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
 
  #541  
Old 09-04-2012, 01:57 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palmerston View Post
The Catholic debarment will take theological legerdemain to rectify: I won't be holding my breath that they'll be able to remedy the issue. It really isn’t a pressing concern.

The issue of succession is altogether different: I'm not aware the Monarch has even been consulted or that the wishes of the Royal family will be considered; even if they are clandestinely consulted, I doubt they'll voice an opinion overtly - it isn't the done thing.

I guarantee you these changes will not be implemented. It's all hot air. It was part of Cameron's jolt towards the leftwing, his banal attempt to woo the metropolitan middle class. There are already signs even today that he's reneging that initiative.
After reading the discussion on the Swedish board I understand that you don't want to see a change in the order of succession of any country to equal primogeniture but a lot of courties decided to pass legismation and this process is ongoing within the Commonwealth at the moment as well.

As this change concerns the head of state of each country the constitution has to be amended in any of those countries according to their individual law - but that's work is in progress after all states who accept the British monarch as their head of state agreed with that aim. So backing out now would mean to get into a strange situation if William's firstborn is a girl. I don't think that will happen. Thus the change will come.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #542  
Old 09-04-2012, 03:32 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
I'm sorry but what?
I doubt this has been embarked upon lightly, it's taken enough years to get to the point of establishing a change that nobody's going to ignore the fact it might take years to actually put it in place. I have no idea what politics has to do with any of this, you're evidently using this to continually slate a government you do not like.

I'm a monarchist, and I support the changes 100%, in this day and age it's plain common sense. What do you have against the changes other than logistics? Looking at your posts in the Swedish thread it's evident what your issue is, IMO you're stuck in the past. If The Queen can accept her monarchy has to move through the times, so should you. Monarchs have no legitimate power anymore, they are there to serve as ambassadors for their countries and that is across the world. One day I imagine they will disappear, but I doubt in my lifetime.



I think because it's a fairly complicated process it should be started as soon as possible. This way it doesn't include any messing about when their first born is born.
This is a political initiative therefore politics has everything to do with it. They aren't distinct.

If you have to invoke some banal appeal to the modern age then you're on thin grounds: why not abolish the monarchy altogether? Very anachronistic, no? It's beyond irony that you base an attack on me as being anachronistic, when the logical conclusion to any appeal to tradition is to scrap tradition altogether, and that means scrapping the Monarchy. This is why these changes are so illogical and irrational.

Monarchs are the Sovereign, they're not mere 'ambassadors' for Christ sakes; and indeed they will disappear because of the very changes you support. If the Monarch isn't rooted in the past as a changeless institution in a sea of constant change then it's very unlikely it will ever be impervious to slight fluctuations in the popular zeitgeist. If you shave off essential features of it because some folk think it’s ‘grossly unfair’, then you pave the way for future levellers to take the initiative one step further. Is the Monarchy there to serve you or the public as a mere public servant, or are they the Sovereign and the personification of the nation as rooted in tradition and the past? That’s the difference between royalism and republicanism.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #543  
Old 09-04-2012, 03:35 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
After reading the discussion on the Swedish board I understand that you don't want to see a change in the order of succession of any country to equal primogeniture but a lot of courties decided to pass legismation and this process is ongoing within the Commonwealth at the moment as well.

As this change concerns the head of state of each country the constitution has to be amended in any of those countries according to their individual law - but that's work is in progress after all states who accept the British monarch as their head of state agreed with that aim. So backing out now would mean to get into a strange situation if William's firstborn is a girl. I don't think that will happen. Thus the change will come.
They will back out - the motion has to be instigated in the British Parliament first and foremost; many, many here and completely missing the political context in which this proposal was made, whilst completely underestimating the sensitivities of the Conservative Party at large. Britain isn't Sweden, Norway or any other social-democratic country.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #544  
Old 09-04-2012, 03:36 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,153
Oh yep. You confirm my opinion, being stuck in the past will get you nowhere these days. Have fun talking to yourself because the majority of posters on here are open minded enough to see that change is an amazing thing.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #545  
Old 09-04-2012, 05:26 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,534
If the monarchy doesn't change with the times then it will be swept away e.g. Russia where the monarch refused to move into the democratic age or learn from the experiences of the English in the 1600s or the French in the 1700s and so their throne was cast away.

In times past it wasn't possible for a woman to be a monarch in their own right but we accept that without any problems.

The idea of first born being the next monarch was muted when Diana was pregnant with William but when she had a son it was put on the back-burner for another generation.

