Report: Britain seeks to abolish male royal succession law

LONDON — The British government is seeking to abolish an 18th century royal succession law that requires the daughter of a monarch to make way for her younger brother, a Sunday newspaper reported.

Solicitor General Vera Baird was quoted by The Sunday Times as saying the 1701 law giving male heirs the right to succeed to the throne ahead of any older sisters was unfair and "a load of rubbish."

Officials at the solicitor-general's office were not immediately available Sunday for further comment.

The government is expected to use new equality legislation to guarantee women's succession rights, the Times report said.

Queen Elizabeth II succeeded to the throne only because she had no brothers.

When the queen's daughter, Princess Anne, was born, she was third in line to the throne, behind her mother _ then Princess Elizabeth _ and her brother Prince Charles.

As her brothers Andrew and Edward were born, Anne dropped down the line of succession, where she is currently 10th.

Opposition Liberal Democrat equalities spokeswoman Lynne Featherstone agrees the rule should be "confined to the dustbin of history."

"This is the perfect time to do this when there is no one who will be affected," Featherstone was quoted as saying by the newspaper

The report says Baird also wants to repeal the law banning the heir to the throne from marrying a Catholic.

Comments

[uglicoyote]

We fought a revolution and get rid of monarchy. Who gives a rats butt? The British "royals" are a bunch of inbred loonies who leach on the productive members of society. Americans who fall all over themselves for "the royals" never cease to amaze me.

[petecook5]

OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!

[kellygrrrl]

let them eat cupcakes

[Horst]

The UK has become a joke. A once powerful world power is now reduced to a country afflicted with Diana Bereavement Syndrome, a ridiculous royal family and permanently disgrunteled Muslims.

[majormoderate]

why not drop the whole monarchy anyway.. how many tax dollars are WASTED on those "royals"? i'd be pretty upset if i were low -middle class struggling in the UK and heard of the "prince" taking chinook rides to bachelor parties that cost the taxpayers $20k

[marzipan]

And you should have a say in the abolition of the monarchy, why? The last time I checked eighty-five percent of the British people supported the monarchy. For you to make such a statement is as presumptuous, arrogant and inappropriate as if a Brit were to say that the US Constitution should be amended.

[gevan]

Let's just ask the Stuart pretender if London is worth giving up a mass for.

[Hopalongpoppyseed]

I would prefer a real Anglo Saxon, perhaps somebody from the line of Penda of Mercia, or the house of Wessex. A pagan would be nice too.

[Halfwit]

I hope the laws are changed. It would be nice to know that the firstborn always ascends.
I don't understand why it makes any difference about the catholic thing. No matter what, the spouse of the Monarch would need to convert to the Anglican church. The Monarch is the head of the Church of England. The Monarch's children will one day be the head of the church. They cannot logically be raised in a mixed religion household.

[newshawk14]

I don't really give a rat's dropping, but nonetheless, I think it would be worth revoking the idea of
male primogeniture. Time to move on to the 21th century. Next let's have a go at Papal infallibility.

[RHCNYC]

Whoah...
I thought I accidentally hit a Time Machine button and ended up reading a blog from the past.
Then I realized there was no series of tubes back in those days. *snicker

[the964kid]

Screw these 'royals' - this is america - didn't we fight a revolution to get away from this stuff?! This isn't news. Call me when the Brits get tired of paying taxes just so one family can live the high life. Til then the 'royals' can all 'piss-off.'

[MizJ]

What in God's name do they need a monarchy for? Talk about your "welfare queens"! And while they are living off the public trough they are expected to bow and curtsy in their presence. Sheeesh!

[whatfreshhellisthis]

What do they need a monarchy for? Probably because tourism is one of the UK's main sources of income, and tourists are avid fans of the royal family. Tourists buy scads of plates, dish towels, figurines, and other useless stuff adorned with likenesses of the Windsors. Hey, if the Bush family brought lots of tourist money into this country, I'd like them better.

[Meah]

They have their own private wealth, believe me.

[kellygrrrl]

If those Windsors would like to modernize their image
then Charles should abdicate and give it directly to Wm.

Harry would be the Hottest King in recent history, but no need to bypass Wm.

