Harper only wants men on the throne

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/12/pol-monarchy-succession-will-and-kate.html

Okay I sorta jest, but Britain suggested that the eldest child regardless of sex ascends to the throne upon vacancy. Here is Harper's reaction quote:

The successor to the throne is a man? Wow wee. Also that's not exactly how it works. The successor to the throne is a woman if she has no male siblings.

I'm... honestly surprised at Canadians getting their collars in a twist over this.

Many Brits don't give a damn. Harper... really shouldn't.

@ Game Chainsaw

Hey, don't pluralise that. :P

I'm a monarchist and I believe in gender equality. Let britain go through the stupid ritualistic royalty legislation stuff and then just say "yes", when it's done. What's his problem?

edited 13th Oct '11 11:24:27 AM by breadloaf

Oh, Harper. What isn't his problem...

Btw what would happen if Harper got his wish and then a woman was then queen of the United Kingdom?

Would Canada have to leave the Commonwealth?

Nope.

A different person would be King of Canada.

Who though? A senior member of the British Royal Family? A Canadian? A foreign royal?

If we must have a Brit as our symbolic head of state, I can think of better choices. All Hail King John!

That said, I'm honestly wondering if Harper is deliberately trolling feminists with that statement.

Man if he's not trolling I question his brain capacity. Of course you can always retroactively claim you were trolling while crying because you are actually that stupid.

As for the throne succession, it just means that say if Kate/William have a daughter first and then a son next. You'd put the daughter as Queen of (the United Kingdom? I'm fuzzy on the name) and we'd put the son as King of Canada.

I could get behind King John.

edited 13th Oct '11 12:02:39 PM by SavageHeathen

Pft, if you're going to do that, you might as well make Shatner king of Canada.

edited 13th Oct '11 12:04:01 PM by breadloaf

The heir apparent to the throne in Canada is a man. His name is Charles, Prince of Wales. The next in line is also a man, Prince William.

Harper is presumably simply being evasive because he doesn't want to address it right now. He presumably has better things to be doing. As William isn't king yet, the successor to the throne is a man and the next successor to the throne is a man, so it is not a pressing concern.

Breadloaf, Harper is talking about the future debate of who will be the head of the commonwealth if one of the monarchs has a girl then a boy.

Can't this debate wait until William is king? I think the current elected leaders of the Commonwealth Realms have more pressing issues to handle.

I'm with Bobby G on that one. It seems like a poorly phrased "It won't come up any time soon and I have better things to think about" to me

@ Whale

@ Rest

Well, Harper doesn't actually have to do anything except say yes. What is there to "waste time" about? It's Britain that'll do all the legislative work for us.

No Breadloaf, the law for the whole commonwealth is that the first born SON gets the throne.

Huh?

I just outlined the scenario where it'd differ if Canada retained the same law but UK went ahead with the change.

edited 13th Oct '11 1:01:41 PM by breadloaf

Are there more important things to think about? I'm sure there are.

On the other hand... how much thought do you have to actually put into this? There's no actual persons as of this moment this would apply to, so you're not weighing which of two established personalities you'd rather have as King/Queen. You're basically just answering the question, 'is there any reason men should be favored over women as a (constitutional) monarch? Y/N'. Put it as a ballot question in the next election so you can be sure the populace agrees - maybe you have to do this, I'm not up on what's required to change it as I'm American and not Canadian. But again, how much thought does this take?

Ah, yeah... Exactly what Breadloaf said up there.

edited 13th Oct '11 1:04:22 PM by TheGirlWithPointyEars

Alot because it has go through the commonwealth and parliament IIRC

Well the question is coming up because the Commonwealth is meeting soon, thus the time is wasted on Commonwealth matters such as this regardless of whether he wants to or not. At the meeting, UK goes "Gender equality for the throne succession?" and everybody puts up their hand and says "yes". It is done. Takes seconds. Then UK goes and does the legislative work for everyone, we carbon copy, and it's done. He's making what takes a few manhours per country to do like it'd take months of toiling of all the politicians, heavy debating and referendums and such. This shit doesn't even go to a vote.

Will it be as simple as "everybody says yes, done"?

I wish it were, but there are bound to be some die-hard traditionalists who see it as too much of a concession.

Well if that's the case, then yeah, I wouldn't bother. But to presume that is the case is a little over the top.

Paradoxically, countries that want out of the British monarchy could fail to acknowledge the new laws... At the next succession where the eldest was a woman, it wouldn't be uniform throughout the Commonwealth.

It's a sneaky way out of the monarchy (and it relies on playing the waiting game for at least a coupla generations), but it could work.

edited 13th Oct '11 1:33:10 PM by SavageHeathen