The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/call-for-equality-of-sexes-in-royal-succession-2187049.html)
Quote"With the marriage of Prince William and Catherine Middleton, we have a once in a generation opportunity to change the law. Prince William looks like a very modern prince. If he has a daughter first, it is only right that she become Queen of England." Mr Vaz says he has "quite a bit of support".
This raises an interesting question. According to the Letters Patent issued by George V, only the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (the great-grandson of the Sovereign and the third in line to the throne) can be an HRH. All other children born to the son of the POW are styled as the children of a Duke, i.e, Lord and Lady. What would happen if Kate and William had a girl first and the law of succession isn't changed? Would she be Lady X? It seems weird calling her that knowing her father will be King. Do you think the Queen would issue Letters Patent to give the child a royal title? :windsor1:
The only time this has happened before was with the children of the future George V and Queen Mary. Their children, excepting Edward their firstborn, were styled, His/her Highness, NOT HRH at first.
Well, this was no surprise.
Regarding your question Alixxx -
How does Princess Beatrice hold the title Princess if she's not the eldest son of the eldest son, etc... I would think that William's kids will be HRH regardless.
But what do I know :laugh:
Old news but it's still fun to spectulate!
Jen, all grandchildren of the Sovereign in the male line are HRH. All great-grandchildren, however, are styled as the children of a Duke, except for the heir.
QuoteUse of the style His Royal Highness or Her Royal Highness (HRH) and the titular dignity of prince or princess are governed by Letters Patent issued by George V on 30 November 1917 and published in the London Gazette on 11 December 1917. These Letters Patent state that henceforth only the children of the Sovereign, the children of the sons of the Sovereign, and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would "have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour." They further state, "the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes."
British MPs are about to debate a change to the law to allow any daughter of Prince William and Kate Middleton equal rights to the throne.
36 minutes ago via web
RoyalReporter
Richard Palmer
___
The debate on changing royal succession laws is a bit futile though in the absence of agreement between all the realms.
33 minutes ago via web
RoyalReporter
Richard Palmer
___
The whole royal succession debate was started by Gordon Brown's spin doctors to deflect attention and give hacks a story on a trip to Brazil
21 minutes ago via web
RoyalReporter
Richard Palmer
This sounds very exciting and it is high time it happened but it also sounds very complicated and unlikely to pass.
How amazing for Princess Diana's granddaughter to become Queen of England?
If they have a daughter first. It may be a boy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/15/editorial-monarchy-succession-rights-coalition?INTCMP=SRCH
QuoteOn present trends, William's Queen Catherine may one day have to explain to a mid-21st-century daughter that, whatever mummy and daddy may think on this matter, the state still regards her as incurably second-rate.
In this regard, why is the female sex considered inferior to the male? Comments?
I hope it's a girl. Women do better as monarchs (for the most part) IMO anyway.
I don't think it is still regarded that males are superior to females. You only have to look at todays royal family to see the Queen and Princess Anne who (In my opinion) are highly regarded by the public in regards to the male members due to their work ethic.
Quote from: Alixxx on January 18, 2011, 07:05:49 AM
Jen, all grandchildren of the Sovereign in the male line are HRH. All great-grandchildren, however, are styled as the children of a Duke, except for the heir.
That is ridiculous. Eventually these great-grandchildren of the Sovereign will be the grandchildren of the Sovereign, when the Sovereign changes!
If Queen Elizabeth had a younger brother, would she still be Monarch?
Imho if the first child of William and Kate is a girl, then she should be the heir to the throne even if a boy is born second, third or last. The Brits have a good opportunity to change a system that should favour no one by mere fact of gender. Personally, I would have gone even a step further and made it, the most capable but hey, one step at a time.
Regards,
Lady63
No. It would have passed on to him.
Then to me that suggests the female sex is considered by those in charge as inferior.
Well when Queen Elizabeth came to the throne that attitude may have existed but it is the 21st Century and these beliefs have obviously changed because there wouldn't be a review on this particular issue.
Yes, but who decides who is most capable? That would be a tough call!
Our @royalreporter is speaking on sky news right now on the issue of women succeeding to the throne!
12 minutes ago via web
Daily_Express
In Denmark the law of succession was changed at the birth of the first child of CP Frederik and CP Mary of Denmark.
It was decided that the firstborn succeds boy or girl. :Jen:
And in Sweden, the law was changed mid-stream. Crown Princess Victoria became Heir Apparent in 1980 at age 3 ... her brother, Prince Carl Philip, who is a couple of years younger than she and who had been Heir Apparent, became Duke of Varmland.
Cindy
The Royal family need to get back to reality and conform to a society that generally sees woman and men as equal rather than going with traditional, outdated rules.
Here's another opinion:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100072518/prince-williams-daughter-a-queen-yes-and-i-hope-she-marries-a-catholic/
Why fix something when it is not broken?
