Am I alone in being surprised every time I read about some antiquated, sexist custom that still stands? Like those studies that show men make more money than women in the same professions. Or Dr Pepper Ten is just for men (you mean they really haven’t pulled that ad campaign yet?)
I guess I knew that succession to the British throne still went by way of princes rather than princesses. But I think I also assumed it was so dated that everyone would just laugh it off if Prince William and Duchess Kate’s firstborn is a girl.
Turns out, not a few people in England also think the rule is a little old-fashioned, but to undo it will take more than a mere chuckle. Still, at least everything appears to be heading in the right direction at long last (except for Dr Pepper’s ad campaign).
I’m a sucker for elegant, classy traditions as much as the next guy. But automatically giving preference to a male heir over a female heir — royal or otherwise? Why, exactly?
Fortunately British Prime Minister David Cameron agrees with me, according to ABC News. He’s proposed a change to the rules that have been in place for centuries. If he is successful, it would mean if Will and Kate’s firstborn is a daughter, she would automatically be heir to the throne even if their second child is a son. If Cameron fails, a daughter born unto the royal newlyweds would only be queen if they fail to eventually produce a male heir. Silly stuff — preferring kings over queens — right?
In order to make the change, the 16 Commonwealth nations of which Queen Elizabeth is head of state must give their formal approval. But there’s no way any of those nations, including Canada and Australia, will argue that a queen isn’t just as preferable as a king, right? I mean, no one’s still that old-fashioned, are they?
Now if England would just do something about that warm beer, too.
Do you think it’s high time the royal succession rules go by the wayside?