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
 
  #481  
Old 12-24-2011, 06:38 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,707
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?

In the marriage vows that Elizabeth took in 1947 - when she promised to 'obey' her husband.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #482  
Old 12-24-2011, 07:00 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,324
...if he ever gives her an order...

But I still don't think obeying an order from a husband makes a woman "subservient." For a lot of couples, the man's ordering the woman about is confined to emergency situations (as when a man orders a woman to retreat to safety).

So, the degree of "obedience" would very much depend on the man in question.

Very glad people have dropped that word from many vows - but didn't Kate say that word in her wedding service? Jog my memory, someone.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #483  
Old 12-24-2011, 08:24 PM
Grandduchess24's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cambridge, United States
Posts: 1,318
I think all monarchs should change their laws and let their oldest daughters be official heiresses eventually the sons will inherit the throne and should follow the swedish royal family and the Norwegian royal family whose daughter princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway will inherit the throne after her father the crown prince of Norway.
__________________
" An ugly baby is a very nasty object, and the prettiest is frightful when undressed."
- Queen Victoria
Reply With Quote
  #484  
Old 12-24-2011, 08:39 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
Very glad people have dropped that word [obey] from many vows - but didn't Kate say that word in her wedding service? Jog my memory, someone.
No Kate didn't say 'obey'. She used the same vows that Diana did.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #485  
Old 12-24-2011, 08:41 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandduchess24 View Post
I think all monarchs should change their laws and let their oldest daughters be official heiresses eventually the sons will inherit the throne and should follow the swedish royal family and the Norwegian royal family whose daughter princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway will inherit the throne after her father the crown prince of Norway.
It isn't up to the monarch but the parliaments of the different countries - in the case of the BRF it will take at least 16 nations to agree (I have read that some of the states in Australia will also, independently of the federal government, have to pass the legislation as they have declared the Queen Queen of their individual state as well as Queen of Australia). Until all of them have passed the legislation nothing will change.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #486  
Old 12-24-2011, 11:26 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
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.
I take your point, but I see nothing in the rules to indicate that this line of argument is out of order. It you seek to say that I am being intollerant, then you are wrong - I am simply setting forth the christian position. I am not asking you to agree with it.

If you are saying that I am deliberately going off topic, I was not the one who started it. Lumutqueen, made the assertion that christian wives are not commanded to submit to their husbands... I was prooving otherwise.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #487  
Old 12-25-2011, 12:03 AM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,324
It is the height of disrespect to lecture other Christians about the true meaning of Christianity - and it is not on topic, either.

But, to pull this back on topic, it is true that interpretations of Christian doctrine have supported male primogeniture (and been used to support male primogeniture). Even the books of the Bible were shaped by this - and in the earliest English translations of the Bible up to and including the King James version of the Bible, the language of male dominance (God as a "Lord" rather than as Adonai or Elohim or any of his actual names in the texts) is used - but these were translations written for or commissioned by Kings. No wonder that God is seen as a Big King in the Sky in these translations. The places where the divine is referred to in more feminine - or indeed, more ineffable terms - were suppressed or mistranslated.

That's changed. And so has doctrine. We could argue endlessly about what Jesus meant the status of women to be (as opposed to rulers and Bible-composers), but this is not the place. Much of Christianity has been devoted to the suppression of women - but some of us view our religion as capable of enlightenment and advancement...

There are plenty of Christian churches that have female leaders (take a look around). You may think it is heresy, but the Church of England has long been quite progressive. Women have been ordained as priests (and bishops) since 1992 or so (perhaps due in part to Her Majesty's role and leadership).

I count it a blessing that the British monarchy has survived - and is capable of progressive motion, albeit slowly (which seems appropriate). To imply that Her Majesty is not a proper Christian seems a poor show, especially on a forum dedicated to respectfully discussing her.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #488  
Old 12-25-2011, 10:14 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
It is the height of disrespect to lecture other Christians about the true meaning of Christianity - and it is not on topic, either.
Are you not doing the same? Many of the details of your previous post reveal a progressive and liberal theology. A common view held amongst members of the Church of England. My views on the other hand are more representative of an evangelical, or (what you might call low church) theology.