It is anachronistic.
Quote from: Windsor on January 20, 2011, 05:11:54 AM
Why fix something when it is not broken?
It is broken :notamused:
In addition to that, it is discriminatory, archaic and sexist.
Quote from: Mike on January 19, 2011, 04:11:44 AM
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.
Quote from: amabel on January 20, 2011, 08:23:35 PM
Quote from: Mike on January 19, 2011, 04:11:44 AM
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.
QuoteGiven 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
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.
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 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:)
In Denmark the Royal House will become the House of Laborde de Monpezat when the Crown Prince succeeds the throne.
Quote from: Windsor on January 21, 2011, 09:36:02 PM
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
QuoteIn 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.
Quote from: Windsor on January 21, 2011, 10:57:35 PM
QuoteIn 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:
Quote from: Diandra on January 22, 2011, 01:50:35 PM
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
Quote from: cinrit on January 22, 2011, 02:53:15 PM
Quote from: Diandra on January 22, 2011, 01:50:35 PM
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:
Quote from: Diandra on January 22, 2011, 03:19:37 PM
Quote from: cinrit on January 22, 2011, 02:53:15 PM
Quote from: Diandra on January 22, 2011, 01:50:35 PM
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
Quote from: cinrit on January 22, 2011, 02:53:15 PM
Quote from: Diandra on January 22, 2011, 01:50:35 PM
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"...
Quote from: cinrit on January 22, 2011, 02:53:15 PM
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 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/23/primogeniture-succession-kate-middleton)
QuoteThere'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.
QuoteBut 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.
British succession change passes first hurdle in Parliament (http://www.examiner.com/royal-news-in-national/british-succession-change-passes-first-hurdle-parliament)
Quote from: Jenee on January 25, 2011, 05:08:15 PM
British succession change passes first hurdle in Parliament (http://www.examiner.com/royal-news-in-national/british-succession-change-passes-first-hurdle-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.
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.
Quote from: Windsor on January 21, 2011, 09:12:35 PM
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. ...
Quote from: Earth Angel on January 26, 2011, 05:33:10 AM
Quote from: Windsor on January 21, 2011, 09:12:35 PM
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.
I agree with Diandra. The lineage doesn't "stop" because the successor is a woman instead of a man.
^^^ 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. ...
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
Quote from: cinrit on January 27, 2011, 02:26:16 PM
"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.
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?)
QuoteBritish Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has said in a statement to the media that the British Government has been consulting the governments of Commonwealth Realms in regards to the issue of royal succession.
Royal Insight News (http://royalinsight.net/british-monarchy/british-laws-succession-under-review)
Thank you, Windsor, but that's a lot for a four or five year girl to absorb. How does William answer his little daughter's question?
These people are trained from birth, and do not care about this. That little girl would perhaps even feel relief. :thumbsup:
It may be a four or five year old child isn't yet "trained." You evaded the question with great skill.
Quote from: Mike on April 16, 2011, 09:34:28 PM
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?)
DO you really think that this conversation is going ot take place? Why?
a child of 4 isn't that aware of status, and Ins't likely to be thinking "am i going to be queen. " she's more likely to be thinking "Am I going to get a new pony or a new dress or ice cream"
And in any case why do you think she would WANT to be queen? It means you cna't have any carreer, your personal life is goig to be picked over, you have responsibilities but very litlte power, a lot of dull duties..
born lower down the line, while there may be the odd times when the status thing bites, most royal children are well aware of how much flak the one destined to be monarch has to take and are probalby well contenet with being junior, having a quieter less restrictled life while still enjoying many of the perks.
Do I really think this conversation will take place? I don't know. I can't predict the future. I said "I can imagine" the conversation taking place. If, as Windsor said, a royal is trained from birth, it may well be a four or five year old would be aware of what the future will bring and a little girl may well ask such a question. I suggest the world of princes and princesses, kings and queens, would be appealing to children even that young.
I read that in Spain the talk of change in succession ruffled some feathers with the Spanish aristocracy?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/spanish-nobility-feud-heritage
How would the British aristocracy respond to it?
Quote from: amabel on April 17, 2011, 05:41:17 AM
Quote from: Mike on April 16, 2011, 09:34:28 PM
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?)
DO you really think that this conversation is going ot take place? Why?
a child of 4 isn't that aware of status, and Ins't likely to be thinking "am i going to be queen. " she's more likely to be thinking "Am I going to get a new pony or a new dress or ice cream"
And in any case why do you think she would WANT to be queen? It means you cna't have any carreer, your personal life is goig to be picked over, you have responsibilities but very litlte power, a lot of dull duties..
born lower down the line, while there may be the odd times when the status thing bites, most royal children are well aware of how much flak the one destined to be monarch has to take and are probalby well contenet with being junior, having a quieter less restrictled life while still enjoying many of the perks.
