So thrilled we have a new prince here

[oesdog]

There are many folk who have different ideas on the Monarchy.
I am an equalitist too - and I believe strongly in equal pay , equal rights etc. However I also believe males and females do have unique differences and are biult for different roles.
That does not in any way make one more or less important than another. They are equally important and valuable. When I was younger I was all for feminism - but as I got older I realised that Women don;t need to try to be men to be valuable and important. They need to be Women. So I ditched the 80s shoulder pads and realised that even if I was a stay at home mum I was valuable. Sadly the world these days often sees home making and caring as none important when those roles are in fact vital to the smooth running of the whole of society. I believe in Equal oportunity however as I have matured I realise that equal oportunity is only possible if there is opportunity for Equality.

Now - That said when this child becomes a Man and takes the throne will the girl he marries and who will become Queen, be less important than her husband? will she be less or more important than say "his sister?" Whether the sister is older or younger? Does it really matter - we will still have a Queen on our throne next to the KING! However if a "sister" comes to the throne if there are no male heirs/ or in the new system if she is first born, her husband will NEVER be king? How can that be Equal???? SO which is actually more fair and equal really? A sistem that puts two adults together on the throne as equal KING and QUEEN ?
- Or this new way that folk have wanted which actually will only result in more in-equality lifting more females to the throne without an Equal male counterpart - it is only Equal if the husband is allowed to take the title of KING, and that is only possible when the male heir rises to the throne! - As the husband of a "female heir" cannot take the title of KING this cannot happen because the bloodline will be down the female line and HE cannot lord over a birth right Queen as it is today with Queen Elisabeth 2 and Prince Philip, and was with Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. The argument that female assention to the throne makes equality is mute. The only way to have equal King and Queen is Through the male heir!

Oes

 

[Peaches Lee]

I still don't think it's fair to the female heirs to be passed in favor of a younger brother so that her future husband (if she gets married) isn't slighted in the royal title department. Some of the greatest rulers have been female, I don't think opportunities for success should be pigeon-holed. I think the biggest issue is that the royal blood is in charge (if that's the correct word) so must take the higher title. But yes, I do agree with you, lots of people have different ideas on monarchy.

 

[newfoundland]

The trouble is a king takes precedence over a queen and that is why anyone marrying a queen can only ever be a prince consort, as in Prince Albert and Prince Phillip. Male or female, i don't really mind but I do accept that the birth of a Prince makes things a lot less complicated.

 

[Molders]

They changed the rules in the uk before this baby was born....equal rights if baby was born male or female now so the first born will rule! Prince Charles wont have a queen, Prince William wont have a queen either. There hasn't been a true King and Queen since the 1600's.

 

[oesdog]

they changed the rules in the uk before this baby was born....equal rights if baby was born male or female now!

Thats the whole point of this- it isn't equal rights at all. As if HE comes to the thrown - his wife will be Queen and rule with and alongside him as his equal.
However if SHE comes to the throne HER husband will never be KING and so will never rule alongside her as an equal. HE can only be a prince consort. Never a king and so never equal. As with Prince Albert/Queen Victoria and our Prince Philip now. - How is that an equal opportunity in your eyes? The only true way for equality is to have a KING and QUEEN equaly on the throne together and the only way that can ever happen is only if and when a male heir assends the throne. It just means that the folk who voted for equal assention were actually voting for more inequality.

Oes

 

[Peaches Lee]

Sorry, but I do not see having only the male heir ascend the throne over an older female sibling as being equal. It is in my opinion a very chauvinistic view to ponder the feelings of the woman's POTENTIAL husband's feelings about only becoming a Prince.

 

[sezjasper]

When Charles comes to the throne, he can give Camilla the title Queen if he chooses, but she will never have equal rank with him. The direct heir is always the one with the power...I think Henry VIII's wives would agree with that LOL

I think I heard somewhere that it has already been decided Camilla will not receive the title of Queen because of all the backlash from Princess Diana. I think it will be different with William and Kate, though. I hope I live long enough to see a coronation for both William AND Kate...love them both!

