Obviously, the British Royal Family does not spring at all for HBO. All those billions and they cannot afford to pay to watch “John Adams”. If they did, they’d realize that ‘monarchy’ is so 18th century.
Their biggest problem right now: Seeking to abolish the male royal succession law.
Yup, right now if you’re a royal chick, and have a younger brother ---even a goofy one with just three brain cells working, the ‘he’ gets to be king before you get to be ‘queen’. And some in the UK say that’s not fair. M’thinks their standards should be higher than that: Move to scrap the monarchy all together. But that’s just me. The law was passed waaaay back in 1701, just after the 17th century ended.
And today Solicitor General Vera Baird told the Sunday Times that the 1701 law was “unfair” and "a load of rubbish." Come Baird, watch your language. You’re never gonna get the House of Commons to agree with you if you trash talk them like that. And by the way, Queen Elizabeth II became queen because brothers she had none.
However the Queens daughter, Princess Anne was number three in succession to the throne, behind Prince Charles. But it did not matter if she tried hard or not. Once Andrew and Edward were born, she dropped in the British ranking. Now with Prince William and Prince Henry –Chuck’s kids---she’s dropped out of the top ten.
The Liberal Democrats think the succession rule should be "confined to the dustbin of history." The paper also says that Baird wants to “repeal the law banning the heir to the throne from marrying a Catholic.”
Whoop-dee-doo for them for going out on a limb like that. Hope the Pope hears about this ---he will flip his pope hat right off.