I would say both boys and girls and not just girls would have to worry about the ramifications of being a monarch. ANd also several younger siblings have taken over from an older one quite unexpectedly so all s not secure for them either.
All this talk about discrimination of Catholics or of women, but what about age discrimination? Why the older child instead of the younger?
I think it is all about equal opportunities.
Women shall have the same access as men.
No one questions womens right to vote. Perhaps some women don't have any interest in politics but off course women have the right to vote as men has a right to vote.
Quote from: Mike on April 17, 2011, 01:51:48 PM
Do I really think this conversation will take place? I don't know. I can't predict the future. I said "I can imagine" the conversation taking place. If, as Windsor said, a royal is trained from birth, it may well be a four or five year old would be aware of what the future will bring and a little girl may well ask such a question. I suggest the world of princes and princesses, kings and queens, would be appealing to children even that young.
yes on a childish level. but if they're that well in formed then tehy'll know what the rules are....
The child can still ask "why." In this hypothetical, how does the parent respond?
^^Exactly, Mike. There are days, especially when children are young, that "why?" seems to be the only word they know to say.
Quote from: Mike on April 17, 2011, 09:40:53 PM
The child can still ask "why." In this hypothetical, how does the parent respond?
really!! does it matter? whatever sex W's kids are they're a lot more privileged than most of us. If one of them is whining becaus they dont get to be king or queen, well that's too bad. If it does happen, the kid wont get to be queen because the law says not. it woudld take time to change the law and at the moment, governmetns have other priorirties such as the economic problems nad well being of the mass of hte people.
Little girls know that being a "princess" is something special, but they don't exactly know why. My nearly three-year-old great-niece has a princess dress, princess shoes, a princess tiara. Her bedroom is decorated in princess style because she asked for it to be that way. I'll bet that five-year-old real princesses think the same way ... princess is special, but not sure why. I'll also bet that little girls would prefer to be a princess than a queen. The word "queen" doesn't hold the same magic for them.
Mike, whatever answer could be given to your hypothetical five-year-old girl, Bensgal is right ... "why" is going to be the next question. Personally, I would explain that the eldest boy gets the throne because it's tradition. That way, the next question from the little girl would probably be, "What is tradition?" And then you're off the hook until she's older and can understand a technical answer.
Cindy
Quote from: amabel on April 18, 2011, 05:52:23 AM
Quote from: Mike on April 17, 2011, 09:40:53 PM
The child can still ask "why." In this hypothetical, how does the parent respond?
really!! does it matter? whatever sex W's kids are they're a lot more privileged than most of us. If one of them is whining becaus they dont get to be king or queen, well that's too bad. If it does happen, the kid wont get to be queen because the law says not. it woudld take time to change the law and at the moment, governmetns have other priorirties such as the economic problems nad well being of the mass of hte people.
It's the same old same old argument to keep a sexist rule IMO. There are more important things and it will take time. If the other countries o f Europe managed it there is no reason for the UK not to get in step with the times.
Quote from: amabel on April 18, 2011, 05:52:23 AM
really!! does it matter? whatever sex W's kids are they're a lot more privileged than most of us. If one of them is whining becaus they dont get to be king or queen, well that's too bad. If it does happen, the kid wont get to be queen because the law says not. it woudld take time to change the law and at the moment, governmetns have other priorirties such as the economic problems nad well being of the mass of hte people.
I don't know if a four or five year old would understand all that. Besides, if I was William and my small daughter came to me with her big questioning eyes, I would not say, "You won't be Queen and it's too bad. Stop whining."
But, then again I don't think like a royal. In this hypothetical, I hope William wouldn't either.
Quote from: cinrit on April 18, 2011, 11:19:28 AM
That way, the next question from the little girl would probably be, "What is tradition?" And then you're off the hook until she's older and can understand a technical answer.
Cindy
Or, in my hypothetical, William can take the other "traditional" approach and say to his little girl, "Ask your mother." :lol:
^^ That's always a good one! :teehee:
Cindy
Quote from: cinrit on April 18, 2011, 11:19:28 AM
Little girls know that being a "princess" is something special, but they don't exactly know why. My nearly three-year-old great-niece has a princess dress, princess shoes, a princess tiara. Her bedroom is decorated in princess style because she asked for it to be that way. I'll bet that five-year-old real princesses think the same way ... princess is special, but not sure why. I'll also bet that little girls would prefer to be a princess than a queen. The word "queen" doesn't hold the same magic for them.
Mike, whatever answer could be given to your hypothetical five-year-old girl, Bensgal is right ... "why" is going to be the next question. Personally, I would explain that the eldest boy gets the throne because it's tradition. That way, the next question from the little girl would probably be, "What is tradition?" And then you're off the hook until she's older and can understand a technical answer.
