House of Lords rejects equality of succession to the throne

A spectacularly badly-written piece from AP (strangely I have seen
nothing on the BBC or in the papers):

Matt Lavengood...

I agree with Lord Falconer in this case. Eventually, the law will need
to be passed, but that will take extreme difficulty and every
Commonwealth Realm will also have to pass the law. It'll be a mess. So
why do it now, if it will change nothing? Neither Prince Charles nor
Prince William has any elder sisters.

Katipo...

It seems to me that now would be the perfect time to make the change. Why
wait until we have a monarch whose sons have elder sisters - far too messy
to do it then.

Stan Brown...

The Swedes did not find it so, in 1980 give or take a year.

Katipo I

Bryan J. Maloney...

What do the EU's various "rights" treaties say on such a matter?

=?iso-8859-1?B?SmFuIEL2aG1l?=...

Nothing, as far as I can see. You are not allowed to discriminate by
age either, so either monarchy as a whole is incompatible with them -
which nobody has suggested - or they don't apply at all.

Francois R. Velde...

And when a monarchy signs an international treaty or convention on the matter,
it usually adds a reservation excepting the crown. E.g., the UN convention on
the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women (1979) was ratified
by the UK with the following clause:

"... the United Kingdom's ratification is subject to the understanding that none
of its obligations under the Convention shall be treated as extending to the
succession to, or possession and enjoyment of, the Throne, the peerage, titles
of honour, social precedence or armorial bearings, or as extending to the
affairs of religious denominations or orders or to the admission into or service
in the Armed Forces of the Crown."

Jan B=F6hme