24dash.com (http://blogs.24dash.com/lynnefeatherstone/2008/01/11/our-sexist-monarchy/)
QuoteWell - I've referred to the Equality Commission the demotion in the line of succession to our throne of Lady Louise (daughter to Prince Edward) in favour of her newborn brother.
;)
There are a lot of reforms I would like to see take place in the BRF and the first is to get rid of male preference. It is out dated and there is no real reason for it. If you look at the history of England, some of the most influential and important rulers have been women; QEI, QEII, Victoria. Before QEI England was an also-ran power, she helped make it a super power. Victoria reigned over the largest empire in history and, so far, reigned the longest of anyone and QEII will have reigned over some of the most turbulent and troubled times and over a time of significant change unparalleled to other monarchs.
you know you have a sexist monarchy when there is a woman reigning at the head of it. :rolleyes: :laugh:
I think the article speaks from the legal aspect......QEII is there by default....if she had a brother.....the crown would have automatically gone to him no questions asked.
Charles likes to do new things, he is a standard bearer for new ideas :)......we should suggest he puts up the title of Monarch to a vote, the contenders would the living Monarchs off spring....Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward
That way they would all behave better, and we could get Princess Anne if the majority rejected Charles. :thumbsup:
If William has a daughter as the first child it would be time to put the reform into place instead of having the younger brother displace the sister. If he's married to Kate who is an "old fashioned" woman who would have achieved the degree in MRS she may not speak up for her daughter's rights. And William might be too lazy to put up any protest about the sexist rules. Let's see what happens.
I think it should be changed as soon as possible. I hope Charles will make that change. It's a ridiculous and outdated practice--isn't Princess Anne actually lower in the line of succession than Edward's son! That's appalling. I admit I doubt HM will change it, but when Charles ascends the throne I believe he will.
It's ridiculous that Anne is lower than her younger brothers do only to her sex, or that, again do to their sex, there are cousins of the Queen whose children can have titles but not her own grandchildren.
Change in the succession laws... hmm not gonna happen!
It's happened in every other Kingdom in Europe (Spain's reform is on the docket and Denmark is working it through the system even though CP Mary had a boy as her first child). What's taking the Brits so long? They don't practice what they preach now do they?
It will have to happen. As the years go on, more and more people want to see the monarchy modernized. It is quite frankly embarrassing that Britain is so far behind some of the other countries. Sweden's law was changed in what, the late seventies early eighties?
I think it is better to wait until the children have achieved a certain level of maturity and education before deciding (the monarch) who the heir to the throne will be. That way, it the characters of each child would have been developed enough to enable one to see which ones will be absolute wusses and which ones would be perfect for the role. I bet HM wishes she could have done so, after having observed the way Charles turned out!
Isn't the whole point of having royalty so we have these archiac customs? I mean, royals aren't supposed to be modern, they're the standard bearers for tradition and a link to the past. It's a quaint way of doing things, not some evil sexist domination and hatred of women in authority. If you want that, go to Saudi Arabia. If anything, at least females are in the line of succession, unlike the Salic Law of France where if a daughter was born and no one else, the daughter would marry her husband and the husband would be king.
Other countries can play with the laws of succession (Sweden/Belgium etc) but Britain's laws are tied to the Statute of Westminster and the agreement of all the Commonwealth countries is necessary.
We also have the Dukedom of Cornwall to contend with. It's tied to the eldest son of the Sovereign.
The British royal family has had to adjust with the times (e.g. the QUeen paying taxes down to the style of dress for coronations and investitures has changed over the years). I don't think sexism is "quaint"--it's like saying that not giving women the right to vote is OK because that's the way it was always done and people might miss this custom. This law goes down to the time when royal daughters were used as bargaining chips in dynastic marriages and it was paramount for the male to be king not the female. Elizabeth I was never supposed to be QUeen, Henry ruthlessly married and remarried to get a male heir and ironically the child from the woman he had executed was the most successful of all his children as a monarch. I read a theoretical case where this law can get ridiculous. Say WIlliam has a daughter Princess Mary and she is his only child with his wife. Mary is primed and prepared to be Queen her entire life and is extremely popular. Now suppose William's first wife dies when they are in their fifties and William marries someone in her twenties and their child is a son. Now Mary who the people want to be Queen is in her twenties and now the baby boy who is an unknown quantity all of a sudden displaces his qualified sister because of some archaic laws. Think about it.