Cindy
I shoudln't think it is likely to be an issue. By the time any hypothtetical chidl is old enogh to understand, they will know anyway...
sorry Mike but I think I would say " You wont be queen unless the governmetn changes the laws. Just live with it." It seems to me distinctly odd that a child would be so "knowing".... but if she was, well then time for a lesson in reality.
A lot of things about life aren't fair. If the worst that happens is she's over taken in the succession, well she's having an easy life. And I mean there are a lot of things about the monarchy that are not "fair"... why should an older child be there before a younger one? What if the younger one is better at being a public figure? and the monarchy is a trust, not a party or a prize....
QuotePossible reform in the line of succession: What if the first child of William of England and Catherine Middleton were a child?
http://www.hola.com/noticias-de-actualidad/17-04-2011/82097/casasreales/ (http://www.hola.com/noticias-de-actualidad/17-04-2011/82097/casasreales/)
http://translate.google.com.tr/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=tr&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=es&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hola.com%2Fnoticias-de-actualidad%2F17-04-2011%2F82097%2Fcasasreales%2F&act=url (http://translate.google.com.tr/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=tr&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=es&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hola.com%2Fnoticias-de-actualidad%2F17-04-2011%2F82097%2Fcasasreales%2F&act=url)
Quote from: amabel on April 18, 2011, 05:31:22 PM
sorry Mike but I think I would say " You wont be queen unless the governmetn changes the laws. Just live with it." It seems to me distinctly odd that a child would be so "knowing".... but if she was, well then time for a lesson in reality.
A lot of things about life aren't fair. If the worst that happens is she's over taken in the succession, well she's having an easy life. And I mean there are a lot of things about the monarchy that are not "fair"... why should an older child be there before a younger one? What if the younger one is better at being a public figure? and the monarchy is a trust, not a party or a prize....
How come it's "fair" if males are said to be "superior" to females? In this day and age it's not truly fair. Maybe in the 19th century but IMO not now. If people took the attitude that women just had to live with it when they were excluded from voting, then women would not be able to vote today. And if the attitude is that women should have it "easier" it would be said well the woman can just stay home and not bother to go out and vote and pick a candidate, let Hubby do it.
I think keeping the outdated rules is like living by the old motto "Whatever Is is Right".
And why must a female have an "easier life". Why not let the male have an "easier life" for a change. It's like saying a woman shouldn't be an executive in a job for which she is qualified because taking a job with less responsibility gives her an "easier life." Why do women need "easier lives?"
How is it known if the younger one is better as a public figure when the heirs are all children? It should be noted that Queen Victoria's eldest (a daughter) was considered sharper and smarter than her younger brother. Why does a male necessarily have to equate being a "better public figure."
I have to agree with Sandy here. Queen Victoria's daughter Vicky was highly intelligent and mastered several languages as a child something her younger brother didn't. IMO this is the mentality that makes girls and women feel undervalued. I think The government of Britain should do well to look at history and the Queens Regnant that were brilliant and were more respected then some of their male counterparts who were mad and bad.
I don't think it has anything to do with who is more intelligent. It's still in the minds of many people that a man presents a more authoritative figure than a woman does. It's antiquated, but that's the way it is.
Cindy
It has always seemed a bit hypocritical and riduclous that no change has been made when HM has been Queen for sixty years. A woman who is highly respected for the work she has done during her reign. If William and Kate have a daughter first she should be heir to the throne and not be passed over by a boy. Who knows? William and Kate might end up just having daughters.
Quote from: Lady of Hay on April 19, 2011, 12:00:44 AM
It has always seemed a bit hypocritical and riduclous that no change has been made when HM has been Queen for sixty years. A woman who is highly respected for the work she has done during her reign. If William and Kate have a daughter first she should be heir to the throne and not be passed over by a boy. Who knows? William and Kate might end up just having daughters.
If that happens, then the eldest will be queen
Quote from: cinrit on April 18, 2011, 11:25:48 PM
I don't think it has anything to do with who is more intelligent. It's still in the minds of many people that a man presents a more authoritative figure than a woman does. It's antiquated, but that's the way it is.
Cindy
It may have been thtat way a century ago, but I dont see that it is that way now. The simple thing is that being queen or King does not require any particular abilities other than moderate intelligence, a willingeess to work and "show up", and to subordinate oneself to the demands of hte job. It can be done equally well by a man or woman. but making changes would taken up parliamentary time at a time right now when things are hard and it would hardly be a priority for any sensible government. Therefore at the moment it is unlikely that any goverment is going to waste time going into it. It is not something that affects more than a very few people, and few have any great interest in the quesiton.
^^ But you're still referencing ability and intelligence. I was referring to the "illusion of authority".
