British establishment alarmed over royal succession change

@Elbuda Mexicano - off the top of my head, I imagine this law dates back to Henry VIII, the English king who split off from the Catholic church to form the C.of E. in the 1500s, because he wanted to divorce his Spanish, RC wife, in order to marry the witch Boleyn.

I suppose it still exists purely because nobody could be bothered to change it.

It's about time all of this was changed. To have had a woman as the (symbolic) head of both the country and the Church of England for 60 years, but not allow women to serve their church as bishops, nor to see them as equal to men in the eyes of the law... well, it's beyond ridiculous.

A ridiculous situation in many ways. The idea of an established church ( I remember one critic remarking that England has an established church founded on the family values of Henry VIII ) which sees its bishops in the House of Lords is plain undemocratic, not to mention the idea of a hereditary monarch as its head. For the sake of sanity and democracy, let's just get rid of this grotesque nonsense and truly move into the 21st century.

Isn't it time to eliminate the medieval concept of monarchy anyway?

Thats cool I guess.

Isn't it time to eliminate the medieval concept of monarchy anyway?

Why? Preservation of the monarchy is written into their laws and has vast popular support. I wouldn't support a monarch in my own country but that's because the laws of my nation are kind of set up to prevent that. I say let them enjoy their culture as long as they're willing to foot the bill for it. I get to see some lovely ceremonies too.

@thequestion Many UK citizens resent paying for this - I for one. Undemocratic, outdated and representing all the time-honored snobberies which blight our country.

Open it to women, and then "commoners." Why be prejudice against any people?

Thanks Maria! I also think the UK should do away with all of this royal stuff, and as Jimizo says he is English and is also against this, so maybe in the near future the UK can change??

It raises a whole bunch of questions about "needing" a monarchy, but as far as I can see. Charles and Carey both say there should be caution without clearly identifying what their concern is. I think their goal would be to boot out the decision for another 500 years? Equality for women only really began to evolve in the last century, but both the monarchy and the church, supposed leaders (spiritually at least) of the country, are the slowest in actually coming to grips with it. Not a very good example to set in my view. As Maria sets out, much of the current "issue" is actually due to a rogue king wanting to dump his wife for a fresher model. An even worse model to be following.

I have nothing particularly against the Royal Family, but one thing really stuns me is the need to address the queen as "your majesty". Just think about those two words for a second - is any human being in the world we live in really worthy of such an address purely because they were born into that family? Seems outdated. Anyway, hope Catherine is doing well and that they have a bonny baby!

On the tourist level, we could turn the whole thing into a theme park with the Winsor's&Wales's being the main characters, getting a monthly wage.

Not far from that now with the castles and parades, etc.

Supporters will sprout "they are good value for tourism" or "better to have a monarch than an elected president".

The latter is an interesting point. If there was some apolitical head of state that could oversee government it could a lot of continuity. Sadly I can't think of anyway it would work.

Many UK citizens resent paying for this - I for one. Undemocratic, outdated and representing all the time-honored snobberies which blight our country.

According to a BBC poll conducted in 2007 78% support the continuation of the monarchy and 70% stated that they would keep the royals over a republic if put to a vote. Roughly 50% don't believe that they provide enough value for the money that they receive but that seems to be outweighed by massive overall support.

the monarchy moves into the 21st century

That is oxymoronic on so many levels, I don't know where to start.......

While it was Henry VIII's spat with the Pope that led to the establishment of the Church of England (Scotland being at the time a separate country, and not all that friendly), it was not until the 1701 Act of Succession, passed to ensure success through the protestant line when Mary II (daughter of the Catholic and pro-French James II, who had fled England during the 'Glorious Revolution) and her Dutch husband William of Orange failed to produce any heirs, that it became legally impossible for a Catholic to be monarch.

As many people have said - the system of monarchy needs to be replaced with a more democratic alternative. Its telling that Charles is concerned about his 'noble' friends and ending primogeniture. The current system is rotten and embarrassing.

We also need a constitution - one which clearly forbids discrimination of the kind documented in the article above.