No Queen for a generation of more

[mids2019]

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

In my life I have felt the Queen offered the country and world a woman as one of the most memorable heads of state. We now are looking at least three successive Kings and memory of a female head of state becoming increasingly remote history.

How should the Royal Family face this prospect without looking patriarchal with successive Queen's subjugated their husband Kings?

to their Kings.

Subjugated? you do know we're in the 21st century, don't you?

Queens aren't subjugated to their Husband Kings?

Or have I misunderstood?

We could get rid of the monarchy. Then nobody is subjugated to anyone else. It's an outmoded concept, well past its sell by data.

You're not subjugated, you are a citizen.

Mary Beard spoke about how sad she felt that we have seen our last queen for a long time, today on R4 at 12.45. It was very interesting.
I really wanted George to be a girl, but it wasn’t to be.

Maybe, maybe not. Charles might decide to change sex and become Queen Charlotte and neutralise all the toilets across the kingdom.

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.

Perhaps he’ll identify as a woman?

(sorry! Couldn’t resist)

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.

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.

Now that would be most excellent!

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

Very true. Who knows what might happen?

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

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 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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

So, just enjoying having a dig then. Nice.

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.