One may have guessed I'm not a "born-again royalist". In fact, I would question whether friends and colleagues of strong Christian persuasion actually believe that their God appointed the Queen, and her rights or lack of rights to succession.
However, the subject has learned me a new word, primogeniture.
The debate, of course, is whether Wills and Kate, or William and Catherine, should be subject to archaic patriarchial concepts of succession to the throne.
Scope to patrimony was established on the principle of a society that did not have women with the right to vote, rights to work, rights to decide whether they had children, nor, of course, women who had rights over children*.
However, our society is considered to be leading in gender equality with "equal rights" for both women and men.
Therefore, why should one third of the Executive be obligated by filial bequest dominated by male entitlement to the throne?
Of course, the real debate from my perspective, is whether that third of the Executive should exist at all.
For Executive, please read the House of Lords, the House of Commons and the Throne.
Although technically, due to the gradual erosion of Royal Prerogatives, the Queen's rights over Parliamentary legislation are more of a "press one to approve this act of Parliament" status, that status is undeniably still in existence.
In recent discussions with a good friend of mine, the issue of Bank holidays was raised. With regards to the onset of Kate and William's wedding, and David Cameron pronouncing a bank holiday, it was identified that he had no right to do so. A bank holiday can only be approved by the Queen, before it can become enacted legislation in the UK.
My immediate response was; how ludicrous, archaic and ridiculous.
What is to be achieved through entropic conservatism in supporting an outdated and outmoded monarchy that costs the taxpayer an absolute fortune?
The argument that the majority of people present to me is one of tourism. However, tourism would not cease were we to remove the Queen's rights over British legislation. A contractual divorce could be created that gave her possession of the Palace, Windsor and one or two ceremonial processes that could maintain what both our and other countries find so evocative.
Therefore, the sale of postcards shaped like Queen Elizabeth's head through to the Trooping of the Colour need not be ceased. We could even allow her to continue knighting people, because of the benefits of civilised approval.
This would naturally extend to King Charles and Princess Camilla, and furthermore to King William and Princess Catherine.
I seek to refer to Camilla and Kate as princesses predominantly because they do not see why a man married to the leading monarch should be referred to as a lesser person, for example a prince, why a woman married to a leading monarch should not be considered to be a lesser person and therefore the Princess. But I digress.
There is much bluff in the press about Britain being a multicultural country. If we are truly a multicultural country, then why is one third of executive appointed by a single religion, and the other two thirds reliant on pompous ceremony to be approved by that single religion.
If we are truly embracing the "muscular liberalism" of multiculturalism, as third cousin to the Queen, David Cameron, recently asserted, then we should apply the same muscular liberalism to an outdated, outmoded and nonsense representation of ceremony that the Queen, and the Royal family, have become.
The contractual divorce from the Houses of Parliament need not be complicated. It would be an "amicable" separation which would entitle the Royal family to half of all assets, as indeed any divorce should be. If need be, we could refer any issues to the local volunteer mediation service, as the current government is so keen to use to reduce legal fees(!).
The relationship between the Queen and the Executive would be rendered as effective as the relationship between the Queen and her Commonwealth countries. She does not approve every act of Parliament in Canada, nor New Zealand, nor Australia. Therefore relations can be established in the same format.
I recognize the value of a thriving tourism industry in London, but I also recognize that that industry need not stop because the Queen no longer opens parliament nor readout preprepared speeches by the government that have political implications beyond her power.
So should a girl succeed?
Well, I could make an elitist comment regarding Prince William marrying someone from the middle classes, but I will refrain.
A girl should have equal rights to succession of the throne, just as the princes should have full rights to decide to undertake homosexual relationships or seek not to have children.
It seems slightly ludicrous to have a country so focused on equality as Britain is, without affording the leading resident those same rights.
If we must maintain a monarchy, then the least we can do is ensure that the female members of that monarchy have as much entitlement to the throne as the males.
I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too.
Queen Elizabeth I
We no longer need to live by assertions of the superior sex, whether we are royalty or ragged trousered philanthropists.
*law archives identify that it wasn't until the Victorian era that children were considered to be both the property of the man and the woman. Patriarchal system is a family inheritance and business considered children to be the property of the man who would take on a new wife to retain the children went to seek a divorce