As Britain's allegedly "Conservative" Prime Minister David Cameron proposes to tamper with the laws of royal succession to end "discrimination" against females and Roman Catholics, Andrew Schrader and the "Mad Monarchist" point out how absurd and problematic this is. "Fairness" and "Equality" are not the point of a hereditary monarchy, as David Mitchell once pointed out in one of my favourite pieces on the subject. And how is it any more "fair" to favour the eldest child? Doesn't that "discriminate" against younger siblings? The whole proposal is incoherent balderdash. As much as I despise abolitionist republicans, at least they're consistent.
I think it's also worth noting that even under the existing supposedly "sexist" system, which allows women to reign if they have no living and eligible brothers, the English monarchy has been headed by women for 185 of the past 458 years (since the accession of Mary Tudor in 1553), or about 40%--nearly half--of the time (190/41% if the five-year reign of Mary II who reigned jointly with her husband William III is included). For Scotland, it's 160/165 of the past 469 years (since the accession of Mary Stuart in 1542), or 34/35%. Clearly when God or Fate means for Britain to have a Queen Regnant, she will. Politicians should leave well enough alone and focus on the UK's real problems.