The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #461  
Old 12-22-2011, 09:45 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,088
Hang on, are you saying that because the Queen is a woman, she's not as good as a King?

If you look we'll be having two or maybe three Kings following Her Majesty depending upon whether William has a boy or girl, so living memory will resurface. A child born first whether boy or girl so have equal rights to reign. A Queen has never had a King as a King outranks a Queen. There is room to have a Prince Consort.

Would having Prince Philip as King Philip make any difference to the perception of the monarchy and how they do what they can or have done in the past? I think not.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #462  
Old 12-22-2011, 09:55 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,604
@ TheManWhoSpoke

Err.......no.........we are a Constitutional Monarchy. We don't need a King and a Queen; our Constitution only provides for a monarch, not a King and Queen. When we have a King, his Queen is only a Queen Consort and she has no constitutional role here.

A King is not "better" than a Queen Regnant; each is a monarch. And as for the leadership abilities of each, Queens Elizabeth I and Victoria each acquitted themselves rather well.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #463  
Old 12-23-2011, 06:07 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 10
"Err.......no.........we are a Constitutional Monarchy. We don't need a King and a Queen;"

@Rosylin: Indeed you are correct in the litigious sense. As far as governance is concerned, we need neither king nor queen - all we need is a head of state. For instance, if in Australia the Governor General were to be made head of state, and all ties to the British Monarchy severed, this functional role would still be adequately discharged. Coupled with some provision for selection and appointment within the constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Monarchy would be made entierly redundant.

But if you will review my logic more carefully, you will find I was refering to three distinct roles. King, Queen and Monarch. I was maintaining that the exemplary nature of King and Queen go beyond the simple discharging of executive powers. There is some manner in which the royal couple lead "by example".

"Hang on, are you saying that because the Queen is a woman, she's not as good as a King?"

@LumutQueen: No. What I am saying is that a woman cannot be a King, she can only ever be a Queen (pretty straightforward really) ... I am also saying that when it comes to exercising leadership, a Queen cannot be a leader of men - because she isn't one. No more then can a King exemplify proper behaviour to women - because he isn't one. So in this sence, both King and Queen together make a complete unit.

"A Queen has never had a King as a King outranks a Queen. There is room to have a Prince Consort."

But that is of course the confusing part: The Prince Consort does outrank the Queen - because he is her husband (it is afterall a christian marriage). Thus the Queen herself is in submission to her husband, who is at the very same time one of her subjects. You say that calliing the Prince Consort a King would cause conflict. But the truth is, that siduation already exists.

"Would having Prince Philip as King Philip make any difference to the perception of the monarchy and how they do what they can or have done in the past? I think not."

And that is a pitty. That you would think in this way is precisely the reason why King Philip is needed.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #464  
Old 12-23-2011, 12:52 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheManWhoSpoke View Post
No. What I am saying is that a woman cannot be a King, she can only ever be a Queen (pretty straightforward really) ... I am also saying that when it comes to exercising leadership, a Queen cannot be a leader of men - because she isn't one. No more then can a King exemplify proper behaviour to women - because he isn't one. So in this sence, both King and Queen together make a complete unit.
Well er no. When you use the word "cannot" it's sort of wrong. As The Queen is a representative of the men and a King is a representative of women. Neither Kings nor Queens are leaders, as they have nothing to lead. I think your 'theme' is that a man cannot do a womans job and vice versa, which in this era is ridiculously old fashioned and sexist IMO.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheManWhoSpoke View Post
But that is of course the confusing part: The Prince Consort does outrank the Queen - because he is her husband (it is afterall a christian marriage). Thus the Queen herself is in submission to her husband, who is at the very same time one of her subjects. You say that calliing the Prince Consort a King would cause conflict. But the truth is, that siduation already exists.
Well again no. Where in a christian marriage does it say that the women is subservient to her husband? You do make the Queen sound very much a slave in her own marriage. The Prince Consort does not exist as Prince Philip is known as The Duke of Edinburgh. In the monarchy the Prince Consort does not outrank the Queen as he has no constitutional power, just like a Queen Consort to a King. Maybe you should check out the reality before making something up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheManWhoSpoke View Post
[I]"Would having Prince Philip as King Philip make any difference to the perception of the monarchy and how they do what they can or have done in the past? I think not."

And that is a pitty. That you would think in this way is precisely the reason why King Philip is needed.
He is not 'needed'. If you want to take a look at the last 60 years of Her Majesty The Queens reign, i think you'll fine she's done a pretty damn good job on her own.

However, as your posts are clearly those of an old fashioned, slightly ignorant and sexiest male. I'll leave you be in future.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #465  
Old 12-23-2011, 01:02 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
Only St. Paul (whose contributions to early Christianity are dubious at best) makes this claim about female submissiveness, within Christianity. Indeed, for Anglicans and Episcopalians everywhere, this is old doctrine, not Christian truth. Egalitarianism in marriage has always been a tenet of some Christian groups and now is central to Anglicanism and Episcopolianism - although I'm sure everyone knows some Old School couples.

