Girls equal in British throne succession

[dipsydoodle]

Source: BBC News

Sons and daughters of any future UK monarch will have equal right to the throne, after Commonwealth leaders agreed to change succession laws.

The leaders of the 16 Commonwealth countries where the Queen is head of state unanimously approved the changes at a summit in Perth, Australia.

It means a first-born daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will take precedence over younger brothers.

The ban on the monarch being married to a Roman Catholic was also lifted.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15492607

[Serve The Servants]

1. Well, congratulations on the upward mobility of Royalty

:puke:

[No Elephants]

7. Okay, this is the only post on this thread I've read. But, I'm guessing it's the thread winner.

Now, to read the other posts.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. Daaaaaaaaamn

That was glorious.

[sarge43]

2. Excellent and about time

Perhaps another redhead named Elizabeth?

[DCKit]

3. Geez, that'd be a hoot. nt

[sarge43]

5. Mega-hoot

Queen Elizabeth Diane

[Darth_Kitten]

12. The Act of Settlement discriminated against catholics...not girls per se.

So, they are to be congratulated for now not discriminating against anyone?

[Gman]

4. Henry VIII rolls over in his grave

[No Elephants]

9. The serial killer? Who gives a crap?

[Darth_Kitten]

14. exactly....

man was a butcher.

[meow2u3]

22. St. Thomas More finally got his victory over Henry the Ape

400 years later and change.

[Darth_Kitten]

69. St. Thomas actually believed in his daughters.

:D

[no_hypocrisy]

6. I think that Victoria, Elizabeths I and II would concur.

[Javaman]

8. Well, jeez, I know I can sleep well tonight.

:eyes:

While I applaud the move by the royals, I still find monarchies to be completely stupid and worthless.

[14thColony]

15. At the risk of being pedantic

The royals had no official say in the matter. It was the decision of the heads of government of the 16 Commonwealth nations. The Queen took no official position one way or another, and although there are hints she supported it, even if she secretly hates the idea it's still the new law.

[Javaman]

18. Okay, correction...

while I applaud the move by Parliament, I still find monarchies stupid and worthless.

[14thColony]

21. And I forgot to mention

that I totally agree with you on that one.

[PotatoChip]

68. I kind of like it actually.

With the HUGE caveat that modern day royals have symbolic power only as the UK does it now. As long as the Brits, Canadians, Australians et all are ok w/it, then so am I.

What I like is the tradition. And it's kind of interesting from a historic perspective to be able to follow the lign of succession so far back. Very few families (especially here in America) can trace their ancestry for that many years. Yes, I realize that the Windsors (not even their real surname!) have a weak, very tenuous (at best)descendency from William The Conquerer yet it's still interesting to follow imho.

[iandhr]

23. maybe your right...

... but the monarchy is worth bring a S*** load of money for the tourism industry in the UK

[No Elephants]

10. Too bad they didn't use the occasion to separate the crown from the Church of England.

I hope Catholics and members of other religions remember Cameron's remarks if that Conservative so and so runs again.

[Darth_Kitten]

11. Well....

big whoop.

Will Duke Franz of Bavaria be King now? As it goes, there are literally thousands of people who have more right to the throne than the Windsors.

300 years of discrimination, and we are supposed to be happy the first-born of this boring, work-shy couple is going to be monarch? Ewh.

[DemOhio]

32. Restore

The House of Stuart to the throne.

Remember Mary Stuart and Charles I

[Darth_Kitten]

65. Well, in a way, yes.....

IF they want to keep the monarchy and correct who should be on the throne, then the descendants of Charles I over the descendants of one of his sister's kids.

I like QE2, but really, her kids and grandkids are nothing to crow about. ;)

[lunatica]

13. I wonder what Queen Elizabeth II thinks about this?

LOL!

[dipsydoodle]

17. She didn't have any brothers

.

[antigone382]

27. Well, she did, but he died when he was twelve.

Had an older sister, too...

(I'm kind of a geek about royal drama during the Tudor period...it's pretty fascinating stuff.)

[MrsMatt]

34. Elizabeth II had no brothers

You must have been referring to Elizabeth I

[antigone382]

35. Oops...yes I was.

Dang those "I's"...I let my geekiness get the better of my accuracy. :blush:

[MrsMatt]

36. We Anglophile royalty geeks

have to watch each other's backs!

[dipsydoodle]

39. I could see what was coming as soon you said older sister.

By coincidence the son of one the girls I go dancing with played Prince Edward in our TV series The Tudors.

[mopinko]

16. i applaud this move to equality. celebrate victories when you get them.

it is a small step for womankind, and it makes the world a teeeeeenie tiny bit better. enjoy it.

[valerief]

19. Whew, and I was sooooo worried about those damn royals. nt

[adam in oregon]

20. someday

Maybe some day those countries will wise up and vote themselves out from under kings and queens altogether. Why do people still buy in to the joke of people being above them because they popped out of the right womb? I will never understand that. Guess I'm too American.

[Arugula Latte]

54. We're so much better here in America. We're just enslaved to corporations, not monarchy.

:D

[AllyCat]

24. Well, at least the wealthy can have gender and religious equality

Wonder how long it will be before any of the rest of us get it?

