Overheard on CNN.com: King Henry must be 'spinning in grave'
The laws would apply to any future children of Prince William and Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, who married this year.
October 28th, 2011
01:34 PM ET

Overheard on CNN.com: King Henry must be 'spinning in grave'

Comment of the Morning:

"Do they still have to pull the sword out of the stone?"–4thwright

Girls given equal rights to British throne under law changes

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:

Open Thread: Talk about the news

Compiled by the CNN.com moderation staff. Some comments edited for length or clarity.

soundoff (38 Responses)
  1. ronvan

    Not sure about the religion thing, but the Queen has been the symbol of the royals for a long time, and for me, a perfect example of the old times. A classs act of the acient times in todays world!

    October 28, 2011 at 3:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • p a p a r a z z i n c

      Here's something better: DEMAND ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS RESIGN!

      October 28, 2011 at 3:48 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Grog Says

    I thaught Charles wanted to be queen.

    October 28, 2011 at 3:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • p a p a r a z z i n c

      Here's something neat about the 'throne':

      demand all members of congress resign......

      October 28, 2011 at 3:49 pm | Report abuse |
  3. Charlie Anderson

    And further to mac's comments, Henry VIII would have had no problem with marriage with a catholic because he remained a fervent catholic until the day he died. His split with the pope was over who was to be head of the English Church. Henry ditched the pope, made himself head of the English (catholic church) and remained a practicing Catholic. In fact, after initially allowing some reform (protestantism) he hardened his stance against protestants towards the end of his reign and promoted a more doctrinal conservative catholicism (without the pope, of course)

    October 28, 2011 at 3:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • leeintulsa

      But, he could have stopped with catherine.. Not the doin chicks part, but the having to marry to have a son part.

      October 28, 2011 at 9:29 pm | Report abuse |
  4. lar

    Queen Elizabeth I did have a younger brother and he did inherit the throne after his father. He died very young, however. Then came Elizabeth's older sister, Mary, who died in middle age, and finally her. Henry VIII was wrong: Elizabeth became one of the strongest monarchs England had ever had. However, she never married and had no children, and so the throne was inherited by James of Scotland, who was not a Tudor. Henry VIII would not have liked that.

    October 28, 2011 at 3:42 pm | Report abuse |
  5. bobcat2u

    King Henry is probably just spinning in his grave to assume the position he wanted to be buried in the first place.
    You know, face down, so the whole world yada yada yada.

    October 28, 2011 at 3:44 pm | Report abuse |
  6. p a p a r a z z i n c

    This is important to us? Really, with 9% unemployment. Here's something easy to understand about the 'throne'.

    DEMAND ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS RESIGN.

    p a p a r a z z i n c. c o m

    October 28, 2011 at 3:47 pm | Report abuse |
  7. Henry Miller

    "If Elizabeth had any brothers, even younger ones, he would have become king over her...."

    Elizabeth I did have a brother, a half-brother, four years younger than she was. He died young, leaving the throne to another half-sister, Mary I, who in turn died five years later, leaving the throne to Elizabeth I.

    October 28, 2011 at 3:50 pm | Report abuse |
  8. Himself

    When Prince William ascends to the throne as King, his wife Catherine will become the Queen. Our present day Queen Elizabeth became the Queen as she had no male siblings when her father died. Her mother, the Queen Mother (who has now died) became Queen because her husband was the King. Kings wives become Queens, but Queens husbands become Prince Consorts, as is the case with Prince Phillip.

    October 28, 2011 at 3:50 pm | Report abuse |
  9. greystoke

    Long live the queen!!!and may the good lord bless her with many more years on the throne...a great lady....whom I gladly and wilfully serve!!!!...whom evewr susceedes her may they be blessed by the good lord aswell,and rule in the way H.R.H. Elizabeth 2nd has! With strength,wisdom,courage,and grace. Thank you my lady.

