Call for equality of sexes in royal succession

cinrit · June 28, 2011, 11:43:57 AM

The British succession laws may be antiquated, but the fact is that the majority of child care in the home is provided by the woman ... and that is probably the reasoning behind the laws, as outdated as they may be.

Cindy

Windsor · June 28, 2011, 12:35:14 PM

Very old fashioned rules and way of looking at women in society, but sadly today - many still hold to this idea.

sandy · June 28, 2011, 01:22:21 PM

I don't think "most" or "many" hold to this idea. Maybe an influential "some" but as I said, no definitive polls were taken to gauge this. All I know is that it is not the same world where women didn't get into careers, perhaps 95 percent of the CEOs were men, women couldn't vote, women were discouraged from getting educations or went for a degree in MRS, and it was unheard of for a woman to be a Prime Minister (for example). Plus there is the economy. However much families think the woman should stay home sometimes they just can't--if they stayed home and didn't work there would not be enough money to care for the children nor afford to build a nest egg to send the children to college. With the economy so bad, men have lost jobs and women support the family. Even if people desire this lifestyle of the "little woman" staying home, it is now impractical or impossible for many people. The youngsters are sent to day care or nursery school so the mother can go to work and help support the family or be the sole support of the family. I have relatives and friends and not one of them lives by "rules" where the "little woman" is expected to stay home with the children. In cases where it happens, it is the woman's choice to do this not something forced on her by "society". And men also now stay home with the children and help when the wife goes to work. Thankfully, I think people are more enlightened. To me there is absolutely nothing other than prejudice and discrimination not to allow the eldest child whether male or female to succeed to the throne. I hope if w and k's first is a daughter, more enlightened minds prevail and change the rules.

Plus the Queen has been on the throne since 1952 and has not been "incompetent" because she was not born a man. During her reign she did give birth two her two youngest children and it didn't seem to hinder her effectiveness one bit.

amabel · June 28, 2011, 03:39:11 PM

Quote from: cinrit on June 28, 2011, 11:43:57 AM
The British succession laws may be antiquated, but the fact is that the majority of child care in the home is provided by the woman ... and that is probably the reasoning behind the laws, as outdated as they may be.

Cindy

Nothing to do with that Cindy. upper class women have always had child care.. but quite simply the reasoning behind the original bias in favour of male heirs was that men were regarded as more rational than women, and that royals were also military leaders which was a role largely NOT taken on by women... until very recently. So the combination made the laws on royal succession inclined to favour men. And now, quite frankly since this law affects very few people and has NO bearing on the ordinary role of women in society, it has been left alone until there is more time to change it.
IN any case it is not like it is a total ban on women succeeding. If that were the case the Present Queen wuodl not be queen, the throne would have passed to hr uncle Henry, D of Gloucester...

cinrit · June 28, 2011, 04:12:03 PM

^^ Yes, all very true. I was citing the attitudes of today, though.

Cindy

amabel · June 28, 2011, 04:24:38 PM

Its a very complicated process.. putting a law through Parliament and it would also have to be passed by the Commonwealth countries, so it is not to be embarked on lightly. and there is a fear that if you start asking places like Australia to make a change in the monarchy they may decide to pull out of the whole thing and become a republic. and that might encourage republican feelings in the UK as well. It is basically a change that would only affect a tiny number of people, but would take a lot of time.. and as I've said dozens of times, there are more important issues Right now to take up Parliament's time and attention. If say the Tories decided to make the change, Labour might go one better and say "whats the point of tinkering with the monarchy, it's completely out of date and is an affront ot equality in more ways than one," so they might then canvas on a republican platform next election.
Its not as simple as just saying "lets make a change"... and it is not as if it makes the slightest difference to ordinary women. I doubt if Cherie Blair or Marg Thatcher or other successful women feel that they've been held back in their careers because there are somewhat antiquated laws in regard to the royal succession.

Trudie · June 28, 2011, 09:11:21 PM

Well my take on it all is "Behind every great man stood the woman" IMO if not for the woman the man wouldn't be great.

Quote from: cinrit on June 28, 2011, 11:43:57 AM
The British succession laws may be antiquated, but the fact is that the majority of child care in the home is provided by the woman ... and that is probably the reasoning behind the laws, as outdated as they may be.

Cindy

This also no longer holds true there are plenty of house husbands today perhaps the most famous for bringing this about was John Lennon. The days of June Cleaver, Donna Stone and Harriet Nelson are well and truly over and have been for 50 years.

cinrit · June 28, 2011, 09:21:50 PM

Quote from: Trudie on June 28, 2011, 09:11:21 PM
This also no longer holds true there are plenty of house husbands today perhaps the most famous for bringing this about was John Lennon. The days of June Cleaver, Donna Stone and Harriet Nelson are well and truly over and have been for 50 years.

