Princess Royal, Princess Anne

[CHRISinUSA]

For those who do support this change, the present sense of urgency is to get this into law before William and Kate's first born arrives.  Their view is that if this present opportunity is missed, the "built in gender inequality" they object to remains in place for another 2 generations (another century or so).

If this were a simple matter of the UK Parliament passing a single bill, it probably would have been done by now.  But as was pointed out earlier, all 16 Commonwealth Realms where the Queen reigns would have to unanimously agree to any change in succession rules, in order to maintain the status quo (well, status quo except for changing the succession).  That is a slippery slope, which probably would lead to some realms ending the monarchy all-together instead of changing the succession. 

I say leave it alone.

[Robert_Hall]

Making a hereditary institution  primogeniture is hardly democratic. It would have to be elective to be democratic.
 As for the Commonwealth nations  having self-determination as to who would be their head of state- so what ?  They would not be the first, after all and just what are the so-called "Western Nations"  supporting in  North Africa and the Middle East ?
 Is it not the right of people to choose their own leaders ?
 Ann,  Queen Victoria was indeed low in popularity, but she had no negative effect on the growth of an empire in her name.
 Mary was Queen of Scotland, not England and considering all the machinations and manipulations against her, it is a wonder she lived as long as she did. No argument on the other Mary and Anne. And, of course the current Queen Elizabeth is remarkable and an excellent example of adapting to change, however gradually at times.

[Kalafrana]

Robert

I included Mary Queen of Scots as we have had a Union of Crowns since 160, and Mary is an ancestor of every monarch since then. What is rather interesting is that every monarch from James I to James VI succeeded as a minor under a regency, except James IV, who was a relatively mature 15. All had to cope with plots and over-mighty subjects, and all succeeded in establishing their rule, except James III and Mary, hence I am of the view that many of her problems were of her own making.

Ann

[darius]

You should remember that Mary II was instrumental in the instigation of the Glorious Revolution in Britain, and as Joint Sovereign with William III, constitutional Monarchy.

[Robert_Hall]

I tend to be  more sympathetic towards Mary of Scotland.  Her situation was always confusing and hard to determine which direction she should go.
  However, the Union of Crowns in 1903 was under her son, James I/VI.  Even then, England and Scotland remained independent of each other politically until 1707[?].
 Still, none of this degrades the possibility of female succession  by right of "first born".
 Just as there have been "lousy kings" there is the equal possibility of "lousy queens".
 Personally, I feel that for the monarchy to be really relevent in modern society, it must adapt or loose real function in the State. At that point, abolition becomes the major danger.

[toddy]

i hope they don't tinker with the monarchy  because i am afraid most of the commonwealth would just go there own way  its not like the present system  has kept woman off the throne  two queens have reigned for 120 years   combined  i find it laughable that this is what they spend there time on when great Britain is in such bad shape. they have the best monarchy in the world and everyone wants them to become like the other 2nd class monarchy .  look at Sweden   they changed there succession and now they are headed for extinction  . Victoria seems some what illegitimate  carl phillip should be king

[Robert_Hall]

And what is so wrong with allowing a country to "go their own way"? And, some say that the Swedish monarchy has never been more popular than now, with CP Victoria. Also, I would not call any European monarchy "second rate" In the cases of Belgium and the Netherlands especially, their monarchs actually have more constitutional powers than the British.  A living monarchy is not something one puts on a shelf and dusts off  just for weddings and other "dress-up" displays.

[Emperor of the Dominions]

Whatever your view on this argument, I'm sure that any potential change in the line of succession to favour the first born (regardless of the sex) would be subject to unofficial 'soundings' presumably by the P.M. for the opinion of the British Dominions and the Commonwealth (a la the marriage of Edward and Mrs Simpson). The result of which would inform whether the British government introduced a Bill to change to the line of succession or not.

R.I.

[Robert_Hall]

Of course, EoD. I could not see it progressing or not any other way.  An arbitrary change would be divisive if not disastrous.

[Kalafrana]

'You should remember that Mary II was instrumental in the instigation of the Glorious Revolution in Britain, and as Joint Sovereign with William III, constitutional Monarchy.'

The real point about Mary II as a ruler is that she never did anything! She insisted on reigning jointly with William and left everything to him.

Ann

[jehan]

'You should remember that Mary II was instrumental in the instigation of the Glorious Revolution in Britain, and as Joint Sovereign with William III, constitutional Monarchy.'

The real point about Mary II as a ruler is that she never did anything! She insisted on reigning jointly with William and left everything to him.

Ann

Just as some kings have left things to their stronger wives (Henry V1 comes to mind).

[Kalafrana]

Henry VI is the extreme case of something which was relatively unusual - not many kings allowed themselves to be ruled by their wives!

What I am saying is that it would be quite wrong to assume on the basis of the two Elizabeths (and maybe Victoria) that Queens are good and Kings bad. The proportions of good, bad and unremarkable are probably much the same, though the number of kings is far greater.

Ann

[Robert_Hall]

I quite agree, Ann.
 But still, if my math is correct, those 3 reigns take up 167 years of British history. That is a sizable chuck. I think George III is the only king to come close is such longevity in reign.

[Kalafrana]

'That is a sizable chuck. I think George III is the only king to come close is such longevity in reign.'

Henry III reigned for 56 years.

Longevity is, of course, a bit of an accident, and length of reign depends a lot on the age at which a person succeeds. Henry VI had one of the longest medieval reigns at 39 years, but no one could call him a good ruler. Henry III was no great shakes either.

Mary I and Mary II both reigned for only five years and Mary Queen of Scots' active reign (i.e. as an adult in Scotland) was no longer. Anne reigned for 13 years.

Ann

[Robert_Hall]

True, and Henry VIII for  almost 38 years.
 I had forgotten all about Henry III.
BTW, if I am correct, in 2 days, QEII macthes George III at 59 years, 96 days.