Stories like this serve to remind me how far advanced the United States is. A monarchy? Really? How very 16th century of you ![]()
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.
Wouldn’t that be 11th century?
If they’re concerned about discrimination, shouldn’t they abolish primogeniture as well? After all, it’s unfair to those who were not born first.
For that matter, why not open it up to commoners? After all, this “can’t discriminate against females” thing does nothing for 99.999% of all British femals.
What, exactly, is the point in “modernizing” an archaic institution? If it’s the archaic properties that makes it a tourist attraction, and if attracting tourists is the point of it, then why not just keep all the old rules of seccession?
After all, if you want to see fake princesses, there’s plenty at Disneyland. If you want to see what you’d look like with a crown on your head, you can (sometimes) find these at Burger King.
But if you want to retain this obsolete institution, why try to modernize that which can’t be modernzied? And if you can’t modernize it and don’t want to abolish it, why not just keep all the old rules that go with it?