wow! i luv what you wrote- so here’s a funny comment- Anne succeeds even tho her children do not have titles- now- in some odd way that’s an opt out isn’t it? from the very beginning they’ve had no royal duties so we’ll call them slouchy. It wouldn’t make any diff to throne or not, would it ,,, The Slouchy Throne,,,
What is Gordon Brown’s impetus behind his idea? I’m truly curious aren’t you.
Here’s the big secret of the year now that I can blab to you altho you may already be aware ....David Cameron will replace Gordon Brown once Brown’s time is up.
But if they didn't do the job required of them (and they might very well do it - just because they haven't been trained to it, doesn't mean they couldn't rise to it - most of it is a matter of being willing to do what is needed - George VI was regarded as unprepared and untrained but came to be regarded as a great King) then they might well endanger the Monarchy. The reason the Monarchy is so strong in Britain today is simply that the last two Monarchs (Elizabeth II and George VI) have served their nation so well. Edward VIII would have been a disaster - his abdication was the greatest service he could do the crown - but before him, George V and Edward VII had served well, as did Victoria in the last part of her reign (she was very unpopular in the 1860s and 1870s during her long period of mourning when she didn't seem to do anything, but that changed after she emerged from seclusion following her golden jubilee.) The point is, the Monarchy has been popular for about 120 years now because there's been a succession of Monarchs (with the brief interruption of Edward VIII) who have clearly dedicated their lives to their nation. A single lazy (or 'slouchy') Monarch could easily destroy all that goodwill.
The establishment in Britain might not care all that much who the Monarch is, but they want a Monarchy. It's what gives them their clout and the mechanisms they need to be the establishment. They wouldn't throw it away.
Anne's children don't have titles because she knew at the time they were born, that they were unlikely to have to be royals - she was already fourth in line when Peter was born, with three brothers ahead of her, so she knew that while she had to live the life of a royal, they had a choice. They had a chance to be free of that responsibility and duty - now bear in mind that in 1977 when Peter was born, besides the issues surrounding her previous relationship with Andrew Parker Boyle, she had been the recent victim of a kidnap attempt in which shots were fired (her chauffer and bodyguard were wounded, along with another policeman who responded), it's not all that hard to see why she might have wanted to keep her children away from that.
Why is Gordon Brown pushing the abolition of primogeniture? Simple - it's a distraction from the fact his government is becoming increasingly unpopular. He's trying to create another political issue on which he would have a lot of public support, especially when it is also linked to the abolition of the laws preventing Catholics or those married to Catholics ascending to the throne. Virtually everybody agrees that the laws of succession should be free of gender bias and religious bias - if he could turn this into a significant political issue, he'd be championing a political cause with at least 80% support in the electorate.
As for David Cameron - well, yes, he is the most likely next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom - he's the Leader of the Opposition and Labour is expected to lose government at the next election. That's hardly a secret - it's the way the British government works and it's what the opinion polls are indicating is likely to happen - the Conservatives are 18 points ahead in the polls.