Progressiveness? At CHOGM?

HumanVuvuzela
atheistSilver Member
HumanVuvuzela's picture
Posts: 93
Joined: 2011-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Progressiveness? At CHOGM?

The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, currently being held in Perth, has yesterday voiced its support for ending the misogynistic succession rules in the British monarchy, that currently give preference to later-born sons over first-born daughters in determining the succession to the throne. Although the next two in line for the throne are anglican males, as the current rules dictate, the debate has been given new precedence since the marriage of Prince William, and the possibility that a first-born daughter would not be the 'chosen one'. 

In a statement that has received significantly less publicity, however, the meeting is also considering the 'outrageous' suggestion that monarchs be allowed to marry catholics, and that catholics would be allowed to ascend to the throne. 

I wonder if we'll ever be progressive enough to consider a muslim monarch? Or a buddhist? Or, god forbid, an atheist? 

I just hope that the debate on an Australian republic can begin in earnest again soon, and we won't have to put up with any of them. 

 

========================================================

 

AUSTRALIA was among 16 Commonwealth nations that agreed last night to a request by the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, to change the rules of succession for the monarchy and to allow monarchs to marry Catholics.

Fresh from the euro zone crisis talks in Europe, Mr Cameron flew into Perth yesterday morning for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. In a session held on the sidelines of the event, Mr Cameron convened a meeting of the 16 countries of the Commonwealth that have the Queen as their head of state.

Therefore, if Prince William and Catherine, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, first have a daughter she will be the heir to the throne, not any brother that may come after.

Each nation agreed to pass laws to change the Act of Settlement, which gives male children of the royal couple precedence over older sisters in the order of succession to the throne. 

The Queen reigns because she did not have a brother. Mr Cameron has been campaigning to change the act and abolish a ban on spouses of Catholics ascending to the throne.

Mr Cameron said last night the meeting was: ''something of a historic moment''.

''This way of thinking is at odds with the modern countries that we have all become,'' he said. ''Some outdated rules, like some of the rules on succession, don't make sense to us any more.''

The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, said she was proud the moment had occurred in Australia and said even though the changes were in line with modern thinking ''don't underestimate their historical significance''.

Ms Gillard has secured in-principle support from state and territory leaders who will also have to pass laws.

The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, told the Queen when she visited Canberra last week that the changes were ''a sign that ancient institutions need not be anachronisms''.

The changes will overturn 300 years of royal convention.

The 16 realms are: Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Grenada, Belize, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, St Vincent and the Grenadines, and Papua New Guinea.

Mr Cameron and Ms Gillard will hold a separate bilateral meeting today where it is understood their support for pricing carbon will be discussed.

Mr Cameron said last night he did not want to get involved in the domestic debate but a market mechanism was the most effective way of reducing emissions.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/leaders-abandon-rule-on-male-heir-succession-20111028-1mo9q.html 


Proper Gander
Proper Gander's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2007-11-05
User is offlineOffline
HumanVuvuzela wrote:I wonder

HumanVuvuzela wrote:
I wonder if we'll ever be progressive enough to consider a muslim monarch? Or a buddhist? Or, god forbid, an atheist?

The correct question should rather be when we'll be progressive enough not to have a monarch at all. That's one of the things I envy the Americans for.

"Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There's too much fraternizing with the enemy."


HumanVuvuzela
atheistSilver Member
HumanVuvuzela's picture
Posts: 93
Joined: 2011-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Proper Gander

Proper Gander wrote:

HumanVuvuzela wrote:
I wonder if we'll ever be progressive enough to consider a muslim monarch? Or a buddhist? Or, god forbid, an atheist?

The correct question should rather be when we'll be progressive enough not to have a monarch at all. That's one of the things I envy the Americans for.

Indeed. I phrased my question poorly. I guess what I was asking was "I wonder if the UK will ever be progressive enough...?" 

Why should we have as a head of state a woman who was born into her role, and has visited the land over which she presides only 16 times in just under 60 years? We've had English cricketers visit our shores more frequently and contribute more than that. 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Mmmmm

 

There's complexity in this. Should our head of state be an elected president? Should it be the prime minister herself? Should it be the constitution, the body of the nation? Its soil?

I don't like the American political system and I don't think it would translate to Australia - our state governments are too powerful. Australia's state governments govern their separate colonies completely. 

Undoing all of this would require a huge political convulsion and I'm not certain it's worth it, nor how it could be undertaken. At present the system is stable and it works. That's really all we need it to do. 

Personally, I think the Royalty thing has been benign and productive as a Commonwealth unification force, especially since the meeting in Singapore in 1971. The Commonwealth gets mocked but it is a real entity with a long history of consistent cooperation. It's the largest single voluntary alliance on the planet comprising 54 different countries and 2.3 billion people who at a high level are committed to remain close to one another and to mutually strive for common and agreed goals. 

Without the Royals there would not be a Commonwealth. Would we follow an English Government, a hung English parliament?

I don't think we would. Having a lifespan monarch providing continuity amidst the tumult of the democratic process is not a negative and the British royalty is paid for by some one else. 

For the record I'm a republican (in Australia that means some one who would vote out the queen at a referendum) rather than a monarchist but I wonder what the alternative would be. I think it would be some glad-handed job for the boys scam. Look at the French presidency. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3400
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
interestingly enough, one of

interestingly enough, one of the greatest monarchs of all time was buddhist.  his name was ashoka.  h.g. wells listed him among the greatest people who ever lived.

as for the british monarchy, speaking as an american, i have no problem with it.  i'm sure the tourism revenue it brings the UK far outweighs the tax burden.  on the whole, i've always admired the overall conservatism of british politics.  their general rule seems to be "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," which is why they have things like the monarchy and the house of lords.  so many times i think politicians on the european continent change things left and right just because they can, and end up making a clusterfuck of everything.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3400
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i have to say that a strong,

i have to say that a strong, elected head of state will inevitably result in a strong federal government, so if that's what you want, then yes, the queen should go.  in america, our state governments have only grown more and more impotent with the passing of time.  our head of state is immensely more powerful than the commonwealth's could ever hope to be.  once more, get rid of the queen and you have a good chance of looking at that.

(for the record, i prefer the american system to many of the european parliamentary systems.  here in slovakia, the president is a nonentity, so there's pretty much no counterbalance to the government.  once a party or a coalition is in, they wreak havoc.)

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen