UK mulling royal succession rule change

Took them centuries to get around to this? Well, royalty only gets in power because someone got an army together in the olden days and wielded the biggest stick in order to get control of certain regions.

I think the UK are more concerned with first by-passing Prince Charles and Camilla, to give William the throne earlier. He has the most potential and acceptability of the current batch of inbred misfits...

"some aspects of the succession rule “could be discriminatory.”"

Well, they pick one child from one line. Dont think the Cabinet Office has any problem with 'discrimination'.

If we must have a monarch, let it be one elected by the people. Or chosen at random from the general population, say for a stint of five years, strictly non-hereditary.

Mods, this is not possible: "Crown Prince Felipe will inherit the thrown from his father King Juan Carlos..." (6 lines from end)

Strictly speaking, the British monarchy is not completely hereditary since the Privy Council must meet, approve the succession and take the new Sovereign's oath. In theory, they could block Charles or reject a younger male heir in favour of an older female one. Such action would be unlikely, however, in a system that runs based on convention and precedence.

A return to the Anglo-Saxon model of nominating monarchs might be a step in the right direction.

Or they could do it the old way - put the prospective monarchs and their royalist followers on a battlefield, last one standing gets to be king.

@Cleo lol yep thats how their ancestors did it! Maybe I should start amassing a private army and try to get myself a position for monarchy! But actually I might not the general of my private army has kind of a lust for power, I might get assassinated before I could claim the throne!

If we must have a monarch

Then let's stick to butterflies.