I think those peopel who are against the change, are people who believe that men are first class human. Sorry, but there is no other reason.
I'm not sure if my response to this statement is
or just
. Please don't stereotype people you don't know who hold different views as sexist pigs. I am against the change, and I certainly don't believe men are first class humans! The following are my reasons - you may not agree with them, but if you read through them I think you will have to at least agree that my opposition isn't stemming from hatred of women.
First of all, I should say that I don't think women should be kept from the throne - that's unnecessary and impractical (with smaller families today it’s quite possible to have no sons, as the Dutch and Spanish heirs do, plus we’ve seen so many instances of historical chaos because there were no male heirs when there were plenty of women available). We currently have some great female monarchs, Margrethe II, Elizabeth II, and Beatrix, plus we’ve seen female monarchs do well in history (Victoria, Elizabeth I, etc.) However, I do think the law should place males ahead of females in the line – not because I hate women or want to discriminate against them, but because I think there are reasons it's better, in general, to have a King.
First, I think there's a role for both a King and a Queen. Yes, there's usually a Prince Consort, and yes, Phillip, Henrik, and Claus have all done good jobs in their role, but I think you get "more for your money," so to speak, when you have two monarchs rather than one monarch plus a prince. (And I don’t like the idea of titling a Queen Regnant’s husband King Consort – the historical tradition for the King ruling over the Queen is too strong and I don’t think most people would accept it. I somehow think the Danes would have a fit over a King Henrik!
)
Second, I think Prince Consort is a difficult role for a man - it's hard to spend your life walking three steps behind your wife. I think it's difficult for a man personally and difficult for the marriage. (Maybe one could argue it shouldn't be this way, but it generally is in our society.)
Third, if a woman comes to the throne as Queen Regnant once her children are grown, then this next issue doesn't matter. However, if she has small children at the time - like Margrethe and Elizabeth - then it's difficult for her to fulfill her duties and spend enough time with them, as was the case for both these women. A King who is a young father doesn't have quite the same problem because his Queen Consort wife has more time for them and because fathers aren't expected to see quite as much of their kids as mothers are. (Once again, maybe one could argue it shouldn't be this way, but it generally is in our society.)
Even if there weren’t advantages to a King over a Queen, I don’t find the fact that there’s discrimination against daughters in the monarchy exceptionally troubling. Monarchies inherently discriminate – if you’re not born into one, you’re obviously not royal and you’re denied the privileges that involves. And even with equal primogeniture, there’s discrimination within the monarchy itself – why should younger children be further back in the line? Is it fair for Andrew to rank behind Charles, or Joachim to rank behind Frederik, just because they’re younger? Why is there no outcry about the denial of rights to middle and younger children? Do those who approve this system believe that oldest children are "first class humans?"
Also, the popular argument that it isn't fair to deny a girl the right to the throne because she has a younger brother seems to presuppose that the throne is a wonderful thing everyone is just clamoring to have. On the contrary, you tend to see royals reacting the opposite way. For instance, the two younger Swedish siblings say they're glad Victoria's the heir and not them, Margriet of the Netherlands says she can't imagine anything worse than being Queen like Beatrix, and I've read that when Elizabeth was a young girl after it became apparent her father would have to take the throne she used to pray for God to send her a brother. The throne is a lot of work, a lot of responsibility, and generally pretty restricting for your life, your spouse's life, and your children's lives, which is why most royals would prefer to avoid it and just enjoy royal privilege from further out on the fringe. I think the fact that the British system currently keeps women from being in this situation unless they have no brothers is actually a show of great preference to females, and I think making the succession laws gender-blind would be a loss to a royal women's rights rather than a gain.
I support the current system because I think it privileges women, not because I see men as "first class humans."