<p>
</p>
<p>[First-born</a> daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will take throne](<a href=“Royal family: First-born daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will take throne”>Royal family: First-born daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will take throne)</p>
<p>Too bad they can’t make it retroactive. Princess Anne would make a lot better monarch than Prince Charles.</p>
<p>Oh, wait, Anne’s younger. So they couldn’t get rid of Charles in any event.</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see the reaction of the British public. Based on the comments following the article, it was a mixed bag.</p>
<p>^ Seems odd to me that anyone would have a problem with this in 2011. After all, Great Britain has not even had a king for 60 years.</p>
<p>Hence the problem.</p>
<p>^^^LOL. Does not the other brother get a chance at the throne?</p>
<p>^^ If you mean Harry, any children of William and Kate step in front of him.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Same thing happened in the 19th century when Queen Victoria reigned for nearly 64 years - the longest reign in English history. Yet there was no clamor when her eldest son, Edward VII ascended the throne instead of his older sister (also named Victoria). In fact that occasion (1901) was the last time a younger brother has been crowned instead of his older sister.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You do realize that at the time of Queen Victoria’s death, Edward VII’s older sister Victoria happens to have been not only the Queen’s eldest child, but also the dowager Empress of Germany, the widow of Kaiser Friedrich II and the mother of Kaiser Wilhelm II? Putting her on the British throne might have created some issues, yes? Never mind clamor! In any event, she survived her own mother by only 7 months, and died before the end of 1901.</p>
<p>Who decided the change? Does it apply to the nobility as well? </p>
<p>Also, what has become of the other change put before the deciding body, that of allowing the monarch or heir to marry a Catholic?</p>
<p>I’d say the proscription of that is just as outdated as the gender issue…</p>
<p>It’s not really a big deal, Sweden did this a short while ago too; it’s the norm in Europe now. A much bigger change would be allowing Catholics in the line of succession, but that will probably never happen - certainly not in the Queen’s lifetime. :(</p>
<p>^ Actually, it would be interesting if they changed to allow Catholics in the line of succession, since you could then have a Catholic as head of the Church of England. That would indeed be interesting . . .</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not so much in 1901. The royal families of Germany and England (not to add France) were intertwined. So much that the British royal family bore the German name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. The Windsor name now used by Queen Elizabeth II and other British royals only dates back to 1917. </p>
<p>The Saxe-Cobourg are the current monarchs of Belgium. Without the untimely death of his spouse, Charlotte of Wales, the first King of Belgium, Leopold I would have been King of England. Royals do not keep things simple. </p>
<p>As far as Catholicism goes, the British royal family still celebrates Christmas on December 24th rather than on Christmas Day, as is normal English custom.</p>
<p>Updating gender rules ignores the main issue that a hereditary monarchy is completely ridiculous in a modern society.</p>
<p>Forgive me for not keeping up with the royals, but is she pg with a dd, or is this just thinking ahead?</p>
<p>sorghum, that’s impertinent.</p>
<p>As for marrying a Catholic, I don’t see a problem with it all unless there is a chance that the Catholic would ascend to the throne, Anglicanism being the “Church of England”.</p>
<p>I have been told that there was such a case, not too long ago, where Edward VII’s second eldest son, the Duke of York, was unofficially engaged to a Catholic, but had to break it off when his brother, the Prince of Wales, met an early death, thereby placing the younger duke in the role of heir to the throne. Apparently he was quite heartbroken over it but, nevertheless, went on to marry Mary of Teck and later became George V.</p>
<p>“that’s impertinent.”</p>
<p>I believe you are quoting George III circa 1776.</p>
<p>Youdon’tsay, she’s not preggers as far as I know. I think Cameron wants this decided before any new little royals appear.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>No. If she had been able to ascend the throne ahead of her younger brothers, in other words if she had been heir apparent, it’s inconceivable that they would have married her off into some foreign country to be queen there. They would have kept her at home, as they did her mother. Any foreigner wishing to marry Victoria the younger, had she been heir apparent, would have had to move to England and join the British royal court, as her father had to do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since when was that normal English/British custom? My family and every family I know have always celebrated Christmas on the 25th.</p>