I agree! :thumbsup: The position in the line of succession shouldn't depend on the sex. William's first born child should be heir apparent no matter whether it's a boy or a girl. And it's actually surprising that the law has not yet been amended. I mean Britain is famous for its Queens. Now would actually be a good time for a change since it wouldn't affect the first three in line of succession. Charles is the first born and he has two sons. Go for it (whoever is responsible to make the necessary change)! :Jen:
Yes, but why would it then be OK to discriminate on the basis or age or birth order? If you truly want to make things equal, let there be a family vote on who should succeed old Pa. :notamused:
Btw I'm fine with the old way, it keeps things tidy.
Quote from: lurker on January 29, 2008, 06:37:45 PM
I mean Britain is famous for its Queens.
:crazylaugh: Indeed! ... Sorry :blush:
:blush: oops ... you know which Queens I was referring too. :laugh: :happytears:
:happy:
I don't think it at all right that girls must be moved down in line of succession when a brother is born. And it seems to be very tidy for the other royal houses who changed the sexist rules.
Gender-blind succession does tend to bugger the dynasties somewhat. In Sweden for instance, Crown Princess Victoria will wed and I suppose she'll change the name of the Royal House to that of her hubby - meanwhile her younger brother lives on as head of the Bernadottes.
Having a queen on the throne hasn't "buggered" the current British royals, everyone still considers them Windsors, no? The fact is that there is nothing about Victoria as a woman that makes her any less of a Bernadotte than her brother or her children any less than his, it is simply the way that society views it. She could just as easily be the head of the family, there is no logical reason why not.
Quoteand the agreement of all the Commonwealth countries is necessary.
And you think they would oppose it?
QuoteWe also have the Dukedom of Cornwall to contend with. It's tied to the eldest son of the Sovereign.
Yet this doesn't seem to have been a problem with past queens, they seem to have a solution.
Past Queen's didn't have a younger brother.
Queen Elizabeth I had a younger brother who died first after a short reign. I can imagine how men would react if the antiquated law specified that little sisters shove aside their elder brothers down one notch in the succession line.
Queen Elizabeth I would never have been Queen Elizabeth I in the lifetime of a younger brother. King Edward VI reigned between 1547 and 1553, and Elizabeth reigned 1558-1603.
My point is that she had a little brother who only ruled 6 years--she on the other hand became one of the most revered and legendary monarchs in British history. I never said she would "reign" during his lifetime or before he became king. Henry's "mere female" child turned out to be one of the legendary monarchs in British history.
Well said, sandy. Most people forget that Henry even had a son.
I don't ever forget that Henry had a son. The point I am trying to make is that we will have a problem with the Dukedom of Cornwall if the succssion laws are changed. The statute establishing the dukedom clearly says that the title and is destined for the eldest SON of the Sovereign. If one day the succession becomes gender-blind then chaos will reign. Say for instance that William's first born is a daughter, Princess Elizabeth, and then his second child is a son, Prince George. On William's accession (under the new rules) Prince George will become Duke of Cornwall, but not for life and only temporarily, because on the accession of Queen Elizabeth III the dukedom will transfer to her eldest son.
I d not think that the current Sovereign wants to see a change.
I must say that I don't want to see a change either. However, I still believe that it would be best for the parents to decide which of their children they deem to be most capable of succeeding them and carrying out certain roles effectively, whether royal or not. That way, the first-born does not automatically become the chosen one if he has siblings, but realises that he has to prove himself like everyone else, including his sisters and younger brothers.
A similar argument was raised these past days, but it was to do with the question of inheritance. This one line (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7217398.stm), I think, is relevant to this topic (in the above perspective):
QuoteEconomist Dr Nick Bloom has studied the management of family firms where the father passes the business on to the eldest son.
"We looked at 5,000 companies and we found that around a third of medium-sized manufacturing firms were family owned. In about half of them the eldest son was the CEO. They are very badly managed."
So handing down monumental responsibilities to the eldest son is not always a smart move...
QuoteThe point I am trying to make is that we will have a problem with the Dukedom of Cornwall if the succssion laws are changed.
Well the obvious solution would be that the Dukedom should pass to the eldest child
regardless of their sex. There is no logical, rational, reasonable or scientific reason why a female heir could not inherit this title or any of the other titles associated with being the eldest child and the heir. The only thing that prevents this from happening is an outdated, sexist law that was made hundreds of years ago when women were not considered people. Of course unless there is some special duty I am unaware of that one has to perform with their :censored: then certainly a woman could not do that.