The liberal position questions the very nature of truth, in saying that truth is a relative concept, or that there are many 'truths'. The evangelical position holds to the claim that Jesus is, "the way, the truth and the life", and as such we believe God and the scriptures are a point of reference for our lives - that the truth is a certain, knowable and immovable concept. Both are diametrically opposed positions that cannot be resolved without compromise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
To imply that Her Majesty is not a proper Christian seems a poor show, especially on a forum dedicated to respectfully discussing her.
Actually, I am not certain what HM beliefs are or what her point of view is in relation to this argument. Any implication was not intended, and if I had wanted to comment on HM - I would have indicated that plainly. Implication and insinuation are tenuous claims in this medium.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #489  
Old 12-25-2011, 10:22 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,324
No, actually - I am fine with others believing whatever they wish. I am not fine with people speaking for all of Christendom. My point, if you can read it, is that even Christians do not agree on things so don't make it sound as if they do.

Further, my point is that Her Majesty is actually head of a Christian Church - which gives her some authority and a different point of view than you or I or anyone else posting here.

Man, you seem to have trouble with others taking a topic where they wish it to go. I never said you said anything about the Queen. Instead, I said that perhaps having a woman as the head of a major religion might in fact change how people view archaic ideas about Christianity.

And with that, like the others, I'm done with this conversation. If you can't tell the difference between someone else's viewpoint and an insinuation, it's very hard to communicate with you. Frankly, I don't usually have any trouble communicating with people in writing.

But, I find your overall tone uncompromising and somewhat insulting, which is not the way I'm accustomed to RF members coming across. You might wish to hang out some more on these boards before you become so accusatory.

Joyeux NoŽl.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #490  
Old 12-26-2011, 12:04 AM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,324
I understand that the Bible (which was not written in English) says (in the words of St. Paul, at least in terms of Christian/New Testament doctrine) that women shall not have authority over men. However, I'd like to know where Jesus actually says that (he doesn't). So churches vary on this point - and that still doesn't explain why Supreme Governor is okay but Head is not. I guess it's a semantic thing.

I am not talking about the history of Christianity in general (which I think would be completely off topic - although I could), I'm talking about the movement within the Church of England, which certainly did not exist at the Nicean council. The Gnostics had women in positions of some power, and I do not accept that all Christians were represented at the Nicean council. It's interesting that Sydney remains in the anti-woman priest division.

I'm also not arguing that women have achieved equality - only that change has occurred (verrry slowly as it usually does in large, hierarchical organizations whose main agenda is to conserve power). And I was speaking of the changes in between the Renaissance and now - if you want to go even further back, you could say that in other churches (non-Christian), there were plenty of women in positions of authority (those Siberian shaman women seem to be a prime example).

But the big leap forward, for Christianity, came with the establishment of Protestantism, particularly Anglicanism - but also many other more minor offshoots - and the change in the way women saw themselves as a result. Even though she was burned, that Askew woman spoke out in church - and up until the flames silenced her. Some woman named Mary wrote one of the Dead Sea Scrolls (before the Council at Nicea) and she too was left out/silenced (at the Council).

You keep saying "based on the bible," but there isn't just one bible - and there isn't just one tradition of interpreting it.

And I hope the mods will accept that I too am trying to explain the history of religion (not just "The Church" but the various traditions that lead up to the state of affairs in England today). England was once a pagan nation, the Council at Nicea had very little direct effect on the English of 325 A.D., and the importance of abbesses within their own domains is a form of leadership. The English, for whatever reason, allowed two women of opposing religions (especially at the time) to both be Queen within the span of one year, and that is something that Henry VIII tried very hard to set up via his acknowledgement of the two girls as his heirs after Edward. Would Henry have done the same if he had still been Catholic? We'll never know. But when Henry broke away from the Catholic Church, it changed English church theology.

But none of that is "based in the Bible." It's based in particular notions people had in Western Europe about interpreting the Bible - and what should go into Biblical interpretation.

Let's not forget that a mere 100 years after Queen Elizabeth was Governor, an offshoot of protestantism - Quakerism - founded by two men and two women arose in England. The Church of England is not the only religious force in England - the Quakers were persecuted in part because, like many Mennonites, they allowed women to speak in church and to attain a fairly high - autonomous - status. Quakers are not all that hierarchical and to speak of them having a "head" would be absurd. That's why so many of them left England at that time (and Puritans in American would continue to persecute them - especially for their views on women).

But in my view, the fact that this happens just 100 years after the High Renaissance - and in England - is far more signifcant than its relationship to the Nicean Council. Once religious revolution (against Catholicism) began in earnest, England became home to many dissenting sects, some of whom have gone on to influence history regarding the status of women quite a bit. In America, the execution of Mary Dyer caused divisions within the many fracturing branches of Protestant worldview (not everyone was a Puritan).

It's true that even among Quakers women didn't have anything like true equality (and women still don't have anything like true equality in the religious or political domains, as you point out - even the Queen can't be a Head...)

