No Queen for a generation of more

does anyone feel there is an issue in that for most of our lives we will not recognise a new Queen?

I think the fact we have just got the 3rd female PM, who was also only the second woman to be Foreign Secretary is far more worthy of commenting on. We're still waiting for a female Chancellor.

The line of succession now wouldn't have been any different had the law of succession been changed earlier because Charles, William and George all happened to be firstborn sons.

It would have made a small theoretical difference. Anne is 16th in line but if it were applied fairly she would be 8th where Prince Andrew is.

Andrew's daughters and granddaughters rank ahead of her.

I think William will be the last king but if he isn't, then this definitely!!!

It's quite likely that the three kings won't match the 75 years or the Queen's reign.
The first born happy to be boys. That's the way it is. As my 17 year old daughter can barely identify half the Royals I don't think it matters that much.

You said it was “anachronistic and backwards” and “an anachronism for the era we live in” which is essentially the same thing as saying our constitutional monarchy is from the past and out of place in a modern world, ergo, it is what was then and should not exist now.

Exactly. Both have changed with the centuries and adapted to different cultures and political realities.

"It's really not accurate to think that a constitutional monarchy is no different from a monarchical state in 1000."

Good job that's not what I said. Fgs.

I think what Discovereads is getting at is that it's rather like saying humans are more evolved than chimps. Both have been evolving for the same amount of time. It's really not accurate to think that a constitutional monarchy is no different from a monarchical state in 1000, it's really a thoughtfully modern thing that is constantly changing, though it has roots in the past.

And conversely the modern republic is a modern changing thing with roots in the past, specifically the Enlightenment.

So, just enjoying having a dig then. Nice.

Tehre is nothing more evoked about democracy’s s compared to a monarchy? Really???!!!

do you want to go and live in North Korea then...because you know, there is no difference

I’m saying there’s no such thing as “anachronistic” when it comes to how a head of state is chosen. That there is nothing inherently superior or more evolved about an elected one over a hereditary one. That the era we currently live in is irrelevant as both have been in existence for millennia.

Maybe George won't want to do it - he looks like he's got the weight of the world on his shoulders already , although of course you can't really tel from expressions and demeanour. But if he abdicated, then we'd have Charlotte (well I probably wouldn't as I doubt I'd outlive William, but of course he could die young). Charlotte looks like she's not be fazed by any of it

Ffs @Discovereads what is the point you are trying to make? Or are you just enjoying having a dig at me??

Having an inherited monarch as head of state is anachronistic. It is no longer suited to the era in which we live. Do you think having an elected president is anachronistic too - no longer suited for the era in which we live?

There are things that are nice about a female monarch, but ultimately I don't feel worse about it being a man or woman.

Republics with elected heads of state have been around since 800 BC. They’re not as modern or as forward thinking as you think they are.

At least the Kings’ wives get the Queen Consort title. Poor Prince Phillip should have been King Consort, the only reason he had the lesser title of Prince was due to sexism- and that was only after Queen Elizabeth II fighting for him.

I'd rather lose the monarchy and have an elected president thanks. It's an inherited position, no one gets to choose who does the role - apart from each successive heir who could choose to abdicate so they at least don't have to do it. The whole thing is anachronistic and backwards.

At least they've actually changed it so the oldest female heir can inherit. Primogeniture is alive and well in the House of Lords. 1/8th of the seats (the hereditary peerages) can only ever be held by a male. The sexism is baked in.

www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/rules-preventing-women-inheriting-hereditary-peerages-should-be-changed

Very true. Who knows what might happen?

If the monarchy lasts that long, George might abdicate. It is the end of an era.

Now that would be most excellent!

Because I'll be long dead by the time it happens, I predict with total confidence that George will have a firstborn girl and call her Elizabeth, and we will see in the turn of the 22nd Century under the reign of Elizabeth III.

I actually remember wanting William to be a girl, and then George.

three generations without a woman as head of state. All wrong. We have to hope George does his royal duty and produces a female heir.

Perhaps he’ll identify as a woman?

(sorry! Couldn’t resist)

Well, at least they have changed the rules of succession so that sex no longer makes a difference. If George has children and a first born girl, there will be another Queen, albeit probably not for another 90 years or so unless something very unexpected happens. Had William had a girl first, we'd have been looking at another Queen in perhaps 50 years' time.

The line of succession now wouldn't have been any different had the law of succession been changed earlier because Charles, William and George all happened to be firstborn sons.

I agree, in the long term, the monarchy needs to end. But until that happens, by equalising the law of succession for both sexes, nothing more can be done and it's down to chance in the future whether we have Kings or Queens.