Why wouldn't QE II want to see a change? She was Queen for over 50 years and I wonder how she would have felt had she been replaced by a little brother in line of succession. I'm wondering why this sexist law is still clung to so desperately and avidly by some when it is so blatantly out of step with the times. We're living in the 21st Century not the 15th Century where women were basically treated as second class citizens and chattel.
There is also no reason in the world why the eldest child if a daughter cannot be Duchess of Cornwall and Princess of Wales. Mary I was actually Princess of Wales. George VI could have made Elizabeth Princess of Wales but opted not to on his belief that only a wife of a Prince of Wales should get that title. But it was his call and QE II could have been made Princess of Wales.
Again, I doubt men would find this outmoded succession law appealing should the younger sister bump her elder brother from the line of succession because the ELDEST DAUGHTER gets to succeed first.
The Queen was not known for being a radical in her girlhood days. She grew up with the system and its traditions, and to all appearances, accepted them for what they were. If she had a little brother even aged 5 when her father had died, then I am certain that she would have accepted that someone (if not her) would have been appointed regent and the brother would have eventually become king when he came of age. I cannot imagine that she is suddenly going to become liberated and start making such drastic changes. At the end of the day, it may be the British monarcy, but it's still her family, and so she decides.
It's a moot point since the Queen Mum and George VI only had 2 daughters. The Queen is still Queen.And her eldest is a male as is her eldest's first child. I do think it a shame that this dated tradition pushed Anne down the line of succession. I would like to think that the Queen would want to keep up with the other European monarchies and at least consider that the UK should keep in step with the times.Parliament will decide this not the Queen.
Quote from: Elisevonblah on January 31, 2008, 05:55:49 PM
Well the obvious solution would be that the Dukedom should pass to the eldest child regardless of their sex
The Dukedom of Cornwall cannot pass to a female.
Anything can be changed. And things have changed in the course of the history of the British Monarchy.Never say never re:females inheriting. At one point there was horror that a WOMAN would be Queen hence Henry VIII marrying and remarrying to get a male heir. But lo and behold the fear of a woman ruler all but disappeared when Elizabeth I became a legendary monarch. Then hell didn't freeze over and more women like Victoria and Elizabeth II became long reigning popular queens.
Quote from: fawbert on February 01, 2008, 02:32:22 AM
The Dukedom of Cornwall cannot pass to a female.
Fine then. Please list the valid reasons, excluding the outdated and sexist law which states so, why this cannot happen. I am interested in what makes someone born with a penis so much better than someone not.
Letters Patent creating peerages (or in this case the Royal Charter) cannot be ammended. It has nothing to do with the male reproductive organ.
So the reason is that there is an old outdated law forbidding it? Is that right? A law created back when women were not considered people and were not worthy of rights? The argument seems completely circular; we can't do this because there is a law against it. Then Change the law. No there is a law against that too. Is the monarch so limited in his/her power that he/she cannot create new letters patent which are more suited to the world in which they live? It is a pity that the monarchy has made itself practically impossible to modernize because it will be one of its undoings. I am a monarchist but I don't think I can in good conscience support an institution that gender discriminates because "that's the way it has always been".
If some die hards got over their horror of a female monarch in the 16th century then die hards of the 21st century can surely get used to changing the antiquated succession rules. Rules are not written in stone. Imagine some lawmakers opposed to women voting because the law against it was there forever and sorry, can't change it.
Quote from: sandy on February 01, 2008, 02:31:05 AMI would like to think that the Queen would want to keep up with the other European monarchies
Not a fan of her European cousins! :thumbsup:
To each his/her own.
Quote from: fawbert on February 01, 2008, 03:33:47 AM
Letters Patent creating peerages (or in this case the Royal Charter) cannot be ammended. It has nothing to do with the male reproductive organ.
Now who told you that? Letters patent cannot be changed as such, though new ones can be created to replace old ones so to speak! :)
Can we inject a little reality into this debate?
First the title of this topic is, in itself, a misnomer. In living memory, not one member of the
British royal family has been publicly involved in the continuation of the British succession laws.
Neither the Queen, nor any successor can, or will be able, to alter the situation. That is a task
for Parliament.
Are the laws wrong and/or unfair? Unequivocally, they are wrong and they are unfair. Are they
outdated? Again, of course they are, just as the legal position on Catholicism is outdated. The
problem is, however, that our Members of Parliament don't consider these phenomena as being burning
issues; they are not experiencing any significant up-swell of public opinion that will change their
minds. Basically, the British are very conservative; content with the status quo as long as it
doesn't personally, negatively impact them. So how can these laws be changed?
