the 21st Century not the 15th Century where women were basically treated as second class citizens and chattel.

There is also no reason in the world why the eldest child if a daughter cannot be Duchess of Cornwall and Princess of Wales. Mary I was actually Princess of Wales. George VI could have made Elizabeth Princess of Wales but opted not to on his belief that only a wife of a Prince of Wales should get that title. But it was his call and QE II could have been made Princess of Wales.

Again, I doubt men would find this outmoded succession law appealing should the younger sister bump her elder brother from the line of succession because the ELDEST DAUGHTER gets to succeed first.

Lillianna

#32
The Queen was not known for being a radical in her girlhood days. She grew up with the system and its traditions, and to all appearances, accepted them for what they were. If she had a little brother even aged 5 when her father had died, then I am certain that she would have accepted that someone (if not her) would have been appointed regent and the brother would have eventually become king when he came of age. I cannot imagine that she is suddenly going to become liberated and start making such drastic changes. At the end of the day, it may be the British monarcy, but it's still her family, and so she decides.
"Happy are those who expect nothing, for they will never be disappointed."

Be careful of your thoughts, for your thoughts become your words;
Be careful of your words, for your words become your deeds;
Be careful of your deeds, for your deeds become your habits;
Be careful of your habits, for your habits become your character;
Be careful of your character, for your character becomes your destiny.
Anon.

sandy

It's a moot point since the Queen Mum and George VI only had 2 daughters. The Queen is  still Queen.And her eldest is a male as is her eldest's first child. I do think it a shame that this dated  tradition pushed Anne down the line of succession. I would like to think that the Queen would want  to keep up with the other European monarchies and at least consider that the UK should keep in step with the times.Parliament will decide this not the Queen.

fawbert

Quote from: Elisevonblah on January 31, 2008, 05:55:49 PM
Well the obvious solution would be that the Dukedom should pass to the eldest child regardless of their sex

The Dukedom of Cornwall cannot pass to a female.
Fawbert


sandy

Anything can be changed. And things have changed in the course of the history of the British Monarchy.Never say never re:females inheriting.  At one point there was horror that a WOMAN would be Queen hence Henry VIII marrying and remarrying to get a male heir. But lo and behold the fear of a woman ruler all but disappeared when Elizabeth I became a legendary monarch. Then hell didn't freeze over and more women like Victoria and Elizabeth II became long reigning popular queens.

Elisevonblah

Quote from: fawbert on February 01, 2008, 02:32:22 AM
The Dukedom of Cornwall cannot pass to a female.

Fine then. Please list the valid reasons, excluding the outdated and sexist law which states so, why this cannot happen. I am interested in what makes someone born with a penis so much better than someone not.
Disclaimer: This is my opinion, I have no facts

fawbert

Letters Patent creating peerages (or in this case the Royal Charter) cannot be ammended. It has nothing to do with the male reproductive organ.
Fawbert


Elisevonblah

So the reason is that there is an old outdated law forbidding it? Is that right? A law created back when women were not considered people and were not worthy of rights? The argument seems completely circular; we can't do this because there is a law against it. Then Change the law. No there is a law against that too. Is the monarch so limited in his/her power that he/she cannot create new letters patent which are more suited to the world in which they live?  It is a pity that the monarchy has made itself practically impossible to modernize because it will be one of its undoings.  I am a monarchist but I don't think I can in good conscience support an institution that gender discriminates because "that's the way it has always been". 
Disclaimer: This is my opinion, I have no facts

sandy

If some die hards got over their horror of a female monarch in the 16th century then die hards of the 21st century can surely get used to changing the antiquated succession rules. Rules are not written in stone. Imagine some lawmakers opposed to women voting because the law against it was there forever and sorry, can't change it.

Windsor

#40
Quote from: sandy on February 01, 2008, 02:31:05 AMI would like to think that the Queen would want  to keep up with the other European monarchies

Not a fan of her European cousins! :thumbsup:

sandy


Windsor

Quote from: fawbert on February 01, 2008, 03:33:47 AM
Letters Patent creating peerages (or in this case the Royal Charter) cannot be ammended. It has nothing to do with the male reproductive organ.

Now who told you that? Letters patent cannot be changed as such, though new ones can be created to replace old ones so to speak! :)  

colinwatkins

Can we inject a little reality into this debate?

First the title of this topic is, in itself, a misnomer. In living memory, not one member of the
British royal family has been publicly involved in the continuation of the British succession laws.
Neither the Queen, nor any successor can, or will be able, to alter the situation. That is a task
for Parliament.

