About bloody time
The Monarchy laws are about to be changed, to enable female heirs to succeed the throne, and to allow Royals to marry Catholics and still be in line for the throne. Traditionally, a female only succeeded the throne if there were no male heirs. And in 1703, William III (of Orange) declared that no-one who is, or who marries a Catholic, could succeed the throne - because he had no heirs himself and he was determined that the exiled James II of Scotland (a Catholic) wouldn't succeed him. :roll: So, quite a significant step in the right direction for the monarchy, I guess.

Sounds good. Death to Archaic Laws!

Or as Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, later King Karl XIV Johan of Sweden, had tattoed on his arm: "Death To All Kings". :wink: Seriously, I guess that's good. Sweden introduced full cognate succession (that is, oldest child succeeds, regardless of gender) back in 1980. Predictably the king was against it and still grumbled about it a few years ago. Me, I think if we must have a king - and there are some arguments to be made for a constitutional monarchy being the lesser evil in some respects - Sweden should go back to the pre-1544 medieval model of non-hereditary elected kings. Or maybe they could be voted forth in a reality show or something. :)

Perhaps you should create a Facebook group, "About Bloody Time". Anyway, I don't think it goes far enough. Parliament should choose the next sovereign from the ten most eligible members.

In Morocco, the old tradition was that the next sovereign was chosen among the male offspring of the current Sultan by a council of sages (Mohammed V who ruled between 1927 and 1961 was actually the youngest of his brothers). But Hassan II (ruled from 1961 to 1999) abolished that, and etablished a system where the eldest of the king's sons rules, and when there are none it's up to the closest male family member to rule (there's some sort of hierarchy to avoid conflicts). Also, a crown prince can't get married until his father dies.. not sure if that applies to all princes... (although there's more freedom of press under Mohammed VI, the king is still considered sacred and only few journalists, to the risk of being imprisoned, try to explore the whereabouts of the royal family).

It is about bloody time they got rid of ALL these poseurs. There is no adequate rationale to support privileged inheritors...indeed, I would say that all hereditary lines are founded by usurpers and then proceed to degrade into corrupt dissipation in a halting manner until replaced by another usurper. Over here, we change our aristocracy on an almost annual basis. We have plutocrats galore, though.

I like our monarchy! Don't want them gone. The firstborn gets to rule here and our last 3 rulers where female. (Emma, Wilhelmina, Beatrix) With Alexander we will have our first king in quite a while. If females weren't allowed to inherit the throne though, what is queen Elizabeth doing there then? :confused:

I don't think it's quite definite yet, just a proposal. I do agree with you though. If the monarch or heir to the throne did marry a Roman Catholic then I think it would prejudice his or her role as Head of the Church of England which something else which should be looked at, I think. Justice Secretary Jack Straw told MPs he was not ready to indicate a "precise timetable" for legislation to bring about change, but their "pressure" had made the issue a "higher priority for government than it has been".Justice Secretary Jack Straw told MPs he was not ready to indicate a "precise timetable" for legislation to bring about change, but their "pressure" had made the issue a "higher priority for government than it has been".

I don't see how it would prejudice their role as head of the church, though, if their husband/wife was of a different denomination. Actually, there is no law to prevent a monarch being married to someone of an entirely different religion - in theory they could marry a Muslim or Buddhist or anything else. It's only Catholicism which is legislated against, and that was because of the situation in 1703, so not relevent now.

JuJu Wrote Actually, there is no law to prevent a monarch being married to someone of an entirely different religion - in theory they could marry a Muslim or Buddhist or anything else. Ha ha. I'd like to see one try! :lol:

Don't laugh, it will happen one day.

Of another denomination? The horrors! They might as well be of different species. ;)

Be reasonable!