maidmarion
Gentry
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2006
- Messages
- 93
- City
- personal
- Country
- Canada
All points are well taken. Thanks to all for the insights. This is what creates great discussions.
Cheers,
MM
Cheers,
MM
Furienna said:Well, I still don't see the point of having a female heir, if there would be a male avaible. When it comes to royal houses, tradition is much more important than equality.
I agree completly primogenture is the best and only way to go the throne is inherited by the firstborn -male or female.It seems by and large women have been proven the better and longer serving rulers than their male counterparts.Victoria is a level-headed young woman and is the best suited of the three siblings.I think Carl prefers that is sister is first in line over him.I do think if Carl was CP you would still here alot about Victoria girls get more press attention.If William and Harry had sisters they would get more attention than Harry,maybe not William since he's the heir but sister's would get alot of attention.Sister Morphine said:I think primogeniture is the only way to go, really. Women are just as capable of being Regent as a man. Was it fair that Carl Philip was stripped of his birthright? You could say that no, it wasn't fair......but is it fair that Victoria would have been denied the right to rule simply because she's female?
With primogeniture, first born wins out regardless of gender and you don't have these silly [no offense] arguments about whether or not women are fit to rule a country. Victoria seems like a very smart women and I'm sure that she will balance all that is required of her as Queen with what is required of her as a mother.
Next Star said:First of all Victoria and Carl-Philp were babies when the succession law was changed.Second a woman can be head of a monarchy Why? must only men carry this authority? It is sexiest to choose only males to be in line to the throne when there are females born into the family too.The children of female
could hold their father's last name as their middle name so the children has apart of their father's name.
Furienna said:Even I admit, that Victoria will make a great queen. However, generally speaking, I rather see a female prime minister or president than a female monarch. The reason for this is, that prime ministers and presidents are elected by the people because of they have done, not because of how they were born, and their children will hardly follow their footsteps (except there are some exceptions, like the two George Bushes). But royals have to keep a dynasty going, and even though women can make great monarchs, it will be the men, who keep the dynasty going, since most children get their father's last name or family name, not their mother's. Of course, it's possible to let royal children get their mother's family name, and not their father's, But that would only make sense, when there is no brother avaible. In the case of Victoria and Carl Philip, I would see it as ridiculous to give Victoria's children the last name Bernadotte, if Carl Philip got children, who will get the last name much more automatically. So when it comes to the dynasty of Bernadotte, it would make more sense NOT to rob Carl Philip of the crown prince title, even when he was a baby.
I like the system to be advanced in Holland where the Princess of Orange will confer a princedom-consort on her husband
Frothy said:I greatly look forward to having such a system set up in the UK.
Frothy said:Madame yes, I am talking about Princess Catherine Amalia. Under the new system she will be Princess of Orange in her own right and confer a Princedom on her husband. The model is perfectly equal b/c the wife of the Prince of Orange will not be Princess of Orange but takes the different consort's title. I think, anyway, am not a Dutch royal expert!
Philip is not Prince Consort, just a prince of the UK. Prince Consort was only used once. King Consort as a title has been conferred on two kings consort, the prince who later became Philip II of Spain (but was not on his wedding day when made King Consort of England) and Bothwell, King Consort of Scotland to Mary Queen of Scots.
So it's all a bit haphazard for the consorts of Ruling Queens in the UK. No clear precedents. Easy to set up a defined system like the Dutch one.
Madame Royale said:The State of the Vatican City is an elective monarchy. The Pope being elected for a lifetime by the College of Cardinals.
Andorra is considered to be an elective principality. It claims two princely heads of state, the Bishop of La Seu d'Urgell and the President of France. In actuality, it is the King of France who is the rightful Andorran co ruler but this position has been occupied by the President of France since the abolishment of the monarchy.
I'm certain there are others but I can't seem to remember them at the moment.
Next Star said:Most people do not recongize the Vatican as a monarchy being that is the center of the catholic church in most constitutions there is a seperation of church and state.
And Queen Marageth II of Denmark has given her husband the title of Prince Consort in 2005 I looked up his bio on the web.
Another thing the monarchies are starting to be like the republic allowing women to be head of state no matter what type of goverment it is.
The State of the Vatican City
That's right. Remember, Cardinals are Princes of the Church. It's not just a romantic label - it's a real title. Popes have a choice of being crowned or inaugurated. The Pope is an absolute ruler. The Holy See is very much an absolute monarchy with the Pope as absolute monarch.is a sovereign state and is preceded by a elective head of state, that being the Pope and thus being an elective monarchy.
Madame Royale said:I disagree (respectively) with much of your post, Next Star.
The State of the Vatican City is a sovereign state and is preceded by a elective head of state, that being the Pope and thus being an elective monarchy. Whether some wish to recognise this or not is entirely up to the indavidual but it does not change the fact that the Vatican is, and shall remain, an indapendant (having gained independence in 1929 from the then Kingdom of Italy) and absolute elective monarchy (where this non-hereditary monarch can, and does, exercise supreme executive, legislative and judicial powers within the state of The Holy See).
This I already noted, minus the year it was bestowed upon him. Thanks for providing the year
This has nothing to do with Republican ideals though. It is a reflection of changes within the monarchial system in terms of sex equality (social progression).
BeatrixFan said:The Pope is very much involved with the Government of the Vatican State. He isn't involved with politics because there are no politics. He appoints his "Government" and they all take their orders directly from him.
BeatrixFan said:Back on this planet.....it's interesting to note that although Sweden has "equal rights" and other countries are now following by changes in the law, the Vatican is one monarchy that will never change the rules. You can always be sure that the monarch will be male. I'm sure Victoria will do an excellent job as Queen. She seems to cope well with being a Crown Princess. If she can be a role model to the younger generation - like Princess Ingrid-Alexandra of Norway, I can see alot of successful monarchs in the future.
Next Star said:You have the right to your own opinion Madame Royale but the fact is the world is starting to see that a woman can be head of state regardless of what type of government it is. The Vatican has the most unique monarchy because the pope is not involued with politics or government he is the head of the roman catholic church and the Vatican.
I think that Victoria will be great as Queen of Sweden and that is good to go by birth instead of going by sex and allowing the eldest child regardless of sex to be the heir to the throne and be the future king or queen to their native land instead of allowing only males and overlooking the females as if there they donot even exist.
Madame Royale said:And you have the right to your opinion Next Star (infact I dont recall questioning it), but its not so much my opinion as it is the way it is
You compared the changes of monarchial hereditary succession to a republican administration and that was (largely) an incorrect comparison. It has nothing to with it whatsoever. I did note though that it is about change within the worlds oldest institution and a clear sign of social progression (a result of, perhaps).
I agree that the first born should inherit no matter what sex. It is the way I have always thought and it is the way I shall continue to think.