Cindy
A woman can be authoritative too. Centuries ago Elizabeth I inspired her troops arguably better than any man could have done during the Spanish Armada. The fact that women in this day and age have managerial jobs and have founded companies themselves show they can be 'authoritative too." To say that women can't have an air of authority (like a man can) is something that would have been said "by many" at the turn of the last century but surely not in this day and age. A woman would have a case for sex discrimination lawsuit if any employer told her that her male colleague who didn't have her qualifications (education and experience) was given the promotion instead because a Man is more authoritative or has the "illusion of authority". I think that sort of thinking went out with the buggy whip and fortunately, there are legal recourses now for women who want to sue backwards t hinking employers who discriminate against women.
Fortunately I don't think "many people" think that way that men have more of an "air of authority."
Quote from: cinrit on April 19, 2011, 01:20:06 PM
^^ But you're still referencing ability and intelligence. I was referring to the "illusion of authority".
Cindy
Not quite sure what you mean Cindy? really since a queen or King has very little power, I dont see that it matters which sex it is.....but they do need ot have a modest amount of intelligence....
I think also a good dose of just plain common sense.
Quote from: amabel on April 19, 2011, 03:45:55 PM
Quote from: cinrit on April 19, 2011, 01:20:06 PM
^^ But you're still referencing ability and intelligence. I was referring to the "illusion of authority".
Cindy
Not quite sure what you mean Cindy? really since a queen or King has very little power, I dont see that it matters which sex it is.....but they do need ot have a modest amount of intelligence....
I'm just talking about perception, not reality. There is no reason a woman can't be as authoritative as a man, but the perception is that a man is more likely to give such an impression. (Unless the woman is Hillary Clinton, lol!!)
Cindy
Well at least Hillary not only shows her authoritive nature but the fact is she is brighter and more intelligent then most of the men in the House and Senate and much more smarter then her boss. But to get back to Great Britain Elizabeth I, Victoria and Elizabeth II did or do not give a perception of authority and even in their respective era's all were/are respected and listened to by the men and powers of other nations as well and highly respected.
Queen Diana I?
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/americas-newsroom/2011/04/19/victory-last-queen-diana?test=faces
It would probably P.O. Camilla. :happy15:
Highly doubtful, its not a royal name by normal standards and traditions.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Windsor, than normal standards and traditions."
Quote from: cinrit on April 19, 2011, 08:26:49 PM
Quote from: amabel on April 19, 2011, 03:45:55 PM
Quote from: cinrit on April 19, 2011, 01:20:06 PM
^^ But you're still referencing ability and intelligence. I was referring to the "illusion of authority".
Cindy
Not quite sure what you mean Cindy? really since a queen or King has very little power, I dont see that it matters which sex it is.....but they do need ot have a modest amount of intelligence....
I'm just talking about perception, not reality. There is no reason a woman can't be as authoritative as a man, but the perception is that a man is more likely to give such an impression. (Unless the woman is Hillary Clinton, lol!!)
Cindy
but it does not really matter, as the queen is not a figure of "authority" really but a figurehead. I mean the monarchcneeds be seen as a serious person and not just a clothes horse or a silly frivolous person, but wehether it is male or female the Monarch does not have much power. so realy by teh same token I dont see that it matters if W's hypohetitical daughter or son ends up in the job. But while Im sure the law will be changed some time, it is not sometign that shoudl be any kind of prioirty...
^^ You're still talking about reality. I'm talking about perception. Trudie made a comment that Vicky was more intelligent than her brother, who became King. I replied:
QuoteI don't think it has anything to do with who is more intelligent. It's still in the minds of many people that a man presents a more authoritative figure than a woman does. It's antiquated, but that's the way it is.
Just perception ... that's all I'm talking about. I don't know how to explain it any better than that. Perception is not reality. I also added that the perception is antiquated.
Cindy
well the reason that generally women did not rule was that a king was origanlly a miltairy leader and that was a role that women did not generally have, for reasons of strength and becuase they bore children. and as time went on and a king was more of a political leader than a military one, again women were not usually considered equals in the succession was becuase they were perceived as less intelligent and less educated nad of weaker character tahn men (the Myth of Eve etc).
Quote from: amabel on April 19, 2011, 05:23:33 AM
Quote from: Lady of Hay on April 19, 2011, 12:00:44 AM
It has always seemed a bit hypocritical and riduclous that no change has been made when HM has been Queen for sixty years. A woman who is highly respected for the work she has done during her reign. If William and Kate have a daughter first she should be heir to the throne and not be passed over by a boy. Who knows? William and Kate might end up just having daughters.
If that happens, then the eldest will be queen
What if Harry ends up having boys , will they have preference over William's girls?
Wills theoretical daughters would always be ahead of any theoretical boys of Harry's. FOr instance, Elizabeth and Margaret were ahead of all their male cousins in the line of succession includning the sons of the Duke of Kent, George VI's younger brother.
