Succession Laws to Give Equal Rights to Royal Women
At a meeting of the British Commonwealth in Perth, Australia, all 16 countries that claim Queen Elizabeth II as head of state unanimously voted today to change the rules of succession.
British Prime Minister David Cameron said the constitutional changes to remove gender discrimination had been agreed upon by the Commonwealth nations.
The current rules discriminate against females, and prevent future monarchs marrying Catholics.
Individual parliaments must now pass appropriate legislation. Cameron plans to pass the law in the United Kingdom before the next general election.
The change means that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge Prince William and Kate Middleton’s first child will be the monarch, regardless of gender.
Carolyn Harris, a teaching fellow and royal historian at Queen’s University in Ontario, Canada, said today’s move was a culmination of years of discussion of succession change. “It brings the British monarchy into line with other European monarchies,” she said.
Harris told ABC News this morning that the Swedish Parliament had made the change to oldest child in 1980 in the interest of gender equality despite the king’s protest. The Netherlands followed suit in 1983, Norway in 1990, Belgium in 1991 and in 2009 came Denmark.
She said Spain has been discussing a change to its succession laws but had decided it wasn’t an urgent matter because the king and queen have two daughters. In Japan, where the crown prince and princess have a daughter, Harris said, parliament had discussed succession laws but it was met with great concerns about changing tradition
In Saudi Arabia, however, where the role of king is passed from brother to brother, Harris said there was no possibility of women succeeding the throne. And although Thailand’s princess was more popular than her brother, the crown prince, Harris said that had not led to succession reform.
The new succession rules for the British Commonwealth nations reflect modern ideas about gender equality, Harris said, and the recognition that women who became queen in the British monarch had held long and successful reigns.
“A lot of those queens that England has had have become iconic figures,” she said. “The current queen is very popular as well. There’s quite a positive association with female rulers in the United Kingdom.”
ABC News’ Enjoli Francis contributed to this story.
Email



RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Now, if this were Saudi Arabia the article were talking about, that would really be NEWS!!!
Posted by: EJW | October 28, 2011, 7:46 am 7:46 am
Oh… I thought they were going to finally and officially bypass Charles.
Posted by: glacia | October 28, 2011, 1:18 pm 1:18 pm
“A lot of those queens that England has had have become iconic figures” – That’s putting it a bit too mildly. Ant Brit with any knowledge of history regards El;zabeth I as the greatest monarch we have ever had. Her speech at Tilbury in 1588 is quite probably the most inspiring ever made, every time I hear it I want to rush out and wage war on Spain. “I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm; to which rather than any dishonour shall grow by me, I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field.”
Posted by: JOE HILL | October 28, 2011, 1:21 pm 1:21 pm
Doesn’t this mean that Ann now becomes first in line to the throne? Isn’t she the oldest ‘living’ child of the reigning monarch?
Posted by: newtonianlass | October 28, 2011, 1:30 pm 1:30 pm
YAY—little victories every day!
Posted by: Island Gurrrrrrl | October 28, 2011, 1:32 pm 1:32 pm
@ Joe Hill – no, Anne is younger than Charles by two years.
I’m sure this leaves Americans who fervently believe that the Queen is just a figurehead scratching their own heads in wonderment. Yes, it does take the agreement of the full Commonwealth because the monarch is the actual Head of State of all member countries. Due to the fact that the Head of State and Head of Government in the U.S. are the same person (the President) they don’t seem able to grasp the separation of functions. The rest of the world’s democracies don’t necessarily follow the American model.
Posted by: Watcher | October 28, 2011, 1:41 pm 1:41 pm
NEWTONIANLASS: Charles was born before Anne. This doesn’t affect any current members of the Royal Family but may make a difference in the future, if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s first born is a girl for instance.
Posted by: JOE HILL | October 28, 2011, 1:42 pm 1:42 pm
WATCHER: The posters name appears under the post. So the post you are responding to was from NEWTONIANLASS and not me. Mine was the one above.
Posted by: JOE HILL | October 28, 2011, 1:44 pm 1:44 pm
The politicians like female monarchs because they are easier to house train. Of the four, reigning female monarchs, only Elizabeth I had a spine. Anne, Victoria, and Elizabeth II are like trained show dogs. They perform as the politicians command.
We are still a patriarchal world. Without an electoral mandate, monarch rely on the impression they give the public. A popular, politically astute, intelligent monarch male monarch can cause politicians a great deal of trouble as compared to a female one given how society is.
Think on this, if a PM wants to go to another unpopular war like Iraq, and William (as King says no), what is the PM to do? A king just has more gravitas with the people on serious matters than a queen. It’s just how society. And politicians know this.
Posted by: Alex | October 28, 2011, 1:45 pm 1:45 pm
ALEX: None of the Royal Family EVER comment on political matters. Whatever their gender. That isn’t their function.
Posted by: JOE HILL | October 28, 2011, 1:59 pm 1:59 pm
Also, this is only half of the change. The other half is that marrying a Roman Catholic is now allowed. Previously it wasn’t. Any other religion was fine but not Roman Catholicism. The monarch still has to be Church of England (aka Anglican) but they can marry whoever they like.
Posted by: JOE HILL | October 28, 2011, 3:00 pm 3:00 pm