An heir and a spare

Merry - posted on 06/21/2011 ( 41 moms have responded )

9,274

169

263

Anyone else HATE this phrase and concept?!?!
It's so awful to consider your second son a 'spare' and equally awful to not care about daughters, just need those 2 sons right! :/
Honestly.....

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

[deleted account]

Does the heir have to be a boy still? Or have we evolved past that sexism



No, it doesn't have to a boy. Look at Queen Elizabeth. :)



Male line comes first, though. So if Charles, Wills, and Harry all die of the plague, it goes to Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, even though his sister Princess Anne is older. But then Andrew's daughters Beatrice and Eugenie would be his heirs. He has no sons.

41 Comments

View replies by

[deleted account]

Emma, it's doubtful they will have a Blossom or Moses simply because they are not allowed to. Well, they probably could if they wanted to buck the monarchy, however highly unlikely. Even if they did choose some funky name, it would only be one of many and if the child ascended to the throne, he would then choose a more appropriate name from the list on his birth certificate.



It is well known that Edward VIII went by David until he ascended the throne, and his brother George VI went by Albert until called up. So there is at least one name given that will be suitable for a king.



Do you think they would really have a King Harry (if he were to make it that far)? That totally reminds me of that John Goodman movie "King Ralph"! lol



Unfortunately girls have always taken a backseat to male heirs all over the world because they are seen as the "weaker sex". We still struggle for equality in the workplace!



Desiree, maybe a hostile takeover is needed? :-)



Oh yeah, CofE in the US is known as Episcopalian. Anglican or CofE here in Australia. I think they changed the name of the church back in founding fathers days, because of the obvious correlation to England. So the catholic church has the pope as head of their church and CofE/Episcopalians have the queen. My ex-husband was Anglican and he described the religion as "good time Catholics", because the priests can marry (and occasionally are women now!) and they don't poo-poo birth control.

Desiree - posted on 06/22/2011

910

17

13

I am oh Potuguese decent. I am the eldest of 4 children the youngest being a boy. I have worked in the family business for 14 years and am 6 year older than my brother. My father is ready to retire and guess who become the next chief in charge, I can guarantee its not me. I have been completely over looked and pushed to the side because I am female. So yes it is a shitty position to be in. My next move.....Mmmm Not sure yet but I may leave. (Both are crappy bosses)

Stifler's - posted on 06/22/2011

15,141

154

604

I wonder what would happen if Wills and Kate named their kid some outrageous made up name.

♏*PHOENIX*♏ - posted on 06/22/2011

4,455

6

402

It's a bit sexiest to me how sons are more revered in some cultures. And as a women the more sons you have the better you look.



My second born son is very spoiled by his Korean family. he is not the first born but he is the first born grandson and his great grand mother referred to him as a king!! ( not over anyone) just that he is very Important almost more so then his two girl cousins, and at first I'm like that is sweet but then I thought about it and didnt like it, because if he had been a girl I'm not sure he would get treated the way does or get the things he does.

I just wish all over boys and girls were looked at as equal not just some places

Desiree - posted on 06/22/2011

910

17

13

Prince William has the second name Arthur which has conotations to the Ledgendary figure King Arthur according to ledgend he will return when England needs him most. and he will rule is great peace and properity. Well we can only hope and dream can't we.

Teresa - posted on 06/22/2011

522

34

35

That's horrible. I never thought of any of my kids as "spares". Unplanned? yeah..lol, but not spares.

Merry - posted on 06/22/2011

9,274

169

263

Is there some rule about what the royal families name their babies? Or do they just choose all the same type of names on their own?

Desiree - posted on 06/22/2011

910

17

13

With high rate of mortality in Children a century and more ago this was perfectly acceptable but it is not only about inheritance it is also about carrying thefamily name from one generation to the next. Women when they marry take on the male surname and hence the only way for the name to be carried on. a form of immortality if you will.

Charlie - posted on 06/21/2011

11,203

111

409

But they need their daughters to trade off to princes so that they may have an ally.....back in the old days.