I have no doubt that Parliament can change any law if it wants (most out-and-out royalists would
disagree, but I doubt if they would like to put our different points of view to the test). The
power-house of the British Parliament is the House of Commons, the elected Members of Parliament. If
you want to change the laws, you need to convince them that the issue is important.
If you live in the United Kingdom (even if not British), and you have a burning desire to see the law
changed, then you need to involve yourself in the political process. You need to work hard at trying
to create a ground-swell of opinion that supports your views; just feeling that life is unfair
really won't achieve anything. If you don't live in the UK, sorry, I doubt if any British Member of
Parliament is going to take the slightest notice of you.
^colin is right about one thing, HM can't change the law, Parliament has to do that. And so far it hasn't come up as an issue, because the monarch's eldest child and the eldest child's eldest child are both males.
However, I'm sure that when William marries, it will become an issue. The subject of changing succession laws was even brought up in uber-conservative Japan prior to the most recent birth. Since a boy was born the issue was dropped, of course, but if even Japan is willing to discuss this, I see no reason why England wouldn't. Once William is married, and most definitely when his wife becomes pregnant, this issue will be brought up. Naturally the sex of the baby won't be announced until it's born, so people will start discussing whether the child should be the heir if it's a girl.
I'd like to think William's wife could push for this change, refusing to have children until the law is changed? Alas this is highly unlikely.
And fawbert, while there may be letters patent prohibiting female accession to the Duchy of Cornwall, it is perfectly simple to issue new letters patent that ammend the old ones. This has been done with some of the marriage laws already, and can easily be done again. As for the Commonwealth, they don't have to ratify the change. It would be a very weird situation, but here's what would happen: Let's say William has a daughter first, and then a son. Let's also say England changes the succession laws so that the daughter is the first in line regardless of her little brother, but let's say that Canada, for example, doesn't change the law. William's little girl would become the Queen on England upon his death, meanwhile his son would rule Canada. Not only that, it's not guaranteed that Charles, or anyone, will succeed the thrones of every Commonwealth nation. The nations do not have to accept Charles as their next king, nor do they have to accept William after that, or his children after him. They're Commonwealths because they agree to have HM as Queen. If they don't want her, or Charles or William or anyone else, they can cease to be Commonwealth nations.
Great post, Colin! :thumbsup:
Quote from: sillyjobug on February 01, 2008, 06:50:49 PM
... Not only that, it's not guaranteed that Charles, or anyone, will succeed the thrones of every Commonwealth nation. The nations do not have to accept Charles as their next king, nor do they have to accept William after that, or his children after him. They're Commonwealths because they agree to have HM as Queen. If they don't want her, or Charles or William or anyone else, they can cease to be Commonwealth nations.
Ouch!
Quote from: sillyjobug on February 01, 2008, 06:50:49 PM
And fawbert, while there may be letters patent prohibiting female accession to the Duchy of Cornwall, it is perfectly simple to issue new letters patent that ammend the old ones. This has been done with some of the marriage laws already, and can easily be done again. As for the Commonwealth, they don't have to ratify the change. It would be a very weird situation, but here's what would happen: Let's say William has a daughter first, and then a son. Let's also say England changes the succession laws so that the daughter is the first in line regardless of her little brother, but let's say that Canada, for example, doesn't change the law. William's little girl would become the Queen on England upon his death, meanwhile his son would rule Canada. Not only that, it's not guaranteed that Charles, or anyone, will succeed the thrones of every Commonwealth nation. The nations do not have to accept Charles as their next king, nor do they have to accept William after that, or his children after him. They're Commonwealths because they agree to have HM as Queen. If they don't want her, or Charles or William or anyone else, they can cease to be Commonwealth nations.
By the time William is King the Commonwealth will be history anyway. But as I understand it - any change in the succession laws requires the ratification of all the other countries over which Elizabeth II is Queen. Failure of all to agree and the succession will stay the same.
Let's not forget primogeniture has many good points. If some of the great estates in the land had not passed from father to son for generations then the magnificent palaces of Chatsworth and Blenheim may not have survived intact.
Daughters can also preserve magnificent palaces. Saying that it's better that males inherit implies that women are less capable of men at preserving things. Mountbatten had two daughters and his legacy and property was still preserved, one daughter being called Countess Mountbatten. And fathers can pass land and estates to their daughters.