OES I agree with you that the Royal Family is a national treasure...but I'm glad we don't have a Royal Family here in the US. There are too many people in this country who mock and disrespect and trash everything of value.

 

[3goodeggs]

I think those of us who do not want royalty in this country do not want it because we had a revolutionary war for our freedom. Lives were lost, changed, altered, mothers fathers lost children. They fought and won for our right to chose our leaders, Just because it happened a while back does not diminish the importance of those people's sacrifices.

I am sure if I were British I would feel pride in my royal family, but I am not. I am American. I feel pride in my country's right to vote. But I am thrilled that you all are thrilled. I am happy that you are happy.

I am happy for the family to have a new child. babies are wonderful. They will- as any couple- be so charmed and thrilled that they have a child to adore, that really- It being a prince is probably less on their minds than his feeding schedule. They are human too after all.

 

[cassie]

We do have royalty here. We just don't crown them or call them that. But they are treated like royals neverthelless.

 

[oesdog]

Sadly the native American "royalty" was murdered a long time ago.( Mostly by British and Spanish!) I don't know much about American history but when the Americas were first discovered - the then "leaders" were swiftly discontinued!

I think you have a good system of voting your leadership in - we do to in that we have a priminister etc.( Though as we all know there is always faults with them all!) - given the "history" of our Royal family left to their own devises they too kind of screwed up a lot in past generations! lol. As you have mentioned they are after all only human with human frailties. Though a deal of folk put them on a pedistal and imagine they will be "perfection". Then of course they are bitterly disapointed to discover they are flesh and blood like the rest of us. Only they usually have an army of press following them and a camera hanging from their left nostral. Not a life I would be wanting for sure.

It makes me sad when I read so many nasty awful comments about the Royal family and I know what you mean about folk bent on destruction. Over here they complain about everything to do with the Royals. - What they wear, especially if it is from a high street store or is damaged or has been worn before or worse worn by another member of the Royal family. - Then they complain about the money that is spent by the Royals? They moan about all the palaces and beautiful biuldings because they are jealous and only see the cost of such places to keep up. Yet these places nice as they are don't actually "belong" to the Royal family - they cannot for example sell them! Can you imagine the Queen putting Buckingham palace up for sale - or the crown jewles on Ebay - no she cannot do just what she wants to do. Those things are national treasures and don;t belong to her or the family at all. In fact truth is they belong to the nation, the comon people and they are just castodians of those treasures. Sometimes it frustrates me how tunnel minded some folk are? -Do those horrible folk think they could care for such treasures better? Or maybe they would just have a gararge sale on Buck house lawn? Can you imagine the palaces being turned into flats for the "deserving poor?" What on earth would that achieve? When you see what happens to housing estates all over the uk. One wonders what these folk actually think they might achieve other than destroy the treasures that belong to the nation forever? - At least our Royal family "belong to us!" which is more than most of the shops and banks and busineses in our high streets these days.

I worry about our Royal family - about Young Prince William and Young Prince Harry a great deal. There is much presure on their shoulders. They are lovely boys indeed and I think their mom would have been so proud of them both. I wonder how they cope with all they need to learn and how they have to go face other countries and meet other leader and all of that stress. On top of that they have security worries and I guess wonder - how safe they and their loved ones are everyday. Then I think of our Queen and I think how she doesn;t have a great deal of freedom - like when she came to Ireland she went to loads of state meetings but she never got to explore or even sit in a coffee shop on graftan street and watch the world go by. How lucky we all are that we don't have their lives to lead - I am not jealous at all one bit of who they are and what they do and where they live. But I do worry about the amount of nasty awful comments I read and how horrible some folk are towards them.

Anyhow I am glad for the little darling prince and I am so happy that he was born safe and well and that is what counts a great deal. I am so glad of him being ok. And that Kate got through the birth safely and all is well.

Oes