But, equal primogeniture was not seriously proposed in England in 325 AD or 1066 AD or even 1550 AD. It was 2011, and the result of many prior progressive changes (which is my main point).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #491  
Old 12-29-2011, 09:33 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,378
Let's get back on topic and leave religion out of the discussion.

Thanks!

Zonk

British Forums Moderator
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #492  
Old 12-29-2011, 01:08 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere, out there, United States
Posts: 47
On topic; so exactly where, in terms of the actual change in the law of primogeniture are they? I'm somewhat confused as to what actually happened at the conference in Australia. From some news outlets making it seem as though the change had taken place to others making it seems as if what happened is 'we have decided to decide'.

Has the UK parliament (or whoever approves these things there) actually approved the change & they're just waiting for the rest of the Commonwealth to do the same? Or has nothing 'formal' taken place?

Sorry for my seeming ignorance.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #493  
Old 12-29-2011, 01:23 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,196
It's not ignorance I was confused this morning, but all I could find is this guardian article.
There's a part that says;
"In a meeting in Perth this morning, to be chaired by the Australian prime minister, Julia Gillard, the leaders of the 16 Queen's realms will agree to amend rules." and this was written on the 28th October.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #494  
Old 12-29-2011, 04:15 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
A committee was put in place to study how best to go about things, lead by NZ I believe. So far no legislation has been passed in the UK or any of the other realms. As of today things remain the way they were. I doubt if it is at the top of any governments legislative agenda.

The Guardian article seems to suggest that a chnage would affect the current succession order of the Queens children, moving Anne ahead of Andrew, while other articles suggest the change would only inpact on those yet to be born. Probably we will have to wait for the legislation, when ever that may happen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #495  
Old 12-29-2011, 06:45 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,707
There was something said at the time about it taking about 4 years to get the legislation through each of the parliaments.

I also believe it has to be passed in the same wording in each one - can't say why I believe that but I think it goes back to studying the Statute of Westminster. Now if one of the relevant parliaments wants to change one word then it has to go back to the others again - so I suspect that they will agree on the legislation to be put first of course but then each parliament has its own processes, and in the case of Australia at least two houses of parliament (and I believe at least one state parliament also has to agree as Qld declared the Queen Queen of Queensland in addition to her position as Queen of Australia)

All the reports I have seen, except the Guardian, say that it will be taking effect for the descendents of Charles.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #496  
Old 12-29-2011, 10:47 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,248
Not all of the parliaments need to act. The constitutions of Papua New Guinea and Tuvalu simply place the sovereign of the United Kingdom on their thrones, whoever that is and however his or her identity is determined.
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #497  
Old 01-06-2012, 02:50 AM
No1_Saint's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 114
This is an interesting question, I wonder if all need to pass their own legislation or if they will ratify the one passed in Westminster. I hope this issue is officially dealt with this year. What a wonderful gift for the Queen to give equal rights to her female heirs.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #498  
Old 01-06-2012, 05:02 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,707
As each of the realms are totally independent they will have to deal with it according to their own constitutions. Even if just to assert that independence psychologically for their own people most will take it through their own parliaments. Following the Australia Act the parliament here will have to pass it as no new legislation in Britain has any effect here unless separately passed here. I suspect that is the same for Canada and New Zealand.

Jamaica is talking about becoming a republic, since the election of the new government, so the vote there could easily turn into a vote on becoming a republic - thus losing a realm.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #499  
Old 02-23-2012, 02:01 PM
Kellydofc's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tucson, United States
Posts: 236
I don't know how quickly this issue will proceed because at the moment it's a nonissue really. The next two heirs to the throne are male not matter what. If William and Katherine have only girls or a girl first then I can see how it might become more pressing but since it could be a good 70 - 80 years before that child succeeds to the throne there is loads of time to deal with this issue if that's what the UK decides it wants.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #500  
Old 02-23-2012, 02:14 PM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 3,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheManWhoSpoke View Post
There are some people that still consider these things relevant, and some that do not.
If you are speaking in terms of the current Monarch, it has been known for ages that HM defers to her husband in all matters of the familial household.

As far as the Queen being Head of State, when her father died, that became her hereditary role and she took it on like a trooper and continues to do so, with wisdom and fairness. Her husband was not prepared and had no right to be king. He was aware that he was marrying the heir to the British throne.

She has not usurped any power from her husband, in the Biblical or any other sense.
__________________

__________________
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
Succession Issues ladybelline Imperial Family of Japan 921 11-03-2014 02:22 AM
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 926 04-15-2014 11:41 PM
Rules of Succession CrownPrinceLorenzo Royalty Past, Present, and Future 95 10-25-2012 01:55 PM




Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:05 AM.

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]