As I said, if an employer said that a woman who had more reason for being promoted should be passed over for promotion because a less qualified man, would give the perception of more authorty, then the woman could get herself an attorney and file for sex discrimination. WOmen don't have to put up with this nonsense anymore.
And Vicky, Victoria's daughter did become briefly a consort of a ruler in Germany. She and her husband were forward thinking. Had her husband not died early in his reign of Cancer, I think Vicky and her huband would have been a formidable force in Europe. She was a very intelligent woman.
Quote from: amabel on April 20, 2011, 05:14:39 PM
well the reason that generally women did not rule was that a king was origanlly a miltairy leader and that was a role that women did not generally have, for reasons of strength and becuase they bore children. and as time went on and a king was more of a political leader than a military one, again women were not usually considered equals in the succession was becuase they were perceived as less intelligent and less educated nad of weaker character tahn men (the Myth of Eve etc).
I understand that, but I thought we were talking about the present. I just said that
in the minds of some many people, men present more of an air of authority and that's probably why it doesn't matter if the woman is more intelligent.
Cindy
However, if people think like ths today and keep a well qualified woman from beng promoted over a less qualified male colleague, there are sex discrimination suits as a recourse. I also doubt "many" people think this way
Quote from: cinrit on April 20, 2011, 09:20:13 PM
Quote from: amabel on April 20, 2011, 05:14:39 PM
well the reason that generally women did not rule was that a king was origanlly a miltairy leader and that was a role that women did not generally have, for reasons of strength and becuase they bore children. and as time went on and a king was more of a political leader than a military one, again women were not usually considered equals in the succession was becuase they were perceived as less intelligent and less educated nad of weaker character tahn men (the Myth of Eve etc).
I understand that, but I thought we were talking about the present. I just said that in the minds of some many people, men present more of an air of authority and that's probably why it doesn't matter if the woman is more intelligent.
Cindy
but the thing is that the rules as regards succession are very mixed. unlike the peerage where women inherit only in very rare circs. Its quite possible for a woman to inherit if the king has no sons, so it is not as if women are frobidden completely, from inhertiing. And honestly I dont think that now, people think very much about the issue or that this old perception is there in most people's minds. The law will probalby be changed soem time in thte next 10 or 20 years. It wont be changed now. but I doubt if anyone would be saying if William had daughters, "Oh no Harry should be King, not one of these girls".
^^ I think we're talking about two different things, so I'm going to bow out. I'm talking perception, and you're talking reality. :hug:
Cindy
OK, honestly Im not trying to be difficult. I know what you mean (at least I think I am understanading) that you're syaing some people still see men as being more authoritiative then women. but in the particular instance of the monarchy, I dont see that a monarch needs to be quite that way...
^^ I don't, either. But we're not the fuddy-duddys who have to go about making the change. The fuddy-duddys are the ones who would probably get nervous if they found out mid-flight that their airline pilot was a woman, lol!
Cindy
what worries me is when it seems that 16 year olds are operating on me!!
Quote from: sandy on April 20, 2011, 06:54:11 PM
Wills theoretical daughters would always be ahead of any theoretical boys of Harry's. FOr instance, Elizabeth and Margaret were ahead of all their male cousins in the line of succession includning the sons of the Duke of Kent, George VI's younger brother.
Quote/
er yes I know that. What I said - at least waht I was trying to say, was that if William only had daughters, I doubt if anyone in teh UK woudl say "Oh we dont want a queen, let the throne pass to Harry or his sons..." becuase people do not really care if teh monarch is a man or woman.
Quote from: cinrit on April 21, 2011, 02:11:57 PM
^^ I don't, either. But we're not the fuddy-duddys who have to go about making the change. The fuddy-duddys are the ones who would probably get nervous if they found out mid-flight that their airline pilot was a woman, lol!
Cindy
CIndy If you mean MPs, really while there are a few old diehards who just feel that tampering with things with the Monarchy is dagnerous to the monarchy, I dont see that most of them woudl be like that about it. It is just that the Monarchy is not seen as all htat relevant, and htere are a lot of other issues that are more importnat for legislators. Probalby within the next 10 or 20 years, there will be a change, when we go thorugh a period of good times and they will possibly reconsider the role of the Monarch as head of hte C of E and the prohbiition on Roman Catholics being queen or king...
I don't see the big deal in the eldestwhether male or female succeedng.
I think twice last year we discussed this very same thing. I wish to God the government would get their finger out and do something about it because as it stands now under the European Constitution it could be argued that the current laws governing the Monarchy contravene human rights.
I dont see that it matters. I dont see that anyone's human rights are being breached because they can't be queen! there's lots of things about the Monarchy that are "unfair" in that way. Why only the Windsor family? Why should it be the eldest child? Why only legitimate chidlren? Why should RC's be excluded from teh succession? etc etc. but I happen ot think that there are other law changes that should happen well before tinkering with the monarchy....
