Government starts effort to change succession law

[Grace]

Anything but the economy!  Cameron's main interests at present besides changing the laws of succession for the British monarchy seem to be plastic bags and more women in top executive jobs. 

I don't agree with most opinion on this thread.  I can't see the need for change.  Just my opinion. 

[darius]

A ridiculous proposal from a ridiculous govenrment and a discredited political class.  None of these proposals is in the wider public interest.  Neither the Act of Settlement nor male primogeniture affect a wide swathe of the citizens of either the United Kingdom or the Commonwealth - if anybody is discriminated against it is the members of the Royal Family.  This opens the floodgates for further tinkering with the Monarchy, disestablishment of the Church of England and a further breakdown of long established norms which I stress, while the PM may call historical "anomalies", served to make the UK a strong, independent power in the 18th and 19th Centuries.
Why can´t these politicians do the job they were elected to do and stop creating side shows which have nothing to do with the current troubled times we live in. 
As far as I am aware, Spain wouldn´t accept a Protestant King.
The Government should remember and learne from the lessons of history before riding roughshod over what has been developed in the course of the previous centuries.

[TampaBay]

Japan talked about changing their succession laws ao a woman could sit on the throne and don't think the idea went anywhere.

TampaBay

[toddy]

this is just political theater   when Charles becomes King George VII  he could reign for 20 years then William another 30+ it will be well over 50 years  why is this a issue?  they are destroying the magic . its only a mater of time before its done in.

[Martyn]

Emperor - I agree with your points about good timing - and add another:  the economy.  Case in point:  Canada.  Its government doesn't want a debate on the monarchy, they want to focus all of their efforts on the economy.

Whereas Cameron's intention is to focus attention on anything BUT the economy. Even if it entails matters as massively peripheral and irrelevant to most people's lives as the royal family and their "fairytale romances". 

Absolutely.  The notion of Cameron espousing the causes of fairness and equality has a rather hollow ring to it anyway.  Still unlikely to distract anyone from the fact that his strategies are proving no more successful with the economy than those of the previous incumbent of his post.


Still, the principle of these reforms is sound, so why not get it all sorted now?

[aleksandr pavlovich]

Japan talked about changing their succession laws ao a woman could sit on the throne and don't think the idea went anywhere.

TampaBay

    When that proposal was made, the two sons of the Emperor Akihito had only female children.  On Sept. 6th, 2006, Prince Hisahito was born (to Prince and Princess Akishino), thus presently becoming third in line to the Japanese throne.  In Jan. of 2007, the Prime Minister  of Japan announced that the proposal was thus being dropped.     Regards,   AP.

[ashdean]

this is just political theater   when Charles becomes King George VII  he could reign for 20 years then William another 30+ it will be well over 50 years  why is this a issue?  they are destroying the magic . its only a mater of time before its done in.

I have never heard that instead of being Charles III the current Prince of Wales will be George VII?
I look forward to living in a CAROLEAN era...though not for many years yet!

[DNAgenie]

Mr Cameron has written to 15 countries where the Queen is head of state asking for an agreement to the changes at a Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Perth later this month. Ms Gillard spoke in support of the changes earlier this year and said yesterday that as the first female Prime Minister she believed in equal rights for women.  She will consult the Australian states and territories about the proposal ahead of the CHOGM, a spokeswoman said.

In a warm-up to the royal tour of Australia by the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, due to start next Wednesday, the Queen has held a reception for 350 Australians at Buckingham Palace. Guests included Hugh Jackman, Elle McPherson, Jason Donovan and Tim Cahill but the star of the show was Australian writer Kathy Lette. Accompanied by her husband, international civil-rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson, QC, Kathy was presented to the Queen wearing a suit, screen-printed with Corgis, all wearing crowns.

"Do you like it?" she asked the Queen, of the outfit commissioned from a mate with a sewing machine in Cronulla. "I wore it specially for you."  She says the Queen looked down and her eyes widened.   "Phillip!" she said. "Look at this!"

[Kalafrana]

I'm not at all convinced that this is necessary. The present system has worked perfectly well for over 300 years and all inheritance involves anomalies anyway (most peerages cannot be inherited by or through females at all!). However, if there must be a change, this would be a sensible time to do it, before William and Katharine have children and when the effect on people already living is likely to be small.

Ann

[JaneEyre5381]

Here's an article from The Telegraph on this issue.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8829295/Queen-backs-plan-to-let-daughter-of-Prince-William-and-Kate-Middleton-to-accede-to-the-throne.html

[Archduchess Zelia]

Wonderful, it was definitely about time.

[toddy]

if they just leave it the way it is more english girls could become queen.  kate middleton is oing to be queen? right

[JaneEyre5381]

if they just leave it the way it is more english girls could become queen.  kate middleton is oing to be queen? right

She'll be the Queen Consort to Prince William, who'll be King William V (if he chooses to go with that name of course).

[Emperor of the Dominions]

As I suggested in a previous post, politically the timing couldn't be better. With support for the monarchy fairly high and indeed with Commonwealth and home Nations grappling with economic fears subsequently making this issue a low priority, it may mean that these measures may go through 'on the nod' without much uproar. Whether Cameron has opened this up to detract attention from his plodding approach to economic matters (if indeed it has that affect) is open to debate and I'm sure we shall never really know. It could also be argued that this is a natural progression against the backdrop of the 'modernisation' of the House of Lords.

From the Queen's perspective she is reported to have endorsed these proposals. There have been wide ranging reforms throughout her reign, to try and make the institution of monarchy a little more relevant to the modern age. I have no doubt that this another example of her 'tidying up' and moulding the institution to suit her vision as best she can; and by a monarch with sufficient authority to enable and see through the change. The monarchy can never be seen as democratic, populist or modern, that simply isn't its function; but perhaps a little less archaic and sexist.

Now that this has been raised as an issue, I can see no defence in keeping the current arrangement of the priority younger brothers take over older sisters as heirs the the throne. Moreover some of our greatest monarchs have been Queen's (Elizabeth I, Victoria, Elizabeth II) a little more of which may not harm us. The current ruling that a monarch may not marry a Catholic is, I would suggest today irrelevant. Perhaps more controversially. they may however marry a Muslim, a Jew or a member of any other faith or none, other than a Catholic. And the ruling that permission should be sought to marry whomsoever they wish by all royal descendants is largely academic. Who marries whom in the direct line of the throne is no doubt suitably scrutinised, but these days even rugby players are given permission to marry those royals unlikely to ascend the throne.

R.I.

[Emperor of the Dominions]

this is just political theater   when Charles becomes King George VII  he could reign for 20 years then William another 30+ it will be well over 50 years  why is this a issue?  they are destroying the magic . its only a mater of time before its done in.

I have never heard that instead of being Charles III the current Prince of Wales will be George VII?
I look forward to living in a CAROLEAN era...though not for many years yet!

Indeed Ashdean this has been widely mooted and I believe even by the Prince of Wales himself. I think it has to do with some superstition around the name King Charles - beheading, the fall of the monarchy and the like. Of course this is not an unusual step by any means, I gather the POW favours the title King George VII out of great respect and admiration for his grandfather; who of course chose to be called George VI instead of King Albert I. Other examples include Prince Albert Edward who chose Edward VII, Princess Victoria who chose Queen Mary etc.

R.I.