Nothing Succeeds like Sucky Seeds

[steepholm]

Why male rather than female? Why first-born rather than second-born? Why Windsor rather than Smith? Once you try to bring fairness to a system that's founded on the principle of unfairness, aren't you undermining the whole house of cards?

But also, why is it necessary for all the countries of which the queen is head of state to move in step on this issue? Why can't the UK enact this change, and let New Zealand, Canada, Australia, etc. do so or not, that being their right as independent nations? The worst that could happen is that Kate Middleton's daughter would end up as queen of the UK, while at the same time her younger brother would be king of New Zealand. Would that be such a disaster? Perhaps the New Zealanders would like to have a head of state living in Wellington rather than 12,000 miles away?

Of course, I trust that by the time any of this comes to pass the issue will have been rendered moot, and we will all be happy citizens of a world government under the enlightened rule of the Emperor Google.

Comments

[sheenaghpugh]

Once you try to bring fairness to a system that's founded on the principle of unfairness, aren't you undermining the whole house of cards?

Certainly are. Surely the next thing would have to be the repeal of the provision whereby neither a Catholic nor anyone married to one can succeed - again it had a point in its day, as did the sons rule in days when a monarch might also be a war leader, but there's none now.

How about we have a rule whereby nobody with a stupidly posh voice and no chin can succeed?

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Getting rid of the anti-Catholic provision would upset the antidisestablishmentarians (see how naturally I used that word?), as it would presumably mean that the monarch could no longer be head of the C of E. Although, being the C of E, they might just decide that being a Catholic should be no bar to being the head of it.

[tekalynn.livejournal.com]

There you go. After all, didn't Henry VIII consider himself a good Catholic, just not under the Pope?

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Indeed he did. And we've had at least one Catholic monarch since the C of E was up and running, in the person of James II.