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?

"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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

we will live to see European Queens, the heir of Spain is Leonor, Sweden, Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands will all have Queens next. That’ll be 5/12 monarchies with a female head.

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.

not sure what point you're trying to prove here? that Republics are old hat too so might as well have a head of state that was clever enough to choose what uterus they were going to develop in?

A republic with a written constitution could be a fantastic thing for the UK rather than the absolute batshit mess it is right now.

I think you'll find that there's a lot of difference between living in NK and living with the system we have now. Being able to debate it, for a start.

What I find interesting is the way that (I think) the Queen has been portrayed to us. I might be wrong but in the 60s and 70s, I recall that her role was portrayed as ceremonial and mainly about cutting ribbons and hosting garden parties. I had no idea of her constitutional role or that she was doomed to have to chat with Thatcher every week. Maybe it was because I was a child then, but it's my perception that it has only been more recently that other aspects of her role have been more widely discussed / in the media. Or was it just that I grew up and started reading different things? What do others think?

I think you grew up and started reading different things.
it's not like things were kept secret.

it's not like things were kept secret.

No, I just don't remember them being emphasised.

I've always wondered if they are using sex selection for royal pregnancies

Perhaps read the whole conversation. That was a response to another poster trying to make a point that republics are new, shiny things of the modern era while monarchies are bad, old, anachronisms from deepest darkest history. They obviously didn’t know history that well…..

Other European countries will have queens (Spain/Netherlands and Norway also I think?)

I grew up with a Queen and a female PM, whatever you thought of her, but it did lead me to believe that women could do anything since to my mind the two most important jobs in the country were being done by women. It was really important, so yes I do think it's a shame that we will have, unless something goes very wrong, a King for the foreseeable future. However, thanks in part to the aforementioned women British society has moved on. We aren't over the pay gaps and inequalities that still exist yet, but we, and the monarchy, are moving in the right direction. And whatever you think of the new PM I did notice that not much was made of her sex, which must be a good thing - that it's unremarkable?

Oh gosh, written constitutions are a heap of trouble. I wouldn't wish on eon anyone, it was one of the stupidest things my country ever did. Copying the Americans of course.

Very dependent on the completely unrealistic Enlightenment idea that a bunch of people can work out a set of processes and first principles that can stand the test of time and are somehow better than what other people in other times and places would come up with. Which is to say, privileging the political thinking of a moment in time.

I think that information was out there, but you probably stumbled on more of it as you became older.

What I would say is that in general, there is very little explanation to school kids about the form of constitutional monarchy, historically or what you might call the theory of it, or even things like how they perform compared to other forms of governance.

It tends therefore to be compared to things like republics in a way that's pretty shallow, where the CM is seen as a historic element that doesn't function in any practical way which sells it short, whereas a republic is presented as this thing that works mechanistically the way it is supposed to on paper, which is also not really accurate.

This is a really good point. If they can do it with the Royal family then why not all the gentry?

I know, no ruling Queen's potentially for decades but I can't see them leaving the mark that Liz has.

Britain is one of the global leaders when it comes to women’s rights. I say “one of”, the only other challenger I can think of is NZ who were the first nation to grant universal suffrage.

I also can’t think of any other nation that has so many female icons. Perhaps it due to having Queen’s as head of state and viewing women as strong/capable that has made Britain so progressive in comparison?

Mary Wollstonecraft (the pioneering feminist late 18th C, also famous as the mother to the author Mary Shelley)
Florence Nightingale (seen as the Victorian era feminist sandwich between Wollstonecraft and Woolf)
Virginia Woolf (20th century’s best known female modernist author)

Then there’s the Suffragettes led by Pankhurst (every other women’s rights group was/is Diet Coke in comparison). Since the vote, three female Prime Ministers to date (not aware of any other having as many, some have never had one female political leader).

World’s best selling author Agatha Christie
World’s best selling living author JK Rowling

Jane Austen, probably the best known female author

Alice (from Alice in Wonderland), the biggest female character in fiction.

Elizabeth I, Victoria, Elizabeth II (we have entire eras named after them)

Ada Lovelace - first computer programmer
Rosalind Franklin - Photo 51 (first image of DNA)

Spice Girls - girl power (Thatcher being their prime role model)

In film, Ridley Scott made the decision of going against the grain of action film norms by changing the hero of Alien to a heroine (Ellen Ripley) after being influenced by his own WWII era mother.

You had the like of Hillary Clinton speaking of having to “break through the glass ceiling” during her unsuccessful run for US president, and that’s a western country (much much worse outside the west).

Kate Bush was asked during a North American radio interview about “people being afraid of women holding power”, and she basically responded “unlike here, we have a female leader in the UK” (May being PM at that point).

Britain has long been way ahead of the norm when it comes to women’s empowerment.

I vaguely recall frm my British Constitution lessons at school that while a constitution that isn't written can mean that there aren't any rules for a crisis (such as king wants to marry unsuitable woman) it also means that the constitution can find workarounds when needed and is flexible and adaptable to unforeseen situations (see above). And of course, written constitutions can be torn up by a less than benign government.

That was a response to another poster trying to make a point that republics are new, shiny things of the modern era while monarchies are bad, old, anachronisms from deepest darkest history.

i had read the thread and did not get the impression (or words) from anyone that said any such thing.

Oh gosh, written constitutions are a heap of trouble. I wouldn't wish on eon anyone, it was one of the stupidest things my country ever did. Copying the Americans of course.

other constitutions and presidential models are available. It's not as if constitutional lawyers in the UK have nothing to work on. There is a constitution of sorts, it is just in a billion different places: starting with the original Magna Carta and going through legal precedent, laws etc. And as a starting point it wouldn't be a bad one.

The German constitution isn't so bad. Could probably be improved, but what couldn't?

Yes, I realize the UK has a constitution, but when someone says they wish the UK had a written constitution I figure they mean something different. Usually they want something like the US model.

The flexibility issue alluded to upthread is one reason to be wary.

But there is also the question of whether a written constitution ends up degrading the role of Parliament. Why does the government that happens to be sitting in year whatever happen to have a better sense of things than any other?

Well it’s not problematic because it hasn’t been done on purpose. It hasn’t excluded a woman, it just so happens that the next 3 in line to the throne are male. If Princess Charlotte had been the oldest but Prince George was ahead of her, that would have been problematic but the Queen has changed the rules anyway.