Call for equality of sexes in royal succession

[amabel]

Then to me that suggests the female sex is considered by those in charge as inferior.

surprise surprise Mike, when they made the rules about succession women were considered inferior to men. 

[Scarlet Flowers]

Then to me that suggests the female sex is considered by those in charge as inferior.

surprise surprise Mike, when they made the rules about succession women were considered inferior to men. 

I agree with both of you. 

Mike, it still does seem that women are inferior to men.

[wannable]

Given the impatience with which the Coalition has set about reforming everything from local government to the NHS, perhaps it's not surprising that ministers have now got their teeth into the monarchy.
As the Mail reported earlier this week, it is considering amending the 1701 Act of ­Settlement so that a first-born girl can succeed the throne. Which means that if Prince William and Kate Middleton's first child is a daughter, that baby would be our future queen.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1349095/Why-ALWAYS-crown-woman.html#ixzz1Bg2gofrc   

[Jenee]

QUESTION:  Do you think that those who appose this are inherently sexists? That, even if they don't admit it, they feel that women are inferior to men, and therefore don't deserve to hold an equal role in society?  I personally do, and I'm curious what others think.

[Windsor]

I am opposed to changing the rules of succession not because I find women inferior. I actually think women are quite good at taking high office. I am actually opposed to the rules being changed because I wish to safeguard tradition, and wish the Monarchy to remain in the House of Windsor - and not changed to suit the family name of some other guy!

If an Act of Parliament is passed to enshrine the name of Windsor to the ruling house of the United Kingdom, then I am more than happy for the rules to the changed.

[Diandra]

I don't know how the situation is with the house of windsor.

But in Denmark there is no problem with having a Queen instead of a King. The house of Glücksborg continues even though she has married. (or because of it :laugh:)

[Windsor]

In Denmark the Royal House will become the House of Laborde de Monpezat when the Crown Prince succeeds the throne.

[Diandra]

In Denmark the Royal House will become the House of Laborde de Monpezat when the Crown Prince succeeds the throne.

The princeconsort lost his surname at the marriage.

Monpezat has been added to his sons by a request from the princeconsort. The grant does not extend this Danish comital title to Henrik himself, however. Nor has the Danish Crown issued a proclamation or statement indicating the name that the royal dynasty will bear after Queen Margrethe's reign (in accordance with tradition, she reigns as a member of her father's dynasty, the House of Glücksburg).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Monpezat

[Windsor]

In the event of ascension to the Danish throne of their son or male-line descendant, the main branch of the Danish Royal Family will belong patrilineally to the Laborde de Monpezat lineage.

Indeed, right now the Royal House of Denmark is the House of Glücksburg, but if we go by tradition and no legislation is passed to stop it happening, the name of the Royal House will change to Monpezat.

[Diandra]

In the event of ascension to the Danish throne of their son or male-line descendant, the main branch of the Danish Royal Family will belong patrilineally to the Laborde de Monpezat lineage.

Indeed, right now the Royal House of Denmark is the House of Glücksburg, but if we go by tradition and no legislation is passed to stop it happening, the name of the Royal House will change to Monpezat.

I do get worried. :windsor1:

And I think you are right.  :cry10:

Perhaps you don't have as big a problem as in Denmark. As I recall Philip belonged to some kind of royal family? Prince of Greece and Denmark? :king:

But in Denmark the princeconsort was a commoner. ... :devil:

The only thing to be consoled with - is the equale birth right to the throne and I personally think it is worth it even at a cost  :cry: :Jen:

[cinrit]

Perhaps you don't have as big a problem as in Denmark. As I recall Philip belonged to some kind of royal family? Prince of Greece and Denmark? :king:

Philip renounced his Greek and Danish titles before he married Elizabeth.  Elizabeth issued a proclamation that states that the British house remains the House of Windsor.  Any male-line descendants of the Queen who do not have an HRH, are to have Mountbatten-Windsor as a surname.  After that, it gets more complicated than I can understand since sometimes the HRH males do use Mountbatten-Windsor as their last names.  Sometimes they use their titles as their last names; for example, William is known as William Wales ... and Edward's wife is sometimes referred to as Sophie Wessex.