True. But John Lennon was one in a million (in more ways than one). Househusbands are by far in the minority. Still, that's neither here nor there. And I hope I'm not giving the impression that I'm against changing the rules of succession, because I'm not at all.

Cindy

sandy · June 29, 2011, 12:23:29 AM

There are househusbands today because of the recession. Today women who don't train for a profession or get an education would suffer in the job market. A husband who works in a car manufactoring plant could very well get laid off but the wife who perhaps is in a profession such as medical or legal can help the household by working. In the time that the husband is unemployed, the wife can earn money and help support the family. I think in this day and age it is a necessity for both men and women to train for careers. THe cost of living too has gone up so in two career households the couple can work out a budget allowing for the rise in gasoline prices, food prices and the cost of living in general. With two of them working, it would help in saving up for the childrens' education (which is exorbitant as well). I( think it prudent for both people in a marriage to work. I think it is dificult to say there are a minority of househusbands in this age of recession and cost of living increase. I think Census reports should be studied to see any sort of trend. I think that with the economic situation and other factors, the number of men helping to stay home with the kids has increased.

Also regarding royal princesses, in former days a princess would be sent to marry a prince from snother kingdom for diplomacy between countries and one king having his descendants (via his daughter's descendants) in another country as future monarchs. For nstance, Victoria's daughter Vicki was matched up with a Prussian Crown Prince and the King of Denmark's daugher matched up with Bertie, Victoria's son.. Today this doesn't happen very often. SO today's princesses would (chances are) not be packed up and sent to another country to marry a prince. So a royal princess today would remain in the kingdom and could be a future monarch.

I think if the outmoded rule stays on the books, this more than working on changing it, would call into question why there is a royal family (who is behind the times re: equal rights) and should not there be a republic. I think a royal family more in tune with the times would quiet the calls for a republic.

Hale · June 30, 2011, 12:30:41 AM

I would just like to say on this subject that when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister the Queen let it be known that she was in favour of the change. The problem is our politicians, not the RF. They did have some sort of debate in Parliament at the time. Sky News

It didn't just include the sucession laws, but the fact that members of the RF cannot marry Catholics. I was surprised to hear that Ann Widdecombe was part of the opposition to these changes bearing in mind she is a conver to Catholicism. This London

I do believe the changes WILL come, but it will take some time.

XeniaCasaraghi · July 03, 2011, 01:51:12 AM

I think England needs to make the change before the issue is raised again. The last century they didn't have to deal with the problem because the oldest child was a boy (Edward, Charles, William) and in the case of Elizabeth, there were no brothers. But if a situation like with Carl Philip and Victoria arises, I would hate that what happened to CP would happen to another Prince. There are certain countries that I think the rule makes sense, but not with England where not only have woman proven to be able to rule well, but also royal houses change periodically.

amabel · July 03, 2011, 07:07:59 AM

Royal Houses change in other places as well.. In fact the Swedish Royal House changed quite dramatically in the early 19thC when hte Swedish king adoped Jean Bernadotte who was one of Napoleon's Marshals, as his heir.. ( bit of a shocker as he was at best a minor noble nad French- not sure of his exact social class)....

amabel · July 03, 2011, 08:55:47 AM

Quote from: XeniaCasaraghi on July 03, 2011, 01:51:12 AM
I think England needs to make the change before the issue is raised again. The last century they didn't have to deal with the problem because the oldest child was a boy (Edward, Charles, William) and in the case of Elizabeth, there were no brothers. But if a situation like with Carl Philip and Victoria arises, I would hate that what happened to CP would happen to another Prince. There are certain countries that I think the rule makes sense, but not with England where not only have woman proven to be able to rule well, but also royal houses change periodically.

Being king or queen isn't everyone idea of heaven. IF someone has been brought up as heir to the thone and has had to give up having a normal career in order to do it, yes I suppose it is traumatic to find that it might be taken away.. (but that could happen at any time, the monarchy isn't' forever, it is there at the will of the people and if the people get bored or grown to dislike the idea, it will go) but generally many royals don't IMO really like the idea of being monarch. I think William certainly doesn't... He'd be only to happy if he had had an older sister, and if htey had changed the law so that he was downgraded..

AnaH · November 02, 2011, 02:23:05 PM

It looks like there will be a change in the succession rules of the royal family . See this BBC article outlining the change.