[LynneSin]

25. If you think of it some of the best and longest serving Monarchs in England were Queen

Queen Elizabeth I served 1558–1603 (45 years)
Queen Victoria served 1876-1901 (25 years)
Queen Elizabeth II served 1952-Present (almost 60 years)

It's crazy to think it has to be a man to run the country. Women have done just fine as Queens

[Pab Sungenis]

28. Victoria reigned a lot longer than that.

Victoria reigned from 1837 (she had just turned 18) until 1901, 64 years.

[LynneSin]

30. I think I typo'd there

thank you!

[GreenPartyVoter]

46. Not to rain on the parade here, but I suspect the Irish (and others) would have a quibble

about how "best" Elizabeth I and Victoria were. There was some major colonizing going on under them and a lot of suffering by native folk. (And then there's the whole Catholic thing.)

Unless you meant "best" but not in the whole "doing well by all people in general" sense, in which case I apologize. They did as well as any man. :hi:

[Darth_Kitten]

66. The whole Act of Settlement was entirely about discrimination against Catholics...

again, it was nothing against women, per se.

Now the media is playing this as some win-win for women. In a way, yes, but they seem to forget about the 300 years of religious discrimination.

And what is a little ironic, is that the King whose death prompted this Act, who though an ardent Catholic, was actually tolerant of all faiths, and once made a speech regarding racial tolerance, which would have been amazingly considering the times. But, that was a different era, and history is written by the "victors", isn't it?

[denverbill]

26. Great! Now work on the hereditary part of this entitlement program.

Merit based appointment or elections would open this up to everyone.

[No Elephants]

48. If it becomes elective, there would hardly be a point to having a monarchy at all.

Besides, I think all the good stuff--palaces, crown jewels, artworks, all that lovely dinnerware, the coaches, etc. belong to the Windors.

[nolabear]

29. Good! Every step toward equality is a step toward equality.

Women make excellent leaders and I'm happy that a barrier to the comprehension of that, however symbolic, has been lifted.

[Posteritatis]

52. Yep. Every step, without exceptions. (nt)

[Roland99]

31. so...how does this affect anything other than the lead item on Entertainment Tonight?

[No Elephants]

49. Ask Princess Anne.

[Capt. America]

33. Hail Brittania!

[valerief]

37. And what happens to the friggin royals matters, because why?

Nothing they do filters down to the real world.

[dipsydoodle]

38. They're good value @ c. $1 / year

for each of us in the UK. What have you got for a dollar ?

[valerief]

43. They're a bore and a drain. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

56. How are they a drain for you? Yr an American, aren't you?

Hell, I can think of a long list of Americans who are far more boring than the Queen...

[valerief]

57. I can, too. Lots who drain the 99% around the world. nt

[Mojeoux]

40. And NOW if the Catholic Church allowed women to be priests............nt

[AtheistCrusader]

45. Why bother. Oh boy, let's update bronze age superstition. For why?

Scrap it.

[No Elephants]

51. Because scrapping it is not going to happen any time soon and there are women

who actually care if they get to be priests or not.

And because all discrimination hurts all of us, whether we realize it or not.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. Doesn't hurt me.

Helps me illustrate, in practical terms, exactly what is wrong with such superstitious nonsense.

[Arugula Latte]

55. Women should stop putting their butts in the pews of that institution.

It's like "move your money" but maybe it should be "move your faith and put it into reason instead."

[LanternWaste]

58. I imagine one person's oppresion is another person's help...

I imagine one person's oppresion is another person's help... :shrug:

Be nice if the oppresion of women was soley the fault of one philosophy, one religion or one econocmic system. Unfortunately, it seems to be systemic in world history, regardless of religion, philosphy, economics, or politics.

[Deep13]

41. Meaningless and costly medeival relic is no longer misogynistic.

A better move would have been to abolish the monarchy altogether.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

42. lol.

[struggle4progress]

47. This really is a major step forward for the rights of every single woman in the world,

who might by some happenstance one day become the eldest surviving offspring of a British monarch!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Darth_Kitten]

67. Tell that to every other monarchy who have been doing this for years.

n/t

[ProfessorGAC]

50. After Victoria and Elizabeth. . .

. . .does this really matter. I know it has to do with still having a male heir, but it's not like the British aren't used to having a queen instead of a king. Geez, they've had one about 100 of the last 150 years or so.

Seems like an empty gesture to me.
GAC

[Rosa Luxemburg]

59. Maybe it is about time that they got rid of the monarchy?

[Zyzfyx]

60. Big Freakin' Deal!

That's what Revolutions are for.

[BuddhaGirl]

61. British out of Ireland!!!

Ireland for the Irish!!

[dipsydoodle]

64. I would doubt that at present

The Republic could afford to absorb NI given their current economic status and think they'd rather leave that issue on the back burner for the time being.

[Rowdyboy]

62. I hope they have a girl and name her Princess Tammie Lynette Windsor....

or maybe Royal Spice Windsor...or maybe Cher Madonna Windsor.

Break new ground-don't recycle Elizabeth, Mary, Anne or Victoria.

[defendandprotect]

63. Took them long enough -- !!! Good News!!