Archbishop of Wales Barry Morgan has given his support to a growing move to give royal daughters equal rights to succeed to the throne as their brothers.
Dr Morgan is the latest senior UK figure to call for the rule, which stops the eldest daughter of a monarch from inheriting the British throne if she has a younger brother, to be scrapped.
The Anglican leader considers it absurd the present Queen would never have been crowned if she had a brother.
No time for that gospel thing – it is difficult enough as it is for clergy to find new, irrelevant social issues on which to opine.
🙄
I would like to have an answer to this: If the law were changed, would succesion continue down the new Queen’s line even if her younger brother had a son who was older than the new Queen’s eldest child (a daughter).
One of the advantages of having single-sex succession rules is that it narrows the possibilities in each generation. Lacking an abdication, it is possible to predict with near certainty, the Monarchs for generations to come. Otherwise, we return to an age of rival claimants to the Throne.
While the CofE is being innovative, perhaps if the successoress (new word fpr the OED) could be a priest and a married lesbian, Britain could kill all its birds with one stone. Tired has it right, in my opinion. L
Who cares?
This is quite simple to resolve equitably: get rid of the monarchy.
I am an American so my opinion on this matter is less than irrelevant. Even so I have a couple of comments:
1. This proposal would bother me a lot less if it didn’t exhibit the DNA of radical egalitarianism. How long before the King will be allowed to take a homosexual man as a partner? Talk about a constitutional crisis. (Note my self discipline in avoiding the obvious pun.)
2. Since the King is a titular figurehead devoid of real power, why does any of this matter? One powerless monarch is pretty much like any other powerless monarch. I do not understand why a succession crisis would matter. The real power in Britain is in Parliament and (increasingly) Europe.
3. The present form of the British Monarch presents some spiritual difficulties. We learn by analog, and if our analog of God as King is the British Monarch, then we have a real problem. God is not a titular ruler subject to a parliament. He is a sovereign and He rules without regard to the desires of his creation. Better to have no analog than a bad analog.
carl
Carl, apparently you are not familiar with Edward II.
4. David Keller, “Who cares?”
Our host who posted the article for one.
I for two.
The other commentors here.
Many of the citizens of the countries of which HM is Queen.
Amongst others.
But you knew that, didn’t you?
Whatever the Archbisop will say ….. I will disagree with.
I think tradition is important for it connects us with the past. However, this argument comes up everytime there is talk of an heir to the throne.
Enough with tradition. I will be relieved when the ABC finally boosts an hedgehog to the throne. Stop the hate.
English monarchy. Irrelevant.
I do wish the Queen would renounce the title “Defender of the Faith”. She has defended nothing.
Leave the monarchy alone. It’s about the only symbol of national identity left to the British people, and a fine one at that.
Thank you, evan. I’m rather astounded by the hateful comments. The queen has more of a sense of duty, honor, and grace in her little finger than any of our people in Washington so it’s really quite rich when Americans, in particular, cast stones at the monarchy.
As for succession, it used to be that each monarch individually named his or her own successor. (Poor Lady Jane Gray.) So, historically speaking, I really don’t get the hullabaloo over this. Gloriana proved centuries ago that a woman could ably rule in her own right.
off2 at 8: Hear, hear. Thus far anyway, I am a committed republican (note the lower case “r”), but I care for two reasons: 1) I think Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn may have gotten it right on the issue of democarcy vs. monarchy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_von_Kuehnelt-Leddihn ); and 2) as a flaming anti-feminist I think we ought to endeavor to cut the legs out from under feminism whenever and wherever it manifests itself. The Archbishop of Wales should go hang.
I’m with you, Caedmon. Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn had it right.
Religion aside, I think what makes monarchy fascinating is its quaint customs and historic mechanisms. So much of tourism is built on the mystique of the timelessness of the institution.
Caedmon,
Queens ruled ably long before the word “feminism” even existed. So why shouldn’t it go to the firstborn, regardless of gender? This isn’t a “feminist” issue — it’s a common sensical one.
Teatime2 at 18. True enough, queens ruled ably long before the word “feminism” even existed. But now that feminism exists, due caution must be taken to ensure that feminism doesn’t wreck yet another traditional institution.
And I am with evan too. I am not in love with monarchy in and of itself. But in England, the institution and the country’s identity are so tightly interrelated, that destroying the former would leave the latter anchorless in a sea of anomie. I find the Queen admirable, nor is she powerless. Far from it. But her power lies in other spheres than legislation, the judiciary, and the executive. Larry
Canon King (#2): A change in the order of succession would require legislation by the parliaments of the UK and of the various Commonwealth Realms (e.g. Canada, New Zealand, Australia, etc.). Exactly how it would work would depend on what that legislation said.
While in theory this proposed change sounds fine to me (actually, as a U.S. American, it’s really none of my business), it’s a little unsettling to think that if this change had been made 100 years ago, the Kaiser would have become king of the U.K.
Re # 2
Canon King,
Yes. The new law would not alter the principal of succession based on primogeniture. It would simply make the succession gender neutral, i.e. first born child irrespective of sex.
Re # 8
Godfather,
Well said.
In ICXC
John
This is all very interesting. It isn’t evident that anyone commenting so far understands that in Commonwealth lands, mineral rights belong to the Crown. This has significance for the economic underpinnings of at least 16 nations (the Commonwealth, mainly English-speaking) as well as for their societies, which are organized in part through efforts to maintain control of the disposition of these resources by the more civilized groups in those societies.