|
Welcome to our Cat Forums! | ||||
Welcome to our CatForums! You are seeing this message because you are viewing our cat forums as a guest. You can continue to browse our many cat related areas as a guest but you are more than welcome to register and join our friendly community of Cat Lovers! ... And for free! Doing so will also remove this message and some of the ads, such as the one on the left. Please click here to register. |
|
|||||
|
|||||
I agree with Eileen, firstborn regardless of sex. Elizabeth has proved herself to be an excellent queen but that only happened because she didn't have any brothers ....... so I can't see what difference it would make. Long gone are the days when women were second to men... |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
Absolutely! It is an outdated (and now outlawed) concept everywhere throughout the UK except where accendancy to the throne is concerned, so why should it still persist there? |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
I'm a royalist to the core lol, and I agree that the outdated ascendancy laws should be changed. I think it is ridiculous that if Her Majesty had had a brother she would have been brushed aside in favour of him, especially when she has been a wonderful queen for 50 years. |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
So maybe now is the time to change it while we have no "female" directly in line and a good 10/20 years or more before it becomes an issue. If indeed it does for all we know William may have sons. |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
What did they do....Eileen And think about it who have been the best "Monarchs" so far, male or female? |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
As to the second question if a Yank (but an Anglophile) can again express an opinion, I'd take Elizabeth I over George III any day.! And I have nothing but the greatest admiration for King George and Queen Mary for their conduct during the War , and your present Queen. IMO, it's the person, not their sex.... |
|||||
|