Are the laws wrong and/or unfair? Unequivocally, they are wrong and they are unfair. Are they
outdated? Again, of course they are, just as the legal position on Catholicism is outdated. The
problem is, however, that our Members of Parliament don't consider these phenomena as being burning
issues; they are not experiencing any significant up-swell of public opinion that will change their
minds. Basically, the British are very conservative; content with the status quo as long as it
doesn't personally, negatively impact them. So how can these laws be changed?

I have no doubt that Parliament can change any law if it wants (most out-and-out royalists would
disagree, but I doubt if they would like to put our different points of view to the test). The
power-house of the British Parliament is the House of Commons, the elected Members of Parliament. If
you want to change the laws, you need to convince them that the issue is important.

If you live in the United Kingdom (even if not British), and you have a burning desire to see the law
changed, then you need to involve yourself in the political process. You need to work hard at trying
to create a ground-swell of opinion that supports your views; just feeling that life is unfair
really won't achieve anything. If you don't live in the UK, sorry, I doubt if any British Member of
Parliament is going to take the slightest notice of you.

sillyjobug

^colin is right about one thing, HM can't change the law, Parliament has to do that. And so far it hasn't come up as an issue, because the monarch's eldest child and the eldest child's eldest child are both males.

However, I'm sure that when William marries, it will become an issue. The subject of changing succession laws was even brought up in uber-conservative Japan prior to the most recent birth. Since a boy was born the issue was dropped, of course, but if even Japan is willing to discuss this, I see no reason why England wouldn't. Once William is married, and most definitely when his wife becomes pregnant, this issue will be brought up. Naturally the sex of the baby won't be announced until it's born, so people will start discussing whether the child should be the heir if it's a girl.

I'd like to think William's wife could push for this change, refusing to have children until the law is changed? Alas this is highly unlikely.

And fawbert, while there may be letters patent prohibiting female accession to the Duchy of Cornwall, it is perfectly simple to issue new letters patent that ammend the old ones. This has been done with some of the marriage laws already, and can easily be done again. As for the Commonwealth, they don't have to ratify the change. It would be a very weird situation, but here's what would happen: Let's say William has a daughter first, and then a son. Let's also say England changes the succession laws so that the daughter is the first in line regardless of her little brother, but let's say that Canada, for example, doesn't change the law. William's little girl would become the Queen on England upon his death, meanwhile his son would rule Canada. Not only that, it's not guaranteed that Charles, or anyone, will succeed the thrones of every Commonwealth nation. The nations do not have to accept Charles as their next king, nor do they have to accept William after that, or his children after him. They're Commonwealths because they agree to have HM as Queen. If they don't want her, or Charles or William or anyone else, they can cease to be Commonwealth nations.
Harryite #0094   

leogirl

Great post, Colin! :thumbsup:

Quote from: sillyjobug on February 01, 2008, 06:50:49 PM
... Not only that, it's not guaranteed that Charles, or anyone, will succeed the thrones of every Commonwealth nation. The nations do not have to accept Charles as their next king, nor do they have to accept William after that, or his children after him. They're Commonwealths because they agree to have HM as Queen. If they don't want her, or Charles or William or anyone else, they can cease to be Commonwealth nations.

Ouch!

fawbert

#46
Quote from: sillyjobug on February 01, 2008, 06:50:49 PM
And fawbert, while there may be letters patent prohibiting female accession to the Duchy of Cornwall, it is perfectly simple to issue new letters patent that ammend the old ones. This has been done with some of the marriage laws already, and can easily be done again. As for the Commonwealth, they don't have to ratify the change. It would be a very weird situation, but here's what would happen: Let's say William has a daughter first, and then a son. Let's also say England changes the succession laws so that the daughter is the first in line regardless of her little brother, but let's say that Canada, for example, doesn't change the law. William's little girl would become the Queen on England upon his death, meanwhile his son would rule Canada. Not only that, it's not guaranteed that Charles, or anyone, will succeed the thrones of every Commonwealth nation. The nations do not have to accept Charles as their next king, nor do they have to accept William after that, or his children after him. They're Commonwealths because they agree to have HM as Queen. If they don't want her, or Charles or William or anyone else, they can cease to be Commonwealth nations.

By the time William is King the Commonwealth will be history anyway. But as I understand it - any change in the succession laws requires the ratification of all the other countries over which Elizabeth II is Queen. Failure of all to agree and the succession will stay the same.

Let's not forget primogeniture has many good points. If some of the great estates in the land had not passed from father to son for generations then the magnificent palaces of Chatsworth and Blenheim may not have survived intact.


Fawbert


sandy

#47
Daughters can also preserve magnificent palaces. Saying that it's better that males inherit implies that women are less capable of men at preserving things. Mountbatten had two daughters and his legacy and property was still preserved, one daughter being called Countess Mountbatten. And fathers can pass land and estates to their daughters.