Advanced search

Whoops, there goes the monarchy...

(29 Posts)
WilsonFrickett Fri 28-Oct-11 15:18:30

Delighted to see the succession laws have finally changed, but will it make any real difference to women (as opposed to a woman who might get to be queen one day...)

VivaLeBeaver Fri 28-Oct-11 15:21:38

Maybe the rumours about Kate being pregnant with a girl are true then.

Though seeing how slim she's still looking I can't believe it.

susiedaisy Fri 28-Oct-11 15:26:26

Just one more step in the right direction IMO and about time too smile

WilsonFrickett Fri 28-Oct-11 15:55:59

Yep, and as a Catholic I can now marry Prince Harry! Yay!

Agree Viva, I try not to comment on other women's bodies but she was looking almost gaunt at that do last night.

(I now realise I've shot my rad-fem credentials with my avid monarchism. I blame Lady Di, I was at an impressionable age grin)

BlingLoving Fri 28-Oct-11 18:13:59

I think it's brilliant news. It doesn't have to directly impact other women, rather it demonstrates an ongoing change in how society views women.

Now I want to see this hypothetical future queen marry a man whi can still be called king while remaining below the queen in heirachy! That's a step that says we understand men aren't automatically more important.

Bue Fri 28-Oct-11 18:53:31

I think it's great news. And I think it does benefit all women - it's one more prominent institution in which sexism is no longer acceptable, and the message that sends in society is good.

Heck, I'd argue it may only disadvantage one woman - who would want to be the monarch? Poor Will doesn't even want the job!

skrumle Fri 28-Oct-11 21:46:19

i was quite impressed with the snippet of the queen's speech i heard as well - about the potential for society to improve if women are given greater power.

as a catholic woman it's a big day really wink

WilsonFrickett Fri 28-Oct-11 22:52:46

Ahem. I will fight you for Harry!

Seriously, it is brilliant. And I think the Queen is definitely a feminist, so it's probably ok to have a crush on her...

unhappychanger Fri 28-Oct-11 23:33:54

I think it is like something from the dark ages and I refuse to be grateful for something that should have been updated at least a 100 years ago.

hocuspontas Fri 28-Oct-11 23:42:05

I'm not clear about the RC bit. Any children would still have to be brought up C of E to stay in line for the throne, is that correct? So the only difference is that any royal marrying a Catholic wouldn't have to give up his or her own rights to the throne?

canistartagainplease Sat 29-Oct-11 00:01:32

I guess if the monarchy accepted an rc member, who was bringing up offspring in rc, not cofe,then it would force the necessity of a disestablished church,or the reintergration of the cofe into the rc. Dont think either will happen anytime in the next centary.

WilsonFrickett Sat 29-Oct-11 00:04:45

Yep hocus, the Catholic bit is still fudged to an extent. At the moment succession rights have to be given up on marrying a Catholic, but under the new law members of the royal family can marry Catholics and keep their place. But direct heirs still have to be c of e. It's brought Catholicism in line with other religions other than C of E.

ComradeJing Sat 29-Oct-11 05:19:29

I was at Harry's passing out ball at sandhurst. I can confirm that he is a very hunky tall chap who looks bloody delicious in his regimentals.

I think it's a great thing that sex of dc no longer matters and about time too!

TheBrideofFrankenstein Sat 29-Oct-11 05:38:12

I suspect Kate is pregnant and they don't know gender yet, but they need to get it sorted before baby is born, hence falling over selves to get it done, despite there being many other issues on the agenda at the moment.

Otherwise, if they waited until this baby was born, they'd have to do it retrospectively, which would change the order further up the chain putting Anne before Andrew and Edward etc (unlikely to be relevant, but a bigger complication)

AnnieLobeseder Sat 29-Oct-11 13:08:15

I was just coming to start a thread on this.

Here's a my take.

Is this really a victory for women? Of course it's only fair that the succession shouldn't take gender into account, and this change is long overdue.

But I'm troubled by the timing of it - yes, Wills and Kate may be having a baby girl, but it's also a time of HUGE economic cuts that are principally affecting women.

And everyone's best pal Dave Cameron, the architect of most of these cuts, has been very outspoken about this change to the rules and how much he supports it.

I can't but feel it's a bone being thrown to the feminists to appease us in face of how much damage has been done to women lately, in a way that doesn't make the slightest bit of real difference to any of us except one or two women who are grossly overprivileged to being with.

"Look, how can I possibly hate women? I made it possible for you to be Queen!"

AnnieLobeseder Sat 29-Oct-11 13:09:53

Sorry, *begin, not *being.

Maisiethemorningsidecat Sat 29-Oct-11 13:14:43

Not before time. I'd like to know who the driver behind this was - I'm going for Wills.

hocuspontas Sat 29-Oct-11 14:12:05

The wheels would have been set in motion months or even years ago! The commonwealth doesn't work that fast I'm sure. grin Also to be fair it has been on the back burner for about 10 years.

purits Sat 29-Oct-11 14:37:58

What does he have to do to please you Annie? It seems that whatever he does is wrong in your opinion. If he does anything then you dismiss it as only throwing a sop. He is on a hiding to nothing.hmm

I don't buy all this Tory anti-women stuff. The Tories tend to be honest about which jobs are sustainable and which aren't. Labour like to prop up unsustainable jobs because they want to be seen as the Workers' Friend. That is lovely in the short term but does not work long-term (see the current mess we are in due to buying votes overspending). Anyway, back to the point about 'anti-women' - I don't recall anyone accusing the Tories of being anti-men when mines and steel works were being closed down so why the anti-women accusation now?

messyisthenewtidy Sat 29-Oct-11 14:58:16

I don't think the modern Tories are particularly anti-women in theory but their policies and ethos have a more detrimental effect on women because they tend to believe that we live in a kind-of-meritocracy and that anyone can "make it" and disregard the reasons why women cluster at the bottom of the economic ladder .

It's ironic that Maggie was the one that declared there was no such thing as society yet Cameron promotes "big society" whatever that actually means

I think it's great re. the change because I know as a girl it affected the whole male primogeniture thing affected me. The obvious question I used to ask was "why shouldn't girls be queens?" and the answers were depressing. At least girls today won't have to worry about that big fat thumb squishing down on their self-confidence.

Trills Sat 29-Oct-11 15:02:26

If we're going to have ancient arcane arbitrary institutions...

then at least they can be gender-neutral about it.

TheBrideofFrankenstein Sat 29-Oct-11 15:06:28

Hey, they pay the bills. I'm a pragmatist. They can stay.

Trills Sat 29-Oct-11 15:08:23

It costs something like 60p per year per taxpayer to have them (vague remembering). That's not taking into account what they bring into the country in tourism, just saying what money they get out of the public pot.

I think I get 60p worth of entertainment out of them most years.

Tortington Sat 29-Oct-11 15:15:55

i think they should be drowned

purits Sat 29-Oct-11 16:18:19

It's ironic that Maggie was the one that declared there was no such thing as society yet Cameron promotes "big society" whatever that actually means

That's the sort of thing I mean: damned if they do and damned if they don't.hmm

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now