royals: boys, girls - but why eldest?

[Sydney Grew]

. . . the current consensus that the move by the Royal Family to give first-born girls equal precedence to first-born boys when it comes to inheriting the throne is an obviously good idea? . . .

For the record, I am totally against this lamentable wheeze, which flies in the face of two thousand years of tradition and human experience. No good can possibly come of it.

[ahinton]

For the record, I am totally against this lamentable wheeze, which flies in the face of two thousand years of tradition and human experience. No good can possibly come of it.

It's a fairly well worn record, but why are you against it, what is "lamentable" or "wheezy" about it, where does your "two thousand years" come from, why do you imply that the status quo is fine merely because it represents "human experience" and on what grounds can "no good...possibly come of it"?

[BBMmk2]

I have always advocated the Royal Family and I think they have done a good thing here, especially the R/C church issue.

[Dave2002]

This was such an important decision that David Cameron flew all the way to Oz to talk about it. Meanwhile the economy teeters on the brink.

Nah....

Quite a few of the establishment figures have 3 or 4 children - oh - apologise - by accident. They might be critical of people in other countries not kowing how to stop, but once they get into power they think it's OK for them.

Re the global economy, am I the only one to think that the truly rich people will be laughing at the extra money being "created" for them to cream off? The economic "system" is a mess, and it's being exploited by some to the detriment of most of us. Most of us don't really understand it, and possibly neither do the better off rich people (I mean seriously rich), but they know enough about it to know how to feather their nests even more.

in the meantime, journalists and broadcasters are thriving on the meltdown scenarios which they delight in reporting daily.

[teamsaint]

Nah....

Quite a few of the establishment figures have 3 or 4 children - oh - apologise - by accident. They might be critical of people in other countries not kowing how to stop, but once they get into power they think it's OK for them.

Re the global economy, am I the only one to think that the truly rich people will be laughing at the extra money being "created" for them to cream off? The economic "system" is a mess, and it's being exploited by some to the detriment of most of us. Most of us don't really understand it, and possibly neither do the better off rich people (I mean seriously rich), but they know enough about it to know how to feather their nests even more.

in the meantime, journalists and broadcasters are thriving on the meltdown scenarios which they delight in reporting daily.

All so true. Its always other (poorer) people who are "the problem".you know, like cheap air travel... its never the expensive sort that is a problem.

The rich get daily richer and more arrogant..and they do this through good times and bad through control of the banks, land, shares and commodities.
As you suggest, they also love the meltdown scenarios....one more fear to beat up the masses with.
solve the crisis by giving up/sharing your wealth? I don't think so.

[Magnificat]

For the record, I am totally against this lamentable wheeze, which flies in the face of two thousand years of tradition and human experience. No good can possibly come of it.

Sydney Grew,

I don't think the status quo is acceptable in this day and age but what worries me is that having been successful in changing the rules about the line of succession certain parties will want to meddle with the Coronation service and Coronation Oath to try to bring it all up - to - date as they see it. This could be a real can of worms and be Disestablishment in all but name. The Prince of Wales has already talked about being Defender of Faith rather than Defender of The Faith.

Brassbansmaestro,

The ban on a member of the Royal Family being able to marry a RC if he/she wishes to keep their place in the line of succession is obviously an anachronism but I don't think the problem has been completely solved by allowing such marriages and could as I have indicated above make things considerably worse in the long run.

The Prime Minister has said that the monarch will remain the Supreme Governor of the Church of England so to a certain extent the RC issue has not been solved because RCs, if not expected these days to promise to ensure that their chilldren are brought up as RCs, are still expected to do their best to see that they are. So if they are, in effect, unable to do this because their chilldren to be monarch must be Protestant they are still being discriminated against in terms of their freedom of religious conscience.

Disestablishment would solve the problem but is generally agreed to be too difficult to be worth the trouble.

As I think Sydney Grew would agree the road to Hell is pved with good intentions.

VCC

[mangerton]

All so true. Its always other (poorer) people who are "the problem".you know, like cheap air travel... its never the expensive sort that is a problem.

The rich get daily richer and more arrogant..and they do this through good times and bad through control of the banks, land, shares and commodities.
As you suggest, they also love the meltdown scenarios....one more fear to beat up the masses with.
solve the crisis by giving up/sharing your wealth? I don't think so.