But even Paul said "there is no male or female" before God - we are all equal.

Nevertheless, Pauline scripture is not the word of the Lord Jesus, he's simply like the rest of us - working to understand divine principles.

To apply one's own religious dogma to the Queen and the Prince is fallacious at best.

I will say TheManWhoSpoke has a name that I won't soon forget either, LumutQueen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #466  
Old 12-23-2011, 01:12 PM
Sherlock221B's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 171
Currently why doesn't the oldest child, hence an older daughter vs. a younger brother, become the heir apparent?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #467  
Old 12-23-2011, 01:14 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock221B View Post
Currently why doesn't the oldest child, hence an older daughter vs. a younger brother, become the heir apparent?
Seriously? Because the United Kingdom has in place male preference cognatic primogenture. Once upon a time, the UK preferred male heirs. And as two monarchs and a future monarch have either had no boys, or a son who had a son there has been no reason to change it. Perhaps you are posing the question in reference to a previous posters comment about men being better than women?
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #468  
Old 12-23-2011, 01:37 PM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 378
[QUOTE=TheManWhoSpoke;1349353]. HM can lead us in all ways bar one - she cannot lead by example, because she is not a King.
We are currently a kingdom without a king, the experience is almost entierly absent from living memory. It is a loss that recent events have provoked me to feel keenly aware of. It is as though that portion or the realm that is male are leaderless, on some spiritual level..
. Futhermore, the disclosure that we would enter into this arrangement by choice underlines the message of this age - that a man is nice to have, but an unnecessary extra. He is an expendable item. /QUOTE] So, Women has been an 'unnecessary extra' for the most part of the last 2000 years, because there where kingdoms and not 'queendoms'? And now, because for like the 5th time in Englands history there has been a Queen ... oh dear, your selfesteem must be low .
And in what way excactly is she not able to lead?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #469  
Old 12-23-2011, 01:39 PM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,768
Ummm, anyone hear of Elizabeth I, just to name one highly effective female monarch?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #470  
Old 12-23-2011, 02:57 PM
Sherlock221B's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock221B View Post
Currently why doesn't the oldest child, hence an older daughter vs. a younger brother, become the heir apparent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Seriously? Because the United Kingdom has in place male preference cognatic primogenture. Once upon a time, the UK preferred male heirs.
In other words the UK and the Commonwealth in a broad sense practices male chauvinism...especially when it comes to the royal family, correct? The adoption of equal primogeniture would put an immediate end to such a practice in the UK and the Commonwealth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
And as two monarchs and a future monarch have either had no boys, or a son who had a son there has been no reason to change it.
In the first circumstance I believe you are speaking of either William IV or Edward VIII or George VI while the future monarch would be the Duke of Cambridge? Whilst your second example refers to Queen Victoria, Edward VII, George V, and Queen Elizabeth. And the reason to change it now is because it is the ultimate representation of male chauvinism providing a legitimacy for its existence...correct?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Perhaps you are posing the question in reference to a previous posters comment about men being better than women?
And equal primogeniture will definitely prove such an ideology to be complete madness; especially if the oldest child is a daughter.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #471  
Old 12-23-2011, 03:13 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,088
I understand you're responding to what I wrote, but I don't understand what you're point is in what you're writing?
I was referring to George VI who had Elizabeth II who had Charles who had William. The two monarchs who had no boys/boy first are obviously George and Elizabeth, Charles is the future monarch who was the son who had a son.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #472  
Old 12-23-2011, 05:24 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheManWhoSpoke View Post
@LumutQueen: No. What I am saying is that a woman cannot be a King, she can only ever be a Queen (pretty straightforward really) ...
If you do some researching, you might be surprised to find out that HM Queen Elizabeth II is also the DUKE of Lancaster. Just thought I'd throw that fact into the mixture here.


The Duchy of Lancaster continues to exist as a separate entity from the Crown Estate and currently provides income for the monarch, Elizabeth II. The Sovereign is styled as Duke of Lancaster, regardless of gender,[1] although it is an honorary title and a royal style. The Dukedom became extinct after Henry VI,[2] as the original charter restricted it to 'heirs male'. Despite this, George V approved the ongoing use of the title.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #473  
Old 12-23-2011, 05:50 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
And in the Channel Islands she is Duke of Normandy. She is also Lord of Man
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #474  
Old 12-23-2011, 06:32 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
Oh, and since we didn't cover this one yet: women can lead (and be an example to) men and men can and do lead (and are an example to) women.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #475  
Old 12-23-2011, 10:03 PM
Sherlock221B's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
I understand you're responding to what I wrote, but I don't understand what you're point is in what you're writing?
I was referring to George VI who had Elizabeth II who had Charles who had William. The two monarchs who had no boys/boy first are obviously George and Elizabeth, Charles is the future monarch who was the son who had a son.
My point is transitioning into equal primogeniture from male primogeniture is unnecessary. Other than an attack on male chauvinism, which is terrible, equal primogeniture has no purpose in the royal family.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #476  
Old 12-24-2011, 09:30 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Well er no. When you use the word "cannot" it's sort of wrong. As The Queen is a representative of the men and a King is a representative of women. Neither Kings nor Queens are leaders, as they have nothing to lead. I think your 'theme' is that a man cannot do a womans job and vice versa, which in this era is ridiculously old fashioned and sexist IMO.
How could my usage of the word "cannot" be wrong: Answer these questions for me plainly. Can a woman be a father? and a man be a mother? can a woman be a King? Or can a man be a Queen? I think you will agree that the answer to all these questions is no. As such my statement was self-evidently correct.

