Male succession to the throne - what do you tell your children?

[Blu]

If you actually support the monarchy and will be celebrating the wedding?

It's easy if you have non-monarchy leanings - the fact that it is based (amongst other things) on a hereditary system that accepts a woman as queen only as the last remaining option, even if she is the eldest, is part and parcel of the whole undemocratic kaboodle. (DS is fluent in this pov by now!)

But what do you say to your Princess mad daughters, and what will you say if K&Ws first child is a girl and then a boy? "stop fantasising, dd, Princes trump Princesses"?

I thought that they had changed the rules and said that a first born daughter will take the throne if that happens...

I think it was discussed but not made law.
Not a monarchist by any sense of the term. I feel about them in a similar fashion to those endless celebrities whose names I struggle to remember.

I wasn't quite right, they are considering changing the rules but it could take years to negotiate.

My dds are 7 and 5. I did mention the royal wedding to them a while ago (just as a story in the news, as I thought they might be interested) and they could hardly care less about the whole thing.

I think the media, and sellers of red white and blue tat, are trying to whip up interest that isn't really there.

It seems ridiculous that the change of law is being described as so tortuous, taking years, and involving commonwealth countries that weren't even in the so-called commmonwealth when the current constitution was established!

But are there many feminists (as this is posted in feminism I assume it's aimed at feminists) who do support the monarchy and plan to celebrate a royal wedding? I can't think of any I know.

I have 3 daughters, none of them is or has ever been princess-mad. [here I get out my Smug Feminist Mother emoticon]. But if they were, yes I would say; "note, dd, what happens to girls who dream of being princesses".

I was round at a friend's house for tea the other day, and her 9yo dd brought this up. My friend said (something along the lines of) that the rules about who gets to be king or queen are very complicated to change because it's so important to the country that we have stability, so you can't go changing things willy-nilly. She said that this meant the rules on anything to do with the monarchy tend to get out of date, but that there are people working to make things fairer and it should change soon.

Her dd seemed completely disinterested by this sensible explanation and wandered off. But I thought it was a good effort :o

One of my four girls is disney (ie. fake) princess mad, but the others couldn't care less, and none of them are particularly interested in the royal wedding. I have talked to them about the succession, though, because DD1 asked why Prince Philip wasn't King. They agreed with me that it was very silly not to trust women to rule the country, even more so when you consider that we've had so many examples of how shit men are at doing it, and the few female reigning monarchs we've had have been inspiring and brilliant.

If anyone is unintelligent enough to delude themselves into believing in the right of hereditary privilege then I don't think they would be intellectually able to argue that it's wrong that the privilege is gender specific. I find most feminist arguments completely unpalatable, but I do think that they generally feel that a persons position should be based on merit, so I don't think OP that you will find too many that believe in hereditary privilege for either gender.

That said, and since you believe male hereditary privilege outweighing female hereditary privilege is a feminist issue, I would point out that it is probably sexist that a female gains the equal rank of their partner (ie. Kate will be queen) whereas males do not (ie. marrying a queen only makes you a prince eg. prince Phillip). But since the entire argument for a monarchy is not one where position is based on merit, I think that it is pointless to argue whether the system is sexist, as the point is moot

im22 wrote - "a female gains the equal rank of their partner (ie. Kate will be queen) whereas males do not (ie. marrying a queen only makes you a prince eg. prince Phillip)."

I read that when Charles becomes King, Camilla will become "Princess Consort" not Queen.

I'd turn it around and say 'The Queen is more important, that's why there always has to be a Queen. It doesn't matter if there isn't a King.'

I'm sure I read Camilla could have had the Queen title, but chose Princess Consort because of public outcry about respect to Diana etc.

I do hope William and Kate have a daughter first though, because then the subject will have to be addressed, and hopefully changed.

im22, overall I agree re the lack of relevance of sexual discrimination within a fundementally undemocratic system - I feel much the same way about bishops - except that that has more potential effect because bishops in the lords have more power, in common practice, than the monarch.

But I would have thought that even those who support the monarchy and take an interest in the wedding would baulk at male succession.

The differential between male and felame spouses of monarchs, though, is surely borne of anti-female discrimination - that King is considered the primary and superior royal rank, not to be held by a mere spouse, whilst Queen can be doled out to hereditary monarch or mere spuse because it is a lesser title. Queens as spouses don't retain the title once the king is dead - whatserename was the Queen Mother.

vesuvia - the reason Camilla won't be queen is as stated above, the public outcry about her becoming queen. She has a right to the title that a male in her part would not. I don't care though, the monarchy is not a system based on merit/todays values etc., so applying beliefs in equality as far as sex/religion etc. goes is rather pointless

^WSS. And one would argue that Queen Elizabeth I was one of the ultimate feminists. I have a feeling she strung eveyrone along with the 'marriage' thing because she knew she'd lose all her power the second she got married. Her husband would immediately be more important than her and it would have been very difficult for her to make him Prince Consort - what a blow to his ego. No one would have agreed to marry her knowing that they would be 'relegated' like that.

Queen Victoria took a bold step not making Prince Albert king, and so did Elizabeth II with Prince Philip.

Elizabeth I's own father had two women killed and turned the country upside down with enormous loss of life in the monastries, and horrendous burnings and god knows what to try and prevent his heir being a daughter.

If I was William and Kate'd daughter and they then had a son... i would thank Chirst i didn;t have to be the monach and do all that bollocks. and be like Princess Anne - richish, privilidges but without all the balls that goes with it

Sounds great.