I do wonder whether the push will continue if it isn't in place when Kate has her first child if that child is a boy but if it is a girl the law will be through very quickly as there is no way that the first born won't be the monarch in this day and age.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #546  
Old 09-04-2012, 05:39 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
The change in succession and rules regarding Catholic marriage is pretty much inevitable with time. It should not be the givernments top priority but it will happen and if Catherine's first child should be a girl it will happen sooner than later.
Monarchy only survives because of its ability to adapt to the times. That's how we developed from Divine Right to modern constitutional monarchy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #547  
Old 09-04-2012, 07:11 PM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,165
I know that equal primogeniture for the royal family is in line with Europe and I understand its necessity however, does this move cover the aristocracy, ie. will Beatrice be able to inherit her father's title or Lady Louise her father's?

If not and it only applies to the BRF crown then it's a political move and a pretty vain, empty and calculated one at that. Utter window dressing.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #548  
Old 09-04-2012, 07:37 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,534
There is no intention for it to apply to the aristocracy and it only applies to Charles' descendents to if Beatrice has a girl first and then a boy the boy will still go ahead of his older sister in the line of succession. That, I believe, is to not upset the current line from The Queen with Anne and her descendents below her younger brothers. I remember when this was proposed back in the early 80s that there were reports that Anne was vehemently opposed to the idea if it moved her and her children above Andrew and Edward - probably because she wanted them to have a more normal life and as things have turned out they have had that as they aren't royal (as Anne herself has said 'My children aren't royal. They just have The Queen for a grandmother.')
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #549  
Old 09-04-2012, 08:08 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,509
To be clear (this is me checking facts): in the line of succession Beatrice will be followed by her sons first and then her daughters. However, the title of Duke of York will cease with the death of PRince Andrew and revert to the crown. I was not sure whether Marg was referring to the succession or the title.

Primogeniture is not a big question in the UK (in my opinion). Disinterest would pretty well sum it up. But somehow the question of the Church of England and Catholicism has been included and I have to say I was stunned when this occurred. This is MAJOR. This could lead to the dis-establishment of the church from the crown. Therefore if naive politicians wrap this up together then I think nothing will happen.

We have to remember that the enthronment of the monarch is a complex ceremony not just because it is the coronation of a British monarch but the enthroning of a Head of the Church of England.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #550  
Old 09-04-2012, 08:29 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Los Alamos, United States
Posts: 1,034
Yes Lumutqueen, this process needs to be decided before William has a child. These days, however, they can know the gender of a pregnancy in early months. It could be within a short time from now, so there may not be time to do anything about it.
I agree that the other royals should also share this gender bender. No one knows for absolutely sure that the younger royals will not be thrust forward by some wild happenstance of fate. Do you want Queen Louise or King James the III? Is it the III?
To be facetious, what if some weird stuff in the water makes a lot of people infertile by accident or even by attack from abroad? What if only some of the royals escape this disaster? I know this is far out, but who would ever have predicted that Queen Victoria would be the only remaining heir in a family with 12 children who lived to adulthood?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #551  
Old 09-04-2012, 11:11 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,534
To be fair Victoria wasn't the only remaining heir - just the lucky one to have her father born first. Both the Dukes of Cumberland and Cambridge had sons about the same time as Victoria. George of Cumberland followed his father onto the throne of Hannover and it is his descendents who could still claim that title which was suspended by the Deprivations of Titles Act while George of Cambridge became Commander-in-Chief of the British army and was the brother of a certain Princess Mary who married a Prince of Teck and whose daughter became Queen Mary.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #552  
Old 09-04-2012, 11:25 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
To be clear (this is me checking facts): in the line of succession Beatrice will be followed by her sons first and then her daughters. However, the title of Duke of York will cease with the death of PRince Andrew and revert to the crown. I was not sure whether Marg was referring to the succession or the title.

Primogeniture is not a big question in the UK (in my opinion). Disinterest would pretty well sum it up. But somehow the question of the Church of England and Catholicism has been included and I have to say I was stunned when this occurred. This is MAJOR. This could lead to the dis-establishment of the church from the crown. Therefore if naive politicians wrap this up together then I think nothing will happen.

We have to remember that the enthronment of the monarch is a complex ceremony not just because it is the coronation of a British monarch but the enthroning of a Head of the Church of England.
Well the proposal only calls for allowing those in the line of succession to be able to marry Catholics without losing their place in the succession. It still insists the monarch be CofE, so I think most people would consider that quite fair and not too revolutionary.

As for disestablishing the CofE I am not sure that would not be a bad thing. It is not as if their pews are filled every Sunday. Membership seems more nominal than anything else these days. In the 21st century why should any Church have an official role in government, and more importantly why should government have to play a role in the Church?

As for the Coronation.......well it is organized by a Roman Catholic already and in this day and age maybe something a bit more ecumenical would be more in keeping with the times. Defender of Faith seems quite appropriate instead of Keeper of The Faith ( a distinction conferred on Henry VIII by a Pope).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #553  
Old 09-05-2012, 03:22 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Los Alamos, United States
Posts: 1,034
Thanks for the information about Victoria's cousins, Iluvbertie. That's really interesting the round-about which brought Mary of Teck "back". There is no inbreeding like that now. I think the royals sat down at some nice castle like Berg in Lux, and decided that everyone in the current young generation should marry a commoner, unless by chance they could find a dynastic spouse who was far enough away on the genetic chain, like Guillaume has found Stephanie. It will be all commoners until the gene pool is considered sufficiently purified, then back to the Gotha!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #554  
Old 09-05-2012, 07:50 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
Primogeniture is not a big question in the UK (in my opinion). Disinterest would pretty well sum it up. But somehow the question of the Church of England and Catholicism has been included and I have to say I was stunned when this occurred. This is MAJOR. This could lead to the dis-establishment of the church from the crown. Therefore if naive politicians wrap this up together then I think nothing will happen.
I really don't see where it would be such a huge deal. As I understand it (and I'm sure those that know more than I will correct where I am wrong), the proposal concerning those in succession to the throne pertains to abolishing the rule of marrying a Roman Catholic but it would remain that the monarch be in the CoE and raise all children in that faith. As it stands now, there is no restrictions on a monarch marrying someone from any of the other belief structures on Earth... just Catholicism.
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #555  
Old 09-05-2012, 09:43 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palmerston View Post
? It's beyond irony that you base an attack on me as being anachronistic, when the logical conclusion to any appeal to tradition is to scrap tradition altogether, and that means scrapping the Monarchy. This is why these changes are so illogical and irrational.

I personally don't see it as irrational to change the rules of succession so that the closest relative of a monarch is the heir. It is a very old tradition that the closeness to the current monarch determined the place in line and that older siblings come before their younger ones, only that over the centuries women did not count as much as men . So it's just adapting the very old tradition to modern generell belief that there is an equality between genders but more. We#re not talking about selecting a completely new Royal family or chose just anybody from the line to become William's heir - which would in fact allow for the question why this should be done at all and if it is not better to abolish the monarchy. What's done at the moment is just that the first-born child of the souverain is the heir, no matter what the gender.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #556  
Old 09-05-2012, 10:54 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
In the UK, we're fairly resigned to the fact that we have a monarchy and at the moment, it's popular. Few people fancy a republic (even less so when we look at the candidates!) so monarchy is here to stay. Because of that, both monarchy and people look at ways of making it more adaptable to modern viewpoints. That's why these changes haven't been hugely controversial here, the reaction seems to have been "Well if we have a monarch, it shouldn't be men first and women second. So do it". And the Catholic ban should have been dropped years ago. I'm in no doubt that in time, we'll even see other changes take place but the question of "Why do we need a monarchy anyway?" never comes up in any serious form.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #557  
Old 09-05-2012, 05:53 PM
LadyGabrielle's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: kapaa, United States
Posts: 1,151
In my opinion, not that it really matters, I think that a monarch should be a monarch because that person is the best one for the job and not because of male or female. I know traditions are appreciated by many but sometimes traditions get a little old after a while. In this respect I think the heirs should be all the children and who ever is best qualified for the job should become the next monarch. Kind of silly I know, but sort of makes sense. Anyone else think so or am I just crazy? :)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #558  
Old 09-05-2012, 06:00 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyGabrielle View Post
In my opinion, not that it really matters, I think that a monarch should be a monarch because that person is the best one for the job and not because of male or female. I know traditions are appreciated by many but sometimes traditions get a little old after a while. In this respect I think the heirs should be all the children and who ever is best qualified for the job should become the next monarch. Kind of silly I know, but sort of makes sense. Anyone else think so or am I just crazy? :)
Well at some point during the life of the monarch the heir has to be in place and trained up to succeed. What criteria do you have in mind to determine who is best qualified , at what point does the decision get made and who gets to make that decision? We are talking about a hereditary monarchy after not which is not like electing a President.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #559  
Old 09-05-2012, 06:01 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 18
Well it works that way ( though limited to men only) in some of the Arab monarchies I believe - but no couldn't work here- who would choose ? When? Limited how?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #560  
Old 09-05-2012, 06:15 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,509
The dis-establishment of the Church of England would be a big issue. Consider Northern Ireland and also (to a lesser degree and mostly in Glasgow) Scotland and the impact on devolution. If the politicans stick with the Monarch being CofE then this will all happen and I think it would be a good thing.

Regarding "best for the job" - what is the criteