Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.
Home › Politics

FLASH! From Liz Smith | 03/27/2009 1:50 pm

Princess Anne to Become 4th in Line to British Throne?

Britain’s Gordon Brown set to change a 308-year rule of succession
By Liz Smith RSS
Alert me to Liz's new posts
Liz Smith

I can’t take credit for the following news; it’s all over the English papers. But Americans may be interested to know that it seems the British are moving rapidly into the 21st century!

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has opened talks with Buckingham Palace on changing a 308-year rule which bars female members of the royal family from succeeding to the throne before any surviving male members. It would also change the rule mitigating against royal members who become or marry Roman Catholics.

If this takes effect, Queen Elizabeth’s daughter, Anne, who is officially known as the Princess Royal, would then come before her younger brother Prince Andrew. She is now tenth in line, but the change would make her fourth in line to ascend the throne (after the Prince of Wales, Prince Charles and his sons, William and Harry).

Revolutionary! My dear Watson. Revolutionary!

Read more about: England, News, Princess Anne, Royalty

47 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Cheryl P
About time!
By Cheryl P on 03/27/2009 2:04 pm
Elizabeth Bennett
One would think after half a century of rule by a wonderful Queen, that someone would have thought of this and done this already.  But even late is better than never.
By Elizabeth Bennett on 03/27/2009 2:16 pm
Green Tears
Well said, Elizabeth!
By Green Tears on 03/27/2009 2:21 pm
Alice Alice
I couldn’t agree more!  Queens Elizabeth I, Elizabeth II, Queen Anne, Queen Victoria.  Who would have thunk it would take this long!  But…Bravo!
By Alice Alice on 03/27/2009 5:04 pm
Barbara
About time but, really, who cares.  The British royal family is an interesting soap opera to watch but beyond that, I’m not sure it matters one way or another.
By Barbara on 03/27/2009 2:16 pm
S M
They should get get rid of the monarchy altogether. It’s an anachronism anyway.
By S M on 03/27/2009 2:26 pm
Slinky Binx

Hmmm, shows how much I know! I already thought this was how it was supposed to go.  I guess I figured since they had a Queen now, that it didn’t matter whether the next in line was male or female. :-)

I wonder how Princess Anne feels about the proposal, and if she’d like to be #4 instead of #10.

 

By Slinky Binx on 03/27/2009 2:32 pm
Lucinda Herbert

Liz,

Not only are they seeking to end gender discrimination, but religious discrimination.  The monarch currently is Head of the Church of England (Anglican Church — Episcopal in the United States)  Roman Catholics are barred from being crowned, as are members of other religions.  Prince Charles apparently has expressed that the day he ascends to the throne, he’d like to become the Defender of all Faiths as opposed to just being Defender of the Faith, as it is now.

By Lucinda Herbert on 03/27/2009 4:34 pm
JJ GB

personally, I think she should be next in line-she has seemed to have conducted herself with more dignity than Charles or his sons.  I know, boys will be boys and all that, so the younger males might be excused some of their public behaviour, but there is no excuse for Charles and his less than honorable actions as a husband or heir apparent.

By JJ GB on 03/27/2009 4:49 pm
roberta wickham

"personally, I think she should be next in line-she has seemed to have conducted herself with more dignity than Charles or his sons."

Actually, no.  The real difference is that Anne’s ex-husband, Mark Phillips, conducted himself with more dignity than Princess Diana.   Like her father, Anne is famously very rude to outsiders. Unlike her father, when Anne is rude, it’s not because she mistakenly thinks she’s being funny.

By roberta wickham on 03/29/2009 11:49 am
JJ GB
I didn’t realize we were comparing Princess Diana and Mark Phillips. I have read and am aware of the coldness and lack of warmth or compassion of the Royal house of Queen Elizabeth and her husband in regards to Princess Diana, and of Princess Anne’s inherited or cultivated similarities to her parents, but having said that, what are the chances of Mark Phillips ever being in line for the throne, which I think was the question.  The boys are young and still acting like young men will, in making poor choices in their behaviour.  Charles can’t use that excuse for his actions.  She very well may not be liked, but then there are some who feel that way about Charles, Prince Phillip and even Queen Elizabeth, in the way they treated Princess Diana and handled Princess Diana’s death.  The boys will probably mature in time and they have the charm of their mother, but Charles will always be Charles.  I stated that this was a personal opinion on my part.
By JJ GB on 03/29/2009 3:47 pm
roberta wickham

You were comparing Anne and Charles, and I’m suggesting that the dignity of their respective behaviors had a lot to do with the spouses they had fallings out with. 

 It’s difficult to be dignified if your soon-to-be ex (Diana)is airing all of her dirty linen in the newspapers.   Mark Phillips didn’t do that — and there was plenty of dirty linen in that household, too.

Diana never complained about the way she was treated by the Queen or by Philip.

By roberta wickham on 03/29/2009 4:45 pm
JJ GB
You’re right, I was comparing Anne to Charles as to their suitability to replace Queen Elizabeth, and since Diana and Mark’s behaviour wasn’t in the equation, I didn’t bring them up.  I’m sure Mark Phillips could have told some stories too, had he chosen to do so.  No, Diana didn’t complain about her treatment by Elizabeth or Phillip, to her credit, since she had grounds to complain.  She was an asset to that family and they apparently never knew it, and certainly didn’t acknowledge it, but then, that wasn’t the topic question.
By JJ GB on 03/29/2009 7:44 pm
roberta wickham

The topic was which sibling conducted him/herself with the greater amount of dignity.  And the point I am trying to make is that it’s easier to appear dignified when one’s spouse is not creating one big ugly scene after another in the press.  Mark Phillips kept quiet about his differences with Anne; Diana did not.

What grounds Diana have to complain about her treatment by Elizabeth and Philip?

I think that she was an asset to the media, but as far as the Royal Family were concerned, she was a serious liability.

By roberta wickham on 03/29/2009 9:26 pm
JJ GB

I don’t think that’s quite the way Liz Smith worded her announcement, but it really doesn’t matter to me the way it was worded.  Sometimes, it’s a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils.  I think it was an opinion poll. You are welcome to Charles, if that pleases you.

By JJ GB on 03/29/2009 11:35 pm
1234next ›last »