    October 28, 2011 at 3:52 pm | Report abuse |
  10. Maddox

    They were talking about QEII, henry miller.

    October 28, 2011 at 3:59 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Maddox

    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.”

    They're talking about the present Queen.

    October 28, 2011 at 4:02 pm | Report abuse |
  12. svann

    At least the king isnt a dictator like the old days.

    October 28, 2011 at 4:02 pm | Report abuse |
  13. Joey Isotta-Fraschini

    I like the system the way it was.

    October 28, 2011 at 4:36 pm | Report abuse |
  14. p a p a r a z z i n c

    This is our version of the 'throne':

    DEMAND ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS RESIGN..... simple easy conclusive goal-oriented

    p a p a r a z z i n c . c o m

    October 28, 2011 at 5:49 pm | Report abuse |
  15. Avser Bastian

    NEW & RELOADED !! NOT ANTI WALL-STREET PROTESTS, BUT INSTEAD ANTI WHITES !!

    ANTI WALL-STREET PROTESTS ARE ALSO KNOWN UNDER ZIONIST "TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP" IN AMERICA !! TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FROM HANDS OF WHITE AMERICANS TO SO CALLED "MINORITIES"(COMMUNISM)

    ANTI WALL-STREET PROTEST MOVEMENT IS LED BY SO CALLED "ANONYMOUS" !!

    HAHA...TELL ME WHO IS ANONYMOUS IN A POLICE STATE AND WHERE PEOPLE ARE SURVEILLANCED 24/7 !!? WHO !!? NOBODY !!! ABSOLUTELY NOBODY IS ANONYMOUS IN A POLICE STATE AND NOR ARE THOSE WHO MADE YOU PROTEST FOR THEIR SAKE OR WHAT MULTICULTURALISM IS !!! Wall street protesters are Obama's raise of the planet Apes army which spread from London per Zionist Washington DC and communist Moscow where new Stalin is in place – PUTIN !!!

    VISIT http://multiculturalismisterrorism.blogspot.com

    THEY WERE MURDERING YOU WITH AND INSIDE OF THEIR CORPORATIONS FOR OVER 66 YEARS !!! THEY HAVE CLOSED DOWN ALMOST EVERY SMALL COMPANY(FARMS) IN UNITES STATES OF AMERICA AND NOW, THEY WANT YOU TO GO OUT THERE AND PROTEST FOR THEM AGAINST WALL STREET(corporations = Wall-street) !!!

    THEY CRIME CONTEMPLATED AGAINST US PER EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION FOR OVER 66 YEARS AND NOW, THEY WANT YOU TO RAISE COMMUNIST FLAG UNDER AMERICAN SKY !!! ONE RACE; RAT RACE(COMMUNISM) !!!

    IF YOU PROTEST(YOU SHOULD), MAKE SURE TO RAISE SIGN WHERE DISPLAYED I CITE "66 YEARS OF GENOCIDE AGAINST WHITES IS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE" OR GET LOST HOME IF NOT ALREADY HOMELESS(I despise people who starve to death out there and are afraid to say out loud what is truth even while protesting...I despise people who only see themselves and do NOT care even about children of their own...children who will be turned one day in white refugees as seen on above video thanks to their parents who are awaiting...awaiting in fear to become homeless and what is inevitable at any given moment) !!!

    THIS NEWS IS RELATED TO

    WHITES AREN’T WELCOME IN AMERICA ANY LONGER !!! OUT OF AMERICA WITH WHITES NOW !!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xGfYOAydjw OR http://www.youtube.com/user/BostjanAvsec <== OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE RECORDED LIVE IN 2009 (EXILING WHITES AND IMPORTING NON WHITES). THIS IS THE MAIN REASONS PER WHY WALL-STREET PROTESTERS APPEARED(to cover up government crime/genocide against white population because Obama = Osama) BESIDE ALREADY MENTIONED "TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP"(COMMUNISM).

    October 29, 2011 at 12:39 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3