An end to men inheriting the throne over their older sisters?

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

Lorely Burt MP for Solihul has tabled a Commons motion to change the current laws of succession, which discriminate against a female first born. (from F word)

What do you think?

I want the royal family to shove off, personally, but if they're going to stay I imagine there'd be a huge fuss if Will & Kate had a girl and she lost out to her younger brothers.

Yes, can't say I care much either way about the Royals, but it would be better if they could get that issue sorted before these ones produce any children. It's not really been an issue for a while, as the first half-dozen or so in line haven't been directly affected by it, but it would cause quite a stink if they have a girl then a boy, which is as likely as any combination.

I think it's been assumed certainly since Charles and Diana married that that would be done if there were ever a firstborn daughter; I certainly remember press coverage about it at the time but then they had two boys so it wasn't a practical issue (although still a theoretical issue).

Yes, from a feminist point of view it absolutely should be done. But there is a limit to the extent to which I can get excited about widening the grotesque privilege of a pre-selected exclusive group to encompass a slightly larger pre-selected exclusive group.

i know Prof

But given the choice between someone in an outdated hereditary position being accorded unbelievable wealth and privilege, and that plus sexism, I'll go with the former.

Well, yes. If I have a choice between someone in an outdated hereditary position being accorded unbelievable wealth and privilege, and that plus having my leg sawn off for no particular reason, I'll go with the former. But I'm still not going to be celebrating a triumphant victory over the fact that no one has sawn my leg off, and similarly with this -- it's more of a "well, Duh!" rather than a "Hurrah!" IYSWIM.

I would hope there would be a fuss, but there's been a bit of a feminist backlash since Charles and Diana had their kids so maybe it would be, like 'Scientists have proved that royal boy babies' brains are specially adapted to inheriting thrones'.

Well quite, let's write to Ms Burt and ask her to add something about unwarranted amputation :o

Think of all the 'great' queens; Elizabeth I, Queen Vic, Elizabeth II, now name some equally historically significant Kings ?

This would have already been resolved if Anne had been the eldest, no-one wants Charles.

Oh and I think you should hang the palace staff as well

I think almost every other European monarchy has abolished the male right to succession so it's about time we did it too. (Not that I would wish the position of monarch on anyone - I actually feel a bit mean wishing that fate on some poor little girl!).

So do you think this will go through with no trouble then? Think someone tried a few years ago and it didn't make it.

There was a Private Member's Bill in 2004 that got blocked by the Government, on the basis that you'd need to arrange for concurrent legislation in all the other places that the Queen is Queen of, at a time when there would be no change in the first three people in the line of succession.

Also I think there was a switch to equal primogeniture in Evan Harris's bill last year, athough the main thrust of that one was allowing the heir to the throne to marry a Catholic. That one got dropped when Parliament ran out of time.

If the government actually proposed the legislation (which they would if there were a likelihood of its being practically relevant) it would get through with no problem.

(Would they go further and change the rules of succession to other British titles at the same time? Now that might ruffle a few feathers...)

You mean duke/duchesses and the like? Would be about time, but would be hilarious interesting I agree. Watching all the families try to rejig their old grudges accordingly.

I imagine the new law, if it happened, would only affect those born in the future? Otherwise e.g. Princess Anne will go from whatever she is now (below Andrew, Eddie and their kids) to...4th? After Charles, William and Harry.

I don't see why it should only effect those born in the future. Unless you're envisaging a King Ralph-style massacre of the royals then moving from tenth place (or whatever it is) to fourth wouldn't make a huge practical difference.

I love that film, had completely forgotten about it.

You're right, think I've been reading too much about medieval times recently and anticipating bouts of sleeping sickness etc.

Also I didn't realise until recently that the rank of Queen is actually lower than the rank of King. So if Wills becomes king, Kate will be queen but Lizzy's husband isn't king because if he were he'd automatically outrank Lizzy which of course would be wrong as he is not the successor. The whole thing is just really weird and I don't think changing it to make it more "equal" would make it less odd TBH.

Succession always used to be relatively up for grabs - if you were at all noble and felt like it, you would get an army together, fight for the crown, and your lawyers could justify it later once your arse was safely enthroned. This is a reasonable approach for a warrior leader as the only monarchs would have had to show willing and able to do the job (either in attack or defence). I'd like to see the current lot put their money where their mouths are for the throne. I think Harry could give William a run for his money, but they would presumably gang up on Big Ears first and get him out of the picture before H pulls his double-crossing move on W. Not that it needs to be limited to those that close to the throne, but I don't read Hello enough to know who any of the other royals are.

(Obv "I'd like to see" means "I would ideally like to see the whole lot of them down the job centre, but while we're discussing a state sponsored soap opera, let's have one that's value for money in terms of entertainment in the form of shedding of blue blood")

Yay! Lorely Burt is my local counsellor!

Will read thread now....

Vezzie - I'd put my money on Fergie taking advantage of the unrest when Harry makes his move, to come onto the scene as a warrior queen trying to put her dds on the throne by claiming that Charles was already secretly married to Camilla before he met Diana, and William and Harry were therefore illegitimate, which leaves Beatrice and Eugenie as the obvious claimants after Andrew (who is always off playing golf in another country so is too busy to be king).

If she could get Princess Anne on her side I reckon they could squash Charles easily.

Nice, SSM.

Surely there must be a few butts of Malmsey around somewhere?

i think it should be like x factor. we could phone in

They could rehash the cringeworthy royal knockout thingy with butts of malmsey, etc., now that you mention it, maybe some real jousting, a party of roundheads just to keep it interesting

Writer of dreams: I'm not sure it's exactly like that. There are two types if Queen: Regnant and Consort.

Whoever is Regnant is top of the pile: hence HMQ outranked HMQM.

There is only King Regnant: no such rank now as King Consort, I think you can find them if you dig back (Ferdinand and Isabella?). No reason why you couldn't have a King Consort, and he would be outranked by the Queen Regnant.

I like the monarchy - if we didn't have HMQ, what would we have: President Blair? Because the office of Prime Minister wouldn't be worth a candle any more.

William III should have been a King Consort, because it was his wife Mary who was the next in line once James II was held to have 'abdicated'.

But having brought an army over from Holland and taken the throne by force, William wasn't inclined to play second fiddle to his wife and they became joint Sovereigns, so William remained as King after Mary died - unlike the situation when the first Queen Mary married Phillip of Spain - he was given the title of King and was joint Sovereign, but only during Mary's life; when she died he lost his Sovereignty.

Dang, just as I got a handle on it...

Why not have a president, with a council of state to go over bills for constitutionality (might need a constitution for this obviously...) as in Ireland, which has the upper and lower chambers as in the UK..

Although hang on why two different types of Queen and only one sort of King? I think WriterofDreams is right here. I think all the Queen Regnants have had Prince Consorts but not the other way round, indicating there is some concern about a King eclipsing a Queen. William and Mary were King and Queen (coregents) not sure of the nuts and bolts here, maybe to give William more legitimacy as monarch, maybe in order that any heir they might have would be more acceptable as monarch (they didn't have any in the end though)

x-post...