Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

Sep 1, 2005

Gender equality and the royals

Crikey philosopher Charles Richardson writes: What on earth is Barry Everingham talking about? Yesterday he said

Share

Crikey philosopher Charles Richardson writes:


What on earth is Barry Everingham talking about? Yesterday he
said that the Danish government “will legislate to ensure that Mary
Donaldson’s first baby can become the country’s head of state,
irrespective of its gender,” and that this “will bring Denmark into
line with Australia.” It’s true that the British (and therefore
Australian) monarchy is more progressive than some countries, in that
women can succeed, but they still rank after men. That’s why the Duke
of York is fourth in line to the throne (after Charles, William and
Harry), not his elder sister, the Princess Royal. There’s even a view
among some lawyers that this state of affairs can’t be changed by the
Australian parliament(s): that until we become a republic we’re
inextricably tied to the law of succession as it holds from time to
time in Britain. Personally I don’t think that’s right, but the point
is contentious enough that no government is likely to try legislating
on it.

Crikey philosopher Charles Richardson writes:


What on earth is Barry Everingham talking about? Yesterday he
said that the Danish government “will legislate to ensure that Mary
Donaldson’s first baby can become the country’s head of state,
irrespective of its gender,” and that this “will bring Denmark into
line with Australia.” It’s true that the British (and therefore
Australian) monarchy is more progressive than some countries, in that
women can succeed, but they still rank after men. That’s why the Duke
of York is fourth in line to the throne (after Charles, William and
Harry), not his elder sister, the Princess Royal. There’s even a view
among some lawyers that this state of affairs can’t be changed by the
Australian parliament(s): that until we become a republic we’re
inextricably tied to the law of succession as it holds from time to
time in Britain. Personally I don’t think that’s right, but the point
is contentious enough that no government is likely to try legislating
on it.

Crikey philosopher Charles Richardson writes:


What on earth is Barry Everingham talking about? Yesterday he
said that the Danish government “will legislate to ensure that Mary
Donaldson’s first baby can become the country’s head of state,
irrespective of its gender,” and that this “will bring Denmark into
line with Australia.” It’s true that the British (and therefore
Australian) monarchy is more progressive than some countries, in that
women can succeed, but they still rank after men. That’s why the Duke
of York is fourth in line to the throne (after Charles, William and
Harry), not his elder sister, the Princess Royal. There’s even a view
among some lawyers that this state of affairs can’t be changed by the
Australian parliament(s): that until we become a republic we’re
inextricably tied to the law of succession as it holds from time to
time in Britain. Personally I don’t think that’s right, but the point
is contentious enough that no government is likely to try legislating
on it.

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

0 comments

Leave a comment

Advertisement

https://www.crikey.com.au/2005/09/01/gender-equality-and-the-royals/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/

Show popup

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.

Free Trial form on Pop Up

Free Trial form on Pop Up
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.