Futhermore, the concept of leadership is one that extends beyond the mere authoritative role. Though HM has value as a monarch, she has limited value to me as a role model or as a true leader - because she is a woman and unfamiliar to the peculiarities of being male. Would I give you advise on how best to deal with your period, or dictate conduct proper for a woman? No of course not! I am not qualified... The same principle applies here. The Queen is not quallified to dictate to me how to act as a man, or lead me in that manner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Well again no. Where in a christian marriage does it say that the women is subservient to her husband? You do make the Queen sound very much a slave in her own marriage....
Here are some of the many teachings for women within scripture:

The Creation
"Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.” That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. " - Genesis 2:22-24

The Apostle Paul
"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" - Ephesians 5:22-25

The Apostle Peter
"Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. " - 1 Peter 3:1-4

Proverbs
"A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies.
Her husband has full confidence in her
and lacks nothing of value.
She brings him good, not harm,
all the days of her life.
She selects wool and flax
and works with eager hands.
She is like the merchant ships,
bringing her food from afar.
She gets up while it is still night;
she provides food for her family
and portions for her female servants.
She considers a field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
She sets about her work vigorously..." - Proverbs 31:10-17

From these passages you will see that christian doctrines on the wifely submission is consistant with the whole of scripture, and is reiterated by both Paul and Peter. But there are also some other observations that can be made:
  1. That wives must submit to their husbands in everything
  2. That husbands have a reciprocal command to love their wives
  3. Husbands are to always act in their wives best interest in a benevolent and self-sacrificial manner - with Christ himself as our role model. So I find it very unfair for you to think of me as a chauvenist
  4. Wives enjoy equal status with their husbands, as they share a 'one flesh' union with their husbands
  5. The wife shares equal status before God as co-airs in Christ
  6. God himself holds the woman, as having great value in His sight, specifically because she is submissive... She is not regarded as inferiour, but is highly valued
  7. The wife is not prohibited from the workplace, but fully participated in providing for the family
  8. The wife was not prohibited from handling money or employing staff - she is not a "dumb servant". Instead she is a smart and very capable business partner (and this writing comes from Ancient Times !)
  9. The husband of such a wife is not ridiculed for not providing for his family, but instead he is highly esteemed and considered blessed to have such a wife. (Contrary to modern day attitudes, even in Christian circles)
You see, the problem is not that Christian ideals on men and women are outdated. The problem is actually more to do with you not understanding them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #477  
Old 12-24-2011, 09:54 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 378
That's the words from Peter and Paulus ... not what Jesus said; I can't stand that mysogynistic bu**er Paul anyway
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #478  
Old 12-24-2011, 09:55 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
^^^
What century are you living in?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #479  
Old 12-24-2011, 10:11 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheManWhoSpoke View Post
...You see, the problem is not that Christian ideals on men and women are outdated. The problem is actually more to do with you not understanding them.
Trust me you do NOT want to get into a scripture debate with me and as I know its frowned upon by the mods here it not going to happen. Read the agreement . the rules here.

What you need to wake up to is the fact that you have your beliefs as does the rest of the world and they are respected. They seem to most of us very outdated and archaic especially to the women in this forum you talk to. It doesn't mean that your points aren't valid (to you) but they can and will create opposition.

We come here to talk about royals. not religions or scriptures or the Goddess.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #480  
Old 12-24-2011, 10:38 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,752
To our awesome mods this is just too good to pass up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheManWhoSpoke View Post
...The Apostle Paul
"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" - Ephesians 5:22-25
In this respect I really do hope you have the ability to study and learn that what Paul created was from his own human mind. It created a big split back then between the what the message was and what Paul wanted it to be.

I know you'll disagree with me but take a chance.. read the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library if you have the time.

As someone once told me. the closer I get to the flame of knowledge. the further from me it goes.. we never stop learning

Rev. OsipiEWM
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 926 04-15-2014 11:41 PM
Succession Issues ladybelline Imperial Family of Japan 918 11-02-2013 12:14 PM
Rules of Succession CrownPrinceLorenzo Royalty Past, Present, and Future 95 10-25-2012 01:55 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta cristina infanta elena infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman palace pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit sweden wedding william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:04 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]