Girls now equal in British throne succession

[poleboy]

As a loyal British monarchist, I'm very happy to see a long-needed change to conform to our modern values. Other subjects of Her Majesty and foreigners too, how do you feel about this change?

This bit is sarcasm right? Please tell me it's sarcasm.

On-topic, they passed the same law here. I think it was last year. I'd say it's a move in the right direction but to tell the truth, monarchy isn't really moving anywhere. It's an anachronism we're keeping alive because we're nostalgics, and it's great for tourism.

 

[JoJo]

As a loyal British monarchist, I'm very happy to see a long-needed change to conform to our modern values. Other subjects of Her Majesty and foreigners too, how do you feel about this change?

This bit is sarcasm right? Please tell me it's sarcasm.

No, I'm being serious. What's wrong with a bit of old-fashioned loyalty to the Crown? It's not like they actually make any decisions, the Queen is a symbol of my nation and our long and rich history. I'd far rather have a hereditary head of state who's trained from birth to carry out their function rather than having to choose between President Thatcher and President Blair every four years.

 

[JoJo]

Kind of baffled by how anyone could be a "loyal British Monarchist" at 18. My grandparents don't even care that much.

I'm 19, but I get your point, a lot of my friends think like you do. I guess you could say I'm quite conservative when it comes to traditions like the monarchy (though I'm more to the left on individual freedoms) and I'm very patriotic towards the UK, which is why I'll be very upset if Scotland becomes independent after the referendum. Plus I love reading about all the past monarchs, I can't wait to find out what regal name Prince Charles takes on!

 

[poleboy]

No, I'm being serious. What's wrong with a bit of old-fashioned loyalty to the Crown? It's not like they actually make any decisions, the Queen is a symbol of my nation and our long and rich history. I'd far rather have a hereditary head of state who's trained from birth to carry out their function rather than having to choose between President Thatcher and President Blair every four years.

But what if the head of state gets crazy? Or is just an asshole? You can't get rid of them, and that's when the knives come out. I'm glad modern politics has less (actual) bloodshed than monarchy, even if it does have its shares of problems. I'm also slightly disturbed by your willingness to support something purely out of tradition, but I guess most people aren't that different when it comes to voting.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Gee, the English sure don't like their ki...queens anymore.

 

[dickywebster]

Its a nice gesture and all, but considering its been a queen and a prince on the throne not a king and a queen for decades, it seems kinda silly.
That and i dont even know who the first woman in line for the throne is, there charles, william and harry, but id have to look up whos 4th or further back in the line to know.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Huh... I wonder what happened to the Catholicism part of it... swear there was talk about dropping the whole anti-Catholic thing the Monarchy has going on.

It was always amusing to consider that William could succeed to the throne if he became a Catholic, married a Catholic and/or had a sex-change...

Well, they're quaint, s'bout it.

 

[Eekaida]

Its nice that so many people like this news/don't give a rats ass, but I have to tell you that its been that way for a while now - at least since May of this year. As news goes, its not new.

 

[Aiden_the-Joker1]

Here is something. We have now removed the prejudice against women. But it is still the first born who becomes the king/Queen. Is that not still prejudiced?

 

[Tiger Sora]

And the Commonwealth collective gave a sigh with the undertone of "no one cares".
It's really not that important, something that they felt needed to be done, that could of been done 20 years ago.
Maybe instead of looking at the royals we should be paying attention to more important matters, such as the economy.
But, you know distracting the masses keeps the protesters at home.

 

[Bebus]

I have to admit, the gender thing is great but I feel just slightly uneasy about the whole Catholic part.

This might sound slightly ridiculous, but both the British monarchy and the Catholic church are ancient institutions with a very bloody history. I quite like our monarchy, I judge them a fairly worthy recipient of tax cash; a somewhat dated but enjoyable throwback to older times. The queen always presents a face separate from the hectics of daily politics. But the idea of a monarch being under the thumb of the Vatican leaves me uneasy. Call me cynical, but I don't like it. Probably because I hate the idea of any institution other than our own having power!

 

[JoJo]

No, I'm being serious. What's wrong with a bit of old-fashioned loyalty to the Crown? It's not like they actually make any decisions, the Queen is a symbol of my nation and our long and rich history. I'd far rather have a hereditary head of state who's trained from birth to carry out their function rather than having to choose between President Thatcher and President Blair every four years.

But what if the head of state gets crazy? Or is just an asshole? You can't get rid of them, and that's when the knives come out. I'm glad modern politics has less (actual) bloodshed than monarchy, even if it does have its shares of problems. I'm also slightly disturbed by your willingness to support something purely out of tradition, but I guess most people aren't that different when it comes to voting.

If the monarch becomes crazy, then Parliament can vote to have their duties transferred to the next-in-line as regent, this was the case for the last decade of George III's reign who suffered from mental illness. They no real power beyond being a symbol anyway so being an arsehole isn't issue. Having a non-political head of state is great as you can unite the nation round them without falling into petty political disputes (look at the way American's argue over Obama, their head of state). I wouldn't support something solely out of tradition, especially if it was harmful or unjust which is why I support the gender equality move, but it certainly is a point in favour it otherwise is not disadvantageous. Plus I'd rather our politicians didn't get their grubby fingers all over our head of state.

 

[Craorach]

If the monarch becomes crazy, then Parliament can vote to have their duties transferred to the next-in-line as regent, this was the case for the last decade of George III's reign who suffered from mental illness. They no real power beyond being a symbol anyway so being an arsehole isn't issue. Having a non-political head of state is great as you can unite the nation round them without falling into petty political disputes (look at the way American's argue over Obama, their head of state). I wouldn't support something solely out of tradition, especially if it was harmful or unjust which is why I support the gender equality move, but it certainly is a point in favour it otherwise is not disadvantageous. Plus I'd rather our politicians didn't get their grubby fingers all over our head of state.

I couldn't agree with this more.

I'm glad to hear they've removed the gender bias, its pretty silly to be honest considering that two of our most recent and strongest Monarchs have been female.

I tend to find people who are against the Monarchy and the systems that support them (peerage, etc) don't fully understand the rule they play in modern British society, and the world as a whole.

The presence of a group within the leadership of a nation that are NOT beholden to the whims of public perception has a great deal of value. While there can, occasionally, be negatives.. they are vastly outwayed by the times that these systems prevent knee jerk policies and the non political influence they can put upon the government.

Not to mention the value of a politician who's only motivating factor is what is in the best interests of not only the country now, but in the future and in support of its past.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

I'm pro monarchy, though I can't say I'm overly bothered about such tweaks (and I'm certainly no royal historian).
Besides, can't we skip to worshipping and obeying serving Uber-Queen Kate Middleton already? Having a sexy monarchy would be much cooler. (I'm fairly sure less people would whine about the monarchy, too)

A less glib response: JoJoDeathunter, don't compromise your opinions on the role and relevance of the monarchy. It's easy to find nomarks with anti-royalist ideas, who object to any and all notions of tradition or establishment.

Those in the royal family are uniquely positioned to observe certain social and political dynamics. They seek to represent the nation's best interests, and can remain free of party politics. Prince Charles may be endearingly nuts, but he's raised awareness of a lot of issues and concerns, and has been a bit of a thorn in various governments side.

If anything, I think the royals need a little more leeway.