Succession to the throne changes to be looked at..

9 replies

madhattershouse · 13/10/2011 00:32

Changes to the rules are being looked at to allow a first born girl to have the right to the throne. Article here
About time too!

OP posts:

BadgersPaws · 13/10/2011 00:42

The monarchy never used to be strictly hereditary, the best candidate was selected by the nobility. The monarchy bases it's position upon tradition and historical precedent. So let's roll right back to that and stop just presuming that the next monarch will be the current monarch's child and pick the best person for the job.

youngermother1 · 13/10/2011 01:09

not sure where you get that from? name one

Original poster

madhattershouse · 13/10/2011 01:14

According to the article it will require a change in the constitution, hardly tradition or precident!

OP posts:

MindtheGappp · 13/10/2011 05:36

It will require a simultaneous change in the law in all the countries where the queen is head of state, so not likely to happen.

BadgersPaws · 13/10/2011 08:14

"not sure where you get that from? name one"

A King that was chosen rather than simply inherited the job? There were many, look back at the history of the Saxon Kings of England. And as an example let's pick the most famous, the only King to ever receive the suffix the "Great" and the King who had the vision and the power to actually make "England", Alfred the Great. Alfred wasn't the next in the line of succession, he had nephews that should have taken the crown. But the nobles gave him the job.

And that's how it worked up until the Norman invasion. Sometimes it would be who we think of as being the heir, sometimes it wouldn't, but always they would be approved by a council of nobles and it was never a given.

So let's go back to that. Charles, make your case....

Alibabaandthe80nappies · 13/10/2011 08:16

So who gets to decide Badgers? The House of Lords? The Commons? Do we have an election?

No, because then that would be a President.

ToothbrushThief · 13/10/2011 08:21

I'm with Badger (but agree it would be a bunfight)

I suspect the answer is to let MNers decide who should be next monarch

BadgersPaws · 13/10/2011 08:28

"So who gets to decide Badgers? The House of Lords? The Commons? Do we have an election?"

I'd be quite happy to leave the decision to the House of Lords. The Monarchy is just a figurehead and is really rather irrelevant so I don't see the point of having a full election, they might actually then begin to want some political power and one set of politicians is quite enough.

So the Lords can make the decision and we might get to watch an entertaining bunfight, which is pretty much the history of the Royal Family over the last 20 years, an entertaining mess.

The Queen bases part of her legitimacy upon the claim that she is descended from the House of Wessex and Alfred, so let her son get the job the same way that he did, by being the right person for it.

CogitoErgoSometimes · 13/10/2011 09:50

It's an overdue improvement to the rules and I can't really see the people of Canada, Australia etc., having any objection. They're all nicely modern countries. I just wonder if it will filter down to other inherited titles?

Flip