Other royal houses changed the succession laws and no big calamities happened. It is all accepted in those countries now with several future women rulers. Ithink the succession rules should be changed.
I think that's up to the people who live in teh UK to decide
I can't imagine people in the UK resisting equality of the sexes in the monarchy. after all they have had a quite capable female ruler since 1952 (many weren't yet born when there was a male monarch).
but it is not a priority. Im sorry but Ive said now numerous times that for one thing most people dont thnk that much about hte monarchy at all, and are indiffernet to the fine poitnts of it, and for another, we have a huge economic crisis here and the idea of what order W's hyptohetical children may succeed to to crown in, is really NOT soemthing that's a priority for people or by that token for any sensible goverment.
Other European countries managed. I think it is about time the rules were changed.
QuoteWill we see a female heir? 15-nation talks on Clegg royal succession reform
Historic talks with 15 other Commonwealth nations have begun to change the Royal line of succession to allow female heirs.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said official contacts had now been made with all other countries where the Queen is the head of state, as separate legislation would need to be passed in each.
The move has been given fresh urgency by the marriage of William and Kate – as it could provoke a constitutional crisis if their first child is a girl.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2004920/Will-female-heir-15-nation-talks-Clegg-royal-succession-reform.html#ixzz1PcyaQD00
People in the UK of course wouldn't resist another female ruler. This matter about the succession should have been resolved a long time ago. They kept talking about doing something about it in the last succeeding Labour governments, but just couldn't get on with the job. As the succession laws stand now one could argue it contravenes Human Rights law.
quite frankly Hale I think that the Govt should not waste its time, in these hard days, on someting so irrelevant. It should get sorted at some later stage but Right now, we have other problems than whether W's hypothetical daughter should outrank his hypothetical son.
Discrimination will always be part of succession laws, why the elder and not the younger? And what about the middle child? Isn't that age discrimination? :snob:
No perfect solution, in any case... why fix something that is not broken, the current system has worked for hundreds of years, leave it alone! :snob:
I think it is wrong on many levels. It telegraphs that women are not as "good" as men as rulers which history shows was not the case. For a long time women couldn't vote and people thought why change the rules. But they were changed and there is nothing wrong with women having equal rights. I think something in this day in age that discriminates against women is something that's broken, and anachronistic. Suppose men were the ones discriminated against and female children got precedence over male c hildren ? Would there be the same let's not change it attitude?
Windsor has a point, I hadn't thought about it, being the youngest of 6 and female, I'm daddy's girl :) Something the rest of and elder brothers and sisters are aware of and slightly jealous. Their advantage point, dreadful to me, is when some convincing to the patriarch HAS to be done, I'm the designated person to negotiate, break the news, etc.. Although my eldest brother in the USA, between us, has the final saying what of. Thank God he's a role model to follow.
It is broken and anachronistic and unfair to women. IMO
Quote from: Windsor on June 20, 2011, 07:25:42 PM
Discrimination will always be part of succession laws, why the elder and not the younger? And what about the middle child? Isn't that age discrimination? :snob:
No perfect solution, in any case... why fix something that is not broken, the current system has worked for hundreds of years, leave it alone! :snob:
Quite right Windsor. I think it is something that should be changed, but its not a priority. Its not even going to be an issue for 2 generations, mabye 3 if W has a son first.. so leave it till times are better and we have time for less important legislation.
I think anything that furthers women's rights is not back burner material. If W and K have a daughter as their eldest I think there shuld be the change made then.
Or even better before the pregnancy.
The law of succession was changed during CP Marys first pregnancy.
Last minute IMO. :windsor1:
Quote from: Windsor on June 20, 2011, 07:25:42 PM
No perfect solution, in any case... why fix something that is not broken, the current system has worked for hundreds of years, leave it alone! :snob:
What scares me about this type of thinking, is this was the logic used to justify serfdom, feudalism, dictatorships, autocracies. For hundreds of years it worked not allowing women or people from certain classes to vote.
Governments and institutions must reform. If reform does not occur, we only need to look at the revolutions in France or Russia, or the current events in the Middle East to see the outcomes, and horrific pathways which are inevitably followed.
Discrimination against women is wrong, and judging by the current monarch, completely unwarranted and unnecessary.
I strongly agree with what you are saying, however for this issue in particular, I think any reform would actually not make things better, only on paper would things look good, but in reality we would have female members of the Royal Family being exposed to greater pressures and expectations, and I am certain the Princess Royal for example would not support such a change, nor would her daughter Zara Phillips.
