Women achieve equal succession rights to British throne

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jaffacakesyum

Monarchies are so utterly ridiculous anyway but I suppose it is nice to see that women are achieving equal rights here

LeixlipRed

If this is an aim of anyone working towards equality of the sexes then we're all screwed. Worthless bunch of scroungers.

Agent Smith

Have they taken out the law which Forbids a roman catholic from being Prime Minister?

LeixlipRed

Agent Smith wrote: »

Have they taken out the law which Forbids a roman catholic from being Prime Minister?

If there was a law preventing Roman Catholics from being dictators would anyone care? Why would anyone worry about being excluded from the most exclusive of things, royalty. Were the only skill required is to have been born into a position of privilege. Claim a nice stipend from the taxpayer and off you go, happy days, never a care in the world while people are homeless on the streets and others pay for the upkeep of your many palaces.

I think I'll retire from this thread early before my head explodes

Agent Smith

Prime minister is Elected by the people.

Read my post again

LeixlipRed

Ah apologies, I thought you were on about the rules preventing the monarch being a Catholic. I misread.

Ickle Magoo

Agent Smith wrote: »

Have they taken out the law which Forbids a roman catholic from being Prime Minister?

Was there ever such a law? AFIK, it's commonly cited in complaint but doesn't actually exist...the issue is that part of the PM's role is advising the monarch with regards to C of E ecclesiastical appointments...so it's not a legal issue, it's a political issue.

From the Parliamentary Briefing Paper Here:

It is often suggested that the Prime Minister cannot be a Roman Catholic by law. This is not correct. [..] While there is no longer any statutory bar on Roman Catholics becoming Prime Minister, there are issues arising from advice on ecclesiastical preferment that is given by the Prime Minister to the Crown. Special arrangements would have to be made to ensure that he or she did not advise the Crown directly or indirectly on Church of England appointments, as doing so under the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 remains a 'high misdemeanour'. This particular aspect of Prime Ministerial duties could be delegated to another minister not similarly barred.]

Sauve

About time this law was changed.
I didn't realise the Prime Minister couldn't be Catholic though :mad:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

amacachi

That 3 billion figure is an outright lie.

amacachi

amacachi wrote: »

That 3 billion figure is an outright lie.

Our very large canteen at work was filled with everyone coming downstairs to watch it - and they did show it especially for us to watch. So I'm not so sure

amacachi

bluewolf wrote: »

Our very large canteen at work was filled with everyone coming downstairs to watch it - and they did show it especially for us to watch. So I'm not so sure

I would be. In the UK viewing figures were about 1 in 2 of the population which, if almost repeated worldwide, would give 3 billion. However only about 7% of Americans watched it and given that it was 3-6am there at the time I doubt many canteens were packed full of people watching. In India 42 million watched, leaving just over a billion who didn't, and then there's the other billion or so in China who didn't tune in.

amacachi

amacachi wrote: »

I would be. In the UK viewing figures were about 1 in 2 of the population which, if almost repeated worldwide, would give 3 billion. However only about 7% of Americans watched it and given that it was 3-6am there at the time I doubt many canteens were packed full of people watching. In India 42 million watched, leaving just over a billion who didn't, and then there's the other billion or so in China who didn't tune in.

Yeah I'm just joking around - of course a canteen doesn't add up. They don't really back it up beyond "a few countries had people watching it".

In any case, it's good news in the OP.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

amacachi

bluewolf wrote: »

Yeah I'm just joking around - of course a canteen doesn't add up. They don't really back it up beyond "a few countries had people watching it".

In any case, it's good news in the OP.

Yeah I know, was just reminded of how annoying it was when that figure kept getting bandied around at the time. I heard more about how many people watched than I heard about the actual wedding. :pac:

Alopex

Perhaps 3bil includes anyone who saw clips on the news. That seems plausible. Even I count as part of that figure

dsmythy

LeixlipRed wrote: »

If there was a law preventing Roman Catholics from being dictators would anyone care? Why would anyone worry about being excluded from the most exclusive of things, royalty. Were the only skill required is to have been born into a position of privilege. Claim a nice stipend from the taxpayer and off you go, happy days, never a care in the world while people are homeless on the streets and others pay for the upkeep of your many palaces.

I think I'll retire from this thread early before my head explodes

You underestimate the importance of the monarchy in British tourism. That wedding alone probably paid for several years of upkeep, be it headed by a King or indeed a Queen.

charlemont

And it took till now to give woman equal rights in succession !!!

Alopex

Wonder will we be renaming the country "The United King or Queendom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"

Richard

Sauvignon82 wrote: »

About time this law was changed.
I didn't realise the Prime Minister couldn't be Catholic though :mad:

They can. It's just that there hasn't been one. I don't think there was a Presbyterian prime minister, either until Gordon Brown.

Ian Duncan Smith, the former Conservative leader was a Catholic and would have become PM if he'd won an election.

Alopex

Blair was a secret one too.

dammitjanet

Great news about the change




tries to figure out how this brings me one step closer to being a Queen...