[Anna]

I think a much more difficult consideration than outdated primogeniture these days is what will happen if the first born male turns out to be gay. I mean who decides on which IVF embryo takes precedence for transplantation into the womb of the surrogate mother and will all the Realms agree?VCC

That's really silly. If the first born male of William and Kate is gay, or the first born female is lesbian, well, of course they can be crowned. Surrogates are not allowed anymore than children born out of wedlock. It will just pass on to the next in line. Which would be Harry and his children.

Also, there have been plenty of gay kings, Richard, William (I and II), Edward, James (I and II). Oh, and I think Queen Anne was one for the girls. George of Kent (fourth in line but died 1940s) was terribly bisexual and put it about like there was no tomorrow and had (it is said) a long term relationship with Noel Coward, you know, the Royal Family, are just like us

[BBMmk2]

Funnilky enough, my wife found, whilst searcxhing through the family tree, that I am a direct descended from John O'Gaunt!! Hmmmm......

[Anna]

Funnilky enough, my wife found, whilst searcxhing through the family tree, that I am a direct descended from John O'Gaunt!! Hmmmm......

Ah, John of Gaunt, serial womaniser. he fathered five children outside marriage, one early in life by a lady-in-waiting to his mother. To which side of the blanket you you belong BBM?

[BBMmk2]

The right side of the blanket, Anna!! :)

A direct descendant of him, as it happens!

[ahinton]

Ah, John of Gaunt, serial womaniser. he fathered five children outside marriage, one early in life by a lady-in-waiting to his mother. To which side of the blanket you you belong BBM?

Terrible things, them blankets, look you; even yurr in the remotest backwaters of that part of the far eastern Powys that we now call 'erefordistan, we 'ave duvets (though whether that would have been the case in John of Gaunt's time may be open to question). Anyway, I always think that the best answer to the question as to what side of the blanket someone was born is "both sides, probably - I wasn't around to check the precise details at the time"...

[BBMmk2]

Very true ahainton. Buit iunfoprtunatel;y I was born ;the right side of the blanket', (Gawed!!). Ah well, but hey we all breasthe and do things the same way!!

[Magnificat]

That's really silly. If the first born male of William and Kate is gay, or the first born female is lesbian, well, of course they can be crowned. Surrogates are not allowed anymore than children born out of wedlock. It will just pass on to the next in line. Which would be Harry and his children.

Also, there have been plenty of gay kings, Richard, William (I and II), Edward, James (I and II). Oh, and I think Queen Anne was one for the girls. George of Kent (fourth in line but died 1940s) was terribly bisexual and put it about like there was no tomorrow and had (it is said) a long term relationship with Noel Coward, you know, the Royal Family, are just like us

Anna,

Yes I know a gay or lesbian heir can be crowned but consider:

What will be the situation when gays and lesbians are allowed to marry as they no doubt will be by then.

Will any children of the King by surrogate, or of the Queen by artificial insemination be considered to be born out of wedlock? And as I said above, what about IVF in these circumstances when deciding which embryo to implant ( i.e. which one comes first in line for this if several are produced and you know the sex of all of them - perhaps they'll just toss a coin to decide it? )

You can bet your life the equality laws will be used so as to treat these children the same as those born normally to a heterosexual married couple. There is likely to be a whole can of worms opening up around the succession in these circumstances. Thankfully, our dear old Queen won't be around to see it.

VCC

[ahinton]

Anna,

Yes I know a gay or lesbian heir can be crowned but consider:

What will be the situation when gays and lesbians are allowed to marry as they no doubt will be by then.

Will any children of the King by surrogate, or of the Queen by artificial insemination be considered to be born out of wedlock? And as I said above, what about IVF in these circumstances when deciding which embryo to implant ( i.e. which one comes first in line for this if several are produced and you know the sex of all of them - perhaps they'll just toss a coin to decide it? )

You can bet your life the equality laws will be used so as to treat these children the same as those born normally to a heterosexual married couple. There is likely to be a whole can of worms opening up around the succession in these circumstances. Thankfully, our dear old Queen won't be around to see it.

I wouldn't bet on that! (that she "won't be around to see it", that is)