As an American, the British monarchy is little more than one of those stereotypically British things to me, but it's good to see that social justice takes precedent over tradition.
Girls now equal in British throne succession
- Thread starter JoJo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth II. Under these three queens the Commonwealth, and the world, was changed drastically. It is about time that it was recognised that a queen can be just as much, if not more, effective than a king.
EDIT: And yes, I am aware Elizabeth I was not ruler of the Commonwealth, she just ruled England and its colonies... but you get the point.
EDIT: And yes, I am aware Elizabeth I was not ruler of the Commonwealth, she just ruled England and its colonies... but you get the point.
why does it matter? at what point does the monarchy make that much of a difference anymore? except to clog every news channel in the US (for some reason) because too of those people got married. whoopty doo.
It certainly matters if Jo Brand gets on the throne, if that happened then we would be doing something horribly wrong.Rawne1980 said:
I'm an Australian living in Perth. This decision was made just a few minutes away from where I live. And still I'm fairly indifferent towards the whole thing. I do love the hypocrisy of people saying how great it is that they are updating tradition to conform with modern views of gender, and then turning around and condemning Julia Gillard for bowing instead of curtseying.
Hopefully soon Australia will cut our ties and become a Republic. I predict this will probably happen after Elizabeth dies.
Hopefully soon Australia will cut our ties and become a Republic. I predict this will probably happen after Elizabeth dies.
Equal succession makes sense, the British royal family has caught up to the Dutch and the Danish Royals who have had this for years (I think).
I have no problem with the Royal family, met the Duke of Edinburgh once and was suprised how short he was.
I have no problem with the Royal family, met the Duke of Edinburgh once and was suprised how short he was.
Excellent stuff! Equality and all that fancy jazz.
Now, I'm not a fan of the monarchy, what with the whole "born into wealth" thing. However, the monarchy bring in an awful lot of money to Britain, and not just through tourism. In exchange for giving the monarchy some tax money, they give us all the rent from their land, which results in big profit for us.
Losing the monarchy isn't worth the financial cost, and it does make Britain pretty special. So go them I guess.
Now, I'm not a fan of the monarchy, what with the whole "born into wealth" thing. However, the monarchy bring in an awful lot of money to Britain, and not just through tourism. In exchange for giving the monarchy some tax money, they give us all the rent from their land, which results in big profit for us.
Losing the monarchy isn't worth the financial cost, and it does make Britain pretty special. So go them I guess.
That's a great quote, it pretty much sums up what I was feeling when I read this. It's absolutely pathetic that after everything the Western world's gone through to attempt to achieve equal rights, we're still celebrating the fact that a few individuals are given superlative rights just through the miracle of birth.thaluikhain said:
I wonder what would have happened, though, if not all the nations involved went through with this, if they had all their own weird rules to tack onto the succession.
Great, smae thing change was done for the Swedish monarchy some years ago. I feel about this, as I felt then:
1.Great (Gender equality), but late (rest of society had that decades ago, why not this?).
2.Kinda useless, as the entire idea of a monarchy is inherently anti-democratic, archaic, a MASSIVE waste of taxes, useless (in a democratic country, like Sweden and the UK), and dooms the people of a family of constant media attention a no chance at a "real" life (As my mother often puts it: "I wouldn't wish royalty upon even my most hated enemy").
1.Great (Gender equality), but late (rest of society had that decades ago, why not this?).
2.Kinda useless, as the entire idea of a monarchy is inherently anti-democratic, archaic, a MASSIVE waste of taxes, useless (in a democratic country, like Sweden and the UK), and dooms the people of a family of constant media attention a no chance at a "real" life (As my mother often puts it: "I wouldn't wish royalty upon even my most hated enemy").
You people who don't care about the monarchy aren't true Brits!
Feel ashamed!
This is possibly the first idea proposed by Cameron which hasn't been monumentally stupid and with no immediate problems. This is an odd feeling. Too bad it wasn't about anything particularly important. Even if the monarchy are a useful source of income from tourism for us, this won't really change anything.
*EDIT*
No guys, the monarchy isn't a waste of taxes. They bring in much more money than they spend.
Feel ashamed!
This is possibly the first idea proposed by Cameron which hasn't been monumentally stupid and with no immediate problems. This is an odd feeling. Too bad it wasn't about anything particularly important. Even if the monarchy are a useful source of income from tourism for us, this won't really change anything.
*EDIT*
No guys, the monarchy isn't a waste of taxes. They bring in much more money than they spend.
The throne itself could probably sell for a few ££.theheroofaction said:
I raise youOmniscientOstrich said:
Oh, this is good news, especially because we only have a few centuries until Liz X has to rule Space Britain on the back of a giant whale. Might as well do this sooner rather than later.