If Diana had had a daughter, I'm sure she would have made a feisty Queen

[JohnJames]

Who gives a F#ck.

[ipitombi]

You're kidding !!! You mean a woman cannot become president of Buckingham Palace. What's with the welfare queen that's been waving at her dumb-ass subjects all these years?

[shengirl]

Go back and re-read. A woman certainly can take the throne. Geesh... they just want to change the laws so a female does not have to shuffle to the back of the line behind all her male siblings, etc.

[repearwo]

From the list of great Monarchs of England and elsewhere, females have been just as great as males and often just as horrid. For my Money Elizabeth I was probably the greatest Monarch ever. Strong and Savy. Had it not been for her reign the US probably would not exist to day.

[Mum]

A very astute observation. It's is unfortunate that Mr. Maceo doesn't have your grasp of the evolution of government which resulted in our constitutional republic. Perhaps he should become acquainted with the Magna Carta!

[AntonioMaceo]

Ok whatever, don't cheapen the great patriots of my country to promote your feminist agenda. The US exists today because of the blood, sweat, and tears of American Citizens. Was your queen with Washington at Valley Forge? no. Was your queen with the 54th Massachusetts at Fort Wagner? no. If you want to pledge you allegiance to a man, woman, flying spaghetti monster, whatever, go for it but leave my country out of it ktks.

[JhNyc]

I'm sure you think you made some sense with that comment. You didn't.

[todayslies]

Not to mention that the defeat of the Spanish Armada under Elizabeth likely slowed and muted the expansion of the Spanish Empire into North America.

[Meah]

AntonioMaceo, you are an idiot!

[Anastasia]

I think he means it wouldn't exist, because it wouldn't have been colonized.

[PeterTheChanter]

what an ahistorical idiot you are.

[shengirl]

Moron, under Eliz. I the English began colonization of the New World. Virginia, where the first permanent English settlement and the oldest continuous legislative body in the New World began, was named for her. It takes away nothing from anybody at Valley Forge or any other critical time in US history, to give Eliz. I her due. On the whole, she was an enlightened and humane monarch. She had her faults, yes, but she was better than most back in those days.

[uglicoyote]

The continuous flow of history and the connections therein are beyond the fathom of most people. For many in this country, history begins when they are born and ends yesterday. I don't give a damn about the royals and see them as pointless, inbred leeches, but you are correct to point out the historical connection to Elizabeth I and others. If the Brits want to continue to pretend that the Royals matter, I suppose that they are entitled to their delusions, but why should this be something that American's worry about.?

[Americanium]

It doesn't go far enough!!

Ban the Monarchy!!!!!!!!!

[JuneCleaversBeaver]

Which would be a decision for the British, and not an American, to make.

Support for retaining the monarchy in Britain is currently at about 87%.

[robotfog]

the British will do whatever dictator bush tells them to do.

[Annette]

Blair, yes he would. The Brits as a group hate Bushie. We have been travelling in England for 6 weeks. We have not met a Brit who has anything good to say about our idiot in the Whitehouse. We had the opportunity to get rid of Bushie and didn't.

[rektruax]

?!

[MaracaKabob]

How about make it fair for all people and have the King and Queen elected by the people. Like we do here in the United States on prom night.

[Keakealani]

Well, good for them. This is a good time because it really wouldn't cause immediate succession problems and male primogeniture is arcane and obsolete. It would be a big leap for women's rights if more existing monarchies did treat women equally as far as succession goes.

[GunneraGirl]

Yeah, right! Monarchy on the cutting edge of women's rights!

[Infostream]

It is mind boggling people still put up with this dark ages relic of stupidity and then try to discuss how to make it more fair! A step forward for "women's rights"!? HILARIOUS! THE WHOLE INSTITUTION IS OBSOLETE - JEEZ! It's like the people of England have agreed to pay with their taxes to stage a ridiculously expensive and boring reality show / soap opera that never ends.

[JuneCleaversBeaver]

And how many female Presidents of the United States have there been?

Just since the 1800s Monarchies have been led by Victoria and Elizabeth II in the UK, Charlotte in Luxembourg, Wilhelmina, Juliana and Beatrix in the Netherlands and Margrethe II in Denmark.

Seems as if those monarchies are doing a much better job than are we.