Amber - posted on 06/21/2011

1,909

13

145

I think in the beginning of the monarchy, it probably made sense to some degree.
Only men could inherit the thrown and most people had large families because you were pretty likely to lose a child early to disease, accidents, etc. If you didn't want to hand over your thrown/control to distant relatives, you needed multiple sons.

Do I agree with it? Nope. I do understand where it would have been necessary given the way the world was a couple hundred years ago though.

Stifler's - posted on 06/21/2011

15,141

154

604

I feel sorry for Charles. He does as much welfare work as Diana ever did and probably more. Just doesn't flaunt it.

Charlie - posted on 06/21/2011

11,203

111

409

I hope the throne gets handed to William too .....Charles I just do not see as a leader.

Stifler's - posted on 06/21/2011

15,141

154

604

My grandma told me when they had kids you had 2 and one in case one of the others died.

Elfrieda - posted on 06/21/2011

2,620

0

462

Hey, a Canadian here. My husband and I were just discussing this at breakfast for some reason. I was thinking that Canada might just stop being a constitutional monarchy once Queen Elizabeth dies or steps down (we'd wait til she's gone so as not to hurt her feelings, because we are fond of her) because really what's the point of royalty anyway, but my husband thinks it would take such a huge constitutional change, it would be more trouble than it's worth, plus we wouldn't get to be all super-friendly with the UK and Australia for travelling purposes.

That made us wonder why QE isn't retiring yet. Is she waiting for her grandson to be king? Wow, what a terrible thing to think your own mother doesn't believe in you. Ouch.

Merry - posted on 06/21/2011

9,274

169

263

Your government is like your countries own reality tv show!
Lol sounds interesting to me :)

Fiona - posted on 06/21/2011

52

0

0

My dad reckons charlie will get skipped in the line of succession, since he'll undo all the hard work the royal family has done to become relevant to British society again. He also thinks that if Wills and Kate have a daughter the Queen will look into getting the inheritance of the throne changed to be dependant on the first born only, since we're pretty sure she doesn't want Charlie on the throne. Dad did say that because Charles married Camilla there's a loophole that can keep him off of the throne, but i can't remember the specifics at the moment

Merry - posted on 06/21/2011

9,274

169

263

I guess, but a first born daughter might feel royally jipped.
Lol pun intended :)
I know I'd be pissed if I was passed over and my little brother got to be king....

[deleted account]

It's not totally 100% sexist. Some kingdoms are worse, like the Kingdom of Hanover. No woman could sit on the throne at all. In the UK, it's male LINE, not male HEIRS only. So Queen Victoria ended up being Queen of England, but the Hanoverian throne went to her first cousin, Ernst or somebody.

[deleted account]

Sons come before daughters regardless of age, but if there are no sons, then daughters can inherit the throne.

In Sweden, they changed the law so that the Crown Princess Whatsherface is the heir now. She's the firstborn, then she had a little brother. But he was the heir under the old law, but now she will be Queen.

I doubt the UK will change their laws. They're arcane. Being Catholic or marrying a Catholic still strikes you from the succession. If William had married a Catholic girl, Harry would be the heir now.

Merry - posted on 06/21/2011

9,274

169

263

Confusing! And a bit sexist......but I guess it's been working fine so who am I to judge.

April - posted on 06/21/2011

3,420

16

263

oh! they explained this when they were covering the royal wedding. unfortunately, i am even more confused now than i was before! they were discussing where Will and Kate's future kids would fall in the line of royalty. i do recall them saying that if Kate were to give birth to a female, she would be farther away from the throne than ANY brother (older or younger). How is that fair? :(

Merry - posted on 06/21/2011

9,274

169

263

Now I'm confused and interested. How does the englad royal ruler thing work? I'm completely ignorant....anyone care to inform me? How does it work who gets to be king or queen next?

Dana - posted on 06/21/2011

11,264

35

495

I didn't know people actually said that and meant it. I think it's just a stupid phrase.

Merry - posted on 06/21/2011

9,274

169

263

Does the heir have to be a boy still? Or have we evolved past that sexism

Lacye - posted on 06/21/2011

2,011

31

164

It is a horrible way to think about your kids but when it comes to royalty and aristocracy, it's a fact of life.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms