Trav Le Bleu Posted 27 March 2009 Posted 27 March 2009 King or Queen - who cares!? Gordon Brown and Buckingham Palace have discussed plans to scrap the ban on heirs to the throne marrying Roman Catholics and to give royal daughters an equal claim to the throne, a Downing Street source has said. The Prime Minister was said to be ready to raise reforms to the 1701 Act of Settlement with Commonwealth heads of government at a meeting in November. The issue will be raised in the Commons when MPs debate legislation introduced by a Liberal Democrat MP to end the "uniquely discriminatory" rules. Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris has cross-party support for his proposals but looks unlikely to win ministerial support at this stage as the Government grapples with what it said would be a "complex undertaking". The Act states that heirs to the throne lose their right to be the sovereign if they marry a Catholic or convert - forcing royal brides over the years to leave the faith to protect their husband's birthright. The wife of Peter Phillips, the Queen's grandson, did just this before their wedding last year so that he remained 11th in line to the throne. His claim could be made stronger still if action to end the practice of male heirs taking precedence was made retrospective as his mother, the Princess Royal, would leapfrog her two younger brothers. She would become fourth in line, behind Prince Harry, instead of coming after the Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex and their children. Dr Harris' Royal Marriages and Succession to the Crown (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill is co-sponsored by Catholic parliamentarians such as Tory MP Edward Leigh, Labour's Andrew Mackinlay and John Grogan and fellow Liberal Democrat John Pugh. Asked if it would back the backbench legislation, a Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said: "To bring about changes to the law on succession would be a complex undertaking involving amendment or repeal of a number of items of related legislation, as well as requiring the consent of legislatures of member nations of the Commonwealth. We are examining this complex area although there are no immediate plans to legislate." So... succession is sexist? If it is, then surely it's ageist, since the "oldest" succeeds. And finally, I'd just like to add, it's racist! When was the last time we had a black king!?
Dr The Singh Posted 27 March 2009 Posted 27 March 2009 King or Queen - who cares!?Gordon Brown and Buckingham Palace have discussed plans to scrap the ban on heirs to the throne marrying Roman Catholics and to give royal daughters an equal claim to the throne, a Downing Street source has said. The Prime Minister was said to be ready to raise reforms to the 1701 Act of Settlement with Commonwealth heads of government at a meeting in November. The issue will be raised in the Commons when MPs debate legislation introduced by a Liberal Democrat MP to end the "uniquely discriminatory" rules. Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris has cross-party support for his proposals but looks unlikely to win ministerial support at this stage as the Government grapples with what it said would be a "complex undertaking". The Act states that heirs to the throne lose their right to be the sovereign if they marry a Catholic or convert - forcing royal brides over the years to leave the faith to protect their husband's birthright. The wife of Peter Phillips, the Queen's grandson, did just this before their wedding last year so that he remained 11th in line to the throne. His claim could be made stronger still if action to end the practice of male heirs taking precedence was made retrospective as his mother, the Princess Royal, would leapfrog her two younger brothers. She would become fourth in line, behind Prince Harry, instead of coming after the Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex and their children. Dr Harris' Royal Marriages and Succession to the Crown (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill is co-sponsored by Catholic parliamentarians such as Tory MP Edward Leigh, Labour's Andrew Mackinlay and John Grogan and fellow Liberal Democrat John Pugh. Asked if it would back the backbench legislation, a Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said: "To bring about changes to the law on succession would be a complex undertaking involving amendment or repeal of a number of items of related legislation, as well as requiring the consent of legislatures of member nations of the Commonwealth. We are examining this complex area although there are no immediate plans to legislate." So... succession is sexist? If it is, then surely it's ageist, since the "oldest" succeeds. And finally, I'd just like to add, it's racist! When was the last time we had a black king!? Ledley King???
Monk Posted 27 March 2009 Posted 27 March 2009 And finally, I'd just like to add, it's racist! When was the last time we had a black king!? Marlon and Ledley for a start
Trav Le Bleu Posted 27 March 2009 Author Posted 27 March 2009 I know... given enough time Diana would have gotten around to correcting this injustice.
Zingari Posted 27 March 2009 Posted 27 March 2009 iberal Democrat MP Evan Harris has cross-party support for his proposals but looks unlikely to win ministerial support at this stage as the Government grapples with what it said would be a "complex undertaking". how the fook is it complicated ? eldest child gets the big crown , boy or girl , what's fookin complicated about that ? these twats try to complicate everything
Dr The Singh Posted 27 March 2009 Posted 27 March 2009 I know... given enough time Diana would have gotten around to correcting this injustice. So would have jade!!
Trav Le Bleu Posted 27 March 2009 Author Posted 27 March 2009 iberal Democrat MP Evan Harris has cross-party support for his proposals but looks unlikely to win ministerial support at this stage as the Government grapples with what it said would be a "complex undertaking". how the fook is it complicated ? eldest child gets the big crown , boy or girl , what's fookin complicated about that ? these twats try to complicate everything Because that's ageist! You don't listen Zin and now you have to pay the price!
James. Posted 27 March 2009 Posted 27 March 2009 these twats try to complicate everything It's all that over-education Zingari.
Zingari Posted 27 March 2009 Posted 27 March 2009 It's all that over-education Zingari. i'm glad you've seen it for yourself in action now
Zingari Posted 27 March 2009 Posted 27 March 2009 Because that's ageist!You don't listen Zin and now you have to pay the price! i never listen and i got not money
davieG Posted 27 March 2009 Posted 27 March 2009 iberal Democrat MP Evan Harris has cross-party support for his proposals but looks unlikely to win ministerial support at this stage as the Government grapples with what it said would be a "complex undertaking". how the fook is it complicated ? eldest child gets the big crown , boy or girl , what's fookin complicated about that ? these twats try to complicate everything Because they don't want a Catholic on the throne yet they don't want to prevent them marrying a Catholic. It's all a diversionary tactic anyway, by the time they've gone through Charles and William it could be another 40 years or more before it becomes relevant. Even if William kops it Harry would be next in line.
Zingari Posted 27 March 2009 Posted 27 March 2009 Because they don't want a Catholic on the throne yet they don't want to prevent them marrying a Catholic.It's all a diversionary tactic anyway, by the time they've gone through Charles and William it could be another 40 years or more before it becomes relevant. Even if William kops it Harry would be next in line. i can see how the religious side of it might be a bit complex ( however ridiculous ), but how is just changing the the right for a female ( if she is first born ) to be considered as 1st in line to the throne so difficult ? we have supposed to have had equal rights in employment for many years now , surely it cannot be any harder to implement a simple right of successsion for anyone whatever sex i cannot how the two proposals are in any way connected
Webbo Posted 27 March 2009 Posted 27 March 2009 The thing is the Queen isn't just the Queen of this country. It wouldn't be fair to change the line of succession/catholic marriage law without consulting the other countries first.
Zingari Posted 27 March 2009 Posted 27 March 2009 The thing is the Queen isn't just the Queen of this country. It wouldn't be fair to change the line of succession/catholic marriage law without consulting the other countries first. they should do as they're bloody well told
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.