Quote from: Windsor on June 27, 2011, 12:27:00 AM
I strongly agree with what you are saying, however for this issue in particular, I think any reform would actually not make things better, only on paper would things look good, but in reality we would have female members of the Royal Family being exposed to greater pressures and expectations, and I am certain the Princess Royal for example would not support such a change, nor would her daughter Zara Phillips.
I cant see it would make any differnect to Anne, since the next heir is male, so is his heir Willliam. If W does not have children, it will be Harry.... and his heirs.. Its something that could be changed but ti is hardly all that important so it should be left until a time of greater prosperity and parliamentary time should certainly not be wasted on it now.
Quote from: Windsor on June 27, 2011, 12:27:00 AM
I strongly agree with what you are saying, however for this issue in particular, I think any reform would actually not make things better, only on paper would things look good, but in reality we would have female members of the Royal Family being exposed to greater pressures and expectations, and I am certain the Princess Royal for example would not support such a change, nor would her daughter Zara Phillips.
So why is it OK if a man is exposed to greater pressures and not a woman? That is called the Glass Ceiling. Where it is thought that women can't be under pressure like a male CEO and hence should be kept at lower levels of management. A woman is not necessarily "more delicate" than a man.
Also I hope that female royals would not go in for thinking that a man is superior at being a monarch. A female royal would merely need to go to the royal bookcases and read up on Elizabeth I and Elizabeth II and Queen Victoria to totally refute this sort of thinking. Anne and Zara hardly had any choice in the matter plus neither has a chance to be a monarch, considering the eldest of Elizabeth II is a male.
This law is outdated and it brings out the stereotype of the "helpless" little woman who can't do the job of a male.
I don't think t his should be dismissed as being not important enough and there are other things to talk about--anything that promotes equal rights IS vital and important IMO.
Quote from: sandy on June 27, 2011, 03:15:27 PM
So why is it OK if a man is exposed to greater pressures and not a woman? That is called the Glass Ceiling. Where it is thought that women can't be under pressure like a male CEO and hence should be kept at lower levels of management. A woman is not necessarily "more delicate" than a man.
For the very simple reason of women being the ones caring for any children, until society changes this expected role of women, there will always be this 'issue' :shrug:
Men do care for the children too and with households where the woman is the breadwinner (since the man may have lost his job), He stays home with the children. ANd in this day and age with the economy the way it is and women having careers, both men and women go to work. A single mother (divorced or widowed) goes out into the workplace to support her children. It's not the 19th Century or a "Life wtih Father" scenario where women stay home with the children. I think Society already changed this view of women and some time ago. I think that the problem is the discrimination against women-- it is illegal now to ask women (at their job interviews) if they plan to have a family . THere is also such a thing as the glass ceiling IMO describes this antiquated discriminantory "rule" for the royals implying that women should just be barefoot and pregnant while the man is the only one who can handle stress and achieve success. If we are living with the norms of the turn of the 19th into the 20th century where the only way a woman could achieve anything was through marriage and very few women worked. But these are different times now. Margaret Thatcher was a well respected Prime Minister and she was not required to stay home. THe Queen has been monarch since 1952 and nobody turned a hair when she became the monarch and in fact called it the New Elizabethan Age. WOmen have become respected CEOs. SO there is no reason other than perhaps some perceptions that women are "weaker" that would keep this discriminatory rule in place. It's odd too that these perceptions of women persist since there has been a very highly regarded QUeen on the throne from 1952 on and she's still going strong. I doubt a man could have done better.
Quote from: Windsor on June 27, 2011, 08:25:52 PM
Quote from: sandy on June 27, 2011, 03:15:27 PM
So why is it OK if a man is exposed to greater pressures and not a woman? That is called the Glass Ceiling. Where it is thought that women can't be under pressure like a male CEO and hence should be kept at lower levels of management. A woman is not necessarily "more delicate" than a man.
For the very simple reason of women being the ones caring for any children, until society changes this expected role of women, there will always be this 'issue' :shrug:
Windsor this is Victorian/ Edwardian values. During both Wars women worked and also took care of their children at home. Now women are allowed in combat and many are mothers and their husbands are home while the wife serves. This logic of yours with all due respect is totally irrelevant to today's times.
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
Very old fashioned rules and way of looking at women in society, but sadly today - many still hold to this idea.
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.
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...
^^ Yes, all very true. I was citing the attitudes of today, though.
Cindy
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.
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.
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
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.
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 (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Royal-Wedding/Video-Royal-Wedding-Succession-Law-To-Let-First-Born-Girl-Inherit-The-Throne-Will-Take-Some-Time/Article/201104315974009)
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 (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23667947-trouble-over-gordon-browns-plan-to-let-royal-heirs-wed-catholics.do)
I do believe the changes WILL come, but it will take some time.
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.
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)....
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..
It looks like there will be a change in the succession rules of the royal family . See this BBC article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/15489405) outlining the change.