Comment of the Morning:
"Do they still have to pull the sword out of the stone?"–4thwright
Girls born to the British throne can now be crowned before their younger brothers, according to changes approved by the Commonwealth of Nations summit in Australia. Future British monarchs will also be allowed to marry a Catholic, under the proposed changes. CNN.com readers explored what these changes meant and why the monarchy was still important to the Commonwealth.
Sgtgismo said, "Katie and Bill with equal billing." KellyinBoston replied, "Not quite. Kate can't be queen–She isn't an heir. She married into the family. If they have a daughter before they have a son, however, the daughter could assume the throne before the son (assuming the law is approved in all 16 countries for whom the monarchy is formal head of state)."
musings2 said, "An important move: given smaller families, all girls for William and Catherine would be a distinct possibility, and she certainly does not want to be having babies until there is a son. It would set a bad example for the zero population-growth forces. Camilla was apparently raised Catholic, so this would remove any impediment to her being Charles's queen consort."
gamts said, "I thought Queen Lizzy WAS a girl. ..." wytchang replied, "If Elizabeth had any brothers, even younger ones, he would have become king over her. The old law didn't bar women from the throne; it just preferred all the male children over the female ones."
EdwardG asked, "If you are going to change centuries of tradition to be more 'politically correct,' why on earth even bother having any tradition or royal family in the first place?"
lurgy replied, Tourism. They bring in over £200 million in tourism, and cost about £40 million. Not a bad investment." Zool agreed, "So about 50p per year per citizen of the UK. Even if we got rid of them the castles still need to be maintained. Besides they earn that money back via tourism."
hop88 said, "I'm from a colony (Australia) and have many great British friends and we voted down becoming a republic, so obviously some do want to have something to do with them. Also would like to add that sometimes not everything is about money and keeping traditions rather than becoming ultra commercialized can be worth every penny."
BeanSoup, who identified as a British expat, agreed: "It is about tradition ... and even though the British are not in the least bit patriotic, it is unpatriotic not to like the royal family. Many people would rather get rid of the royalty, but a majority want to keep them. Pride is a factor in that too."
planterspunc said, "If a monarch or future monarch marries a Roman Catholic, how do these new changes reconcile with the Roman Catholic Church's positions on the (relative) invalidity of everyone else's denominations and the demand that children from a [religious] 'mixed' marriage must be raised as Roman Catholic? Stay tuned, or WWES ('What Would Elizabeth [I] Say')."
SnackMonster said, "I can go to my grave in peace now."
amac1959 said, "King Henry VIII must be spinning in his grave. ..."
For those of you who would like to share news and comments that may be off topic, there is now a site where you can do just that. Here's the link:
Compiled by the CNN.com moderation staff. Some comments edited for length or clarity.