|current | archives | profile | notes | guestbook | photos | rings | contact | host|
Let Wills' daughter be Queen
25 April 2011 ~ 13:50On Friday 29th April 2011, Kate Middleton will marry Prince William at Westminster Abbey, watched by an expected global audience of up to one billion.
Much has been said about the wedding but it is what comes after that concerns me, namely the producing of the obligatory 'heir and a spare.' (Prince Charles & Princess Diana produced William as the heir and his brother Prince Harry as the 'spare.')
As the law stands now, there is a rule of primogeniture, which basically means that a male heir takes precidence over a female heir, even if the female is older.
Obviously these days many people, myself included, consider this law totally sexist, so some Member of Parliament have talked about changing the law, which would have to be done by an Act of Parliament since it concerns the Succession.
Prime Minister David Cameron has also talked about changing the law, but many think the time frame is too short, since all the Commonwealth countries, 16 of them—who have the Queen as Head of State—need to be consulted. Yet a baby could be born to the royal couple within a year.
However, if Wills & Kate are craftly, they can effectively stick two fingers up at the old law. Either they can wait to start a family until such time as the law is changed, or they can go ahead and have a child. If the child is a boy, it will make no difference what other children they have, since none can supercede that boy as heir to the throne and future king. If, however, the first born is a baby girl, they could simply refuse to have any other children, for fear of a younger brother snatching away the tiny future queen's birth right.
I think I would feel that strongly for my first child if I were them. It would simply not be right to let a younger sibling be put ahead in order of succession. But let us hope the law is changed so it doesn't come to that.