Cindy

[Diandra]

Perhaps you don't have as big a problem as in Denmark. As I recall Philip belonged to some kind of royal family? Prince of Greece and Denmark? :king:

Philip renounced his Greek and Danish titles before he married Elizabeth.  Elizabeth issued a proclamation that states that the British house remains the House of Windsor.  Any male-line descendants of the Queen who do not have an HRH, are to have Mountbatten-Windsor as a surname.  After that, it gets more complicated than I can understand since sometimes the HRH males do use Mountbatten-Windsor as their last names.  Sometimes they use their titles as their last names; for example, William is known as William Wales ... and Edward's wife is sometimes referred to as Sophie Wessex.

Cindy

Sounds to me that the issue about the house of Windsor don't have to get in the way of equal birth rights.  :hula:

A small step for the commonwealth a big step for womankind  :mil3:

[cinrit]

Perhaps you don't have as big a problem as in Denmark. As I recall Philip belonged to some kind of royal family? Prince of Greece and Denmark? :king:

Philip renounced his Greek and Danish titles before he married Elizabeth.  Elizabeth issued a proclamation that states that the British house remains the House of Windsor.  Any male-line descendants of the Queen who do not have an HRH, are to have Mountbatten-Windsor as a surname.  After that, it gets more complicated than I can understand since sometimes the HRH males do use Mountbatten-Windsor as their last names.  Sometimes they use their titles as their last names; for example, William is known as William Wales ... and Edward's wife is sometimes referred to as Sophie Wessex.

Cindy

Sounds to me that the issue about the house of Windsor don't have to get in the way of equal birth rights.  :hula:

A small step for the commonwealth a big step for womankind  :mil3:

I agree.  I was explaining why the House of Windsor wouldn't change if a woman were able to inherit the throne if she were the first-born, since you asked a question about Prince Philip.

Cindy

[amabel]

Perhaps you don't have as big a problem as in Denmark. As I recall Philip belonged to some kind of royal family? Prince of Greece and Denmark? :king:

Philip renounced his Greek and Danish titles before he married Elizabeth.  Elizabeth issued a proclamation that states that the British house remains the House of Windsor.  Any male-line descendants of the Queen who do not have an HRH, are to have Mountbatten-Windsor as a surname.  After that, it gets more complicated than I can understand since sometimes the HRH males do use Mountbatten-Windsor as their last names.  Sometimes they use their titles as their last names; for example, William is known as William Wales ... and Edward's wife is sometimes referred to as Sophie Wessex.

Cindy

that does not mean its their surname though.  Royals don't use a surname. but for convenience such a when William and Harry were training for the army, they would need to have some kind of "last name" to make htings easier so they were both known as Wales.  But it is common for peers and their wives to use the title as a signature, such as say the Duke of Westminister would sign things simply "Wesminster", and his wife would sign with her first name and the title Ie say Natalya (I think that's her name) Westminster.  so that's why Sophie is known as "Sophie Wessex"...

[Jenee]

Philip renounced his Greek and Danish titles before he married Elizabeth.  Elizabeth issued a proclamation that states that the British house remains the House of Windsor. 
Cindy

And I don't see why this can't happen again, and again, and again and again, etc.

Why should a woman have to give up her surname when she marries anyway? Personally, I think that's another archaic custom that needs to be done away with, but that's another thread entirely :laugh:


Edited to add a new article I found - I do love the Guardian!!

Guardian

There's no respect for age any more. Last week the chairman of the home affairs select committee, Keith Vaz, introduced a Commons motion to tackle the venerable 300-year-old Act of Succession: that's the one that says that if William and Kate have a daughter first, then a son, the throne will pass to the boy in preference to the girl. The usual policy, as those familiar with their British history will know, is that anyone ought to be better at ruling our great nation than a girl, even if they're mad, bedridden, dangerously stupid, or five years old.

You really should read the whole thing. They do sarcasm very well.

But what's perhaps most notable about this latest attempt to drag the monarchy into the 21st century is that it really doesn't even make it past the 18th. It's the constitutional equivalent of making a computer out of cardboard.

Vaz may have tackled the sexism, but what about the ageism? Why should the eldest be the one to automatically get the job? If we really want a monarchy that's contemporarily relevant, surely it's about time all candidates – anyone in line to the throne – were sent off to Sir Alan for an Apprentice Special. That would be a real royal knockout.

[Jenee]

British succession change passes first hurdle in Parliament

[Diandra]

British succession change passes first hurdle in Parliament

Fantastic.

And I do agree.
Women should keep their own surname.

In Denmark a lot chooses the surname that is the best or most rare surname.

[Jenee]

I manage the student records at the Uni that I work for, and one of our students recently got married - she appended her husband's last name to hers with a 'de' in the middle (I'm guessing the husband was Hispanic of some sort)... so if she was Sarah Smith and he was Tom Jones, she became Sarah Smith de Jones. I like that. It is a nice compromise.

[Earth Angel]

I am opposed to changing the rules of succession not because I find women inferior. I actually think women are quite good at taking high office. I am actually opposed to the rules being changed because I wish to safeguard tradition, and wish the Monarchy to remain in the House of Windsor - and not changed to suit the family name of some other guy!

If an Act of Parliament is passed to enshrine the name of Windsor to the ruling house of the United Kingdom, then I am more than happy for the rules to the changed.

I find this an odd notion, as changing the name of the British monarchy to the "House of Windsor" was a deviation from tradition. Tradition is that the name changes or is modified when the lineage changes. To keep the name the "House of Windsor" would be to make the monarchy static, just as the Act of Succession 1701 did. And go figure, ever since the Act of Succession, the monarchy has declined in power & prestige!

In theory, the monarchy is a living, breathing entity that should adapt and change with the times. The monarchies that resisted change lost their power & status. With the House of Windsor already in decline, I predict that it will be abolished if the Windsors do not keep the relevent traditions (ie: changing the name to signify the appropriate lineage) and let go of those that do not serve the current cultural mileu, such as the barring of Catholics and the change in primogeniture. ...

[Diandra]

I am opposed to changing the rules of succession not because I find women inferior. I actually think women are quite good at taking high office. I am actually opposed to the rules being changed because I wish to safeguard tradition, and wish the Monarchy to remain in the House of Windsor - and not changed to suit the family name of some other guy!

If an Act of Parliament is passed to enshrine the name of Windsor to the ruling house of the United Kingdom, then I am more than happy for the rules to the changed.

I find this an odd notion, as changing the name of the British monarchy to the "House of Windsor" was a deviation from tradition. Tradition is that the name changes or is modified when the lineage changes. To keep the name the "House of Windsor" would be to make the monarchy static, just as the Act of Succession 1701 did. And go figure, ever since the Act of Succession, the monarchy has declined in power & prestige!

In theory, the monarchy is a living, breathing entity that should adapt and change with the times. The monarchies that resisted change lost their power & status. With the House of Windsor already in decline, I predict that it will be abolished if the Windsors do not keep the relevent traditions (ie: changing the name to signify the appropriate lineage) and let go of those that do not serve the current cultural mileu, such as the barring of Catholics and the change in primogeniture. ...

But why should the lineage change to something else just because the lineage end with a woman?

That is not equality.

That should be changed too.

Equality all the way.

[Jenee]

I agree with Diandra. The lineage doesn't "stop" because the successor is a woman instead of a man.

[Earth Angel]

^^^ I wrote changed or MODIFIED. Nowhere did I suggest that the name should not reflect the woman's lineage. Tradition dictates that it does not, but I did not state a preference either way. Tradition does not reflect equality and never will, that's why it's tradition and not politically correct. My point was to state that what Windosr was suggesting is not in fact "tradition", as he stated. There was no logic in the statement he made, just as the response to my post did not follow logically from what I had written. ...

[cinrit]

Sorry ... this just jumped into my mind ... I've always loved this quote:

"I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."  - Richard M. Nixon

Cindy

[Jenee]

"I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."  - Richard M. Nixon

:laugh:

Excellent - and I do believe we have a misunderstanding here. Earth Angel, I was not replying to you, I was replying to Windsor.

[Mike]

I hope the change is affected.  I can imagine William and Kate having a daughter then a son and the following conversation taking place when the girl is four or five years old.

Daughter:  Papa, will I be Queen someday?

William:  No, Sweetheart.  Your brother will be King.

Daughter:  Why?  I came first.

William:  Because that's the way our government says it is.

Daughter:  Why?

William:   Because it's been that way for centuries.

Daughter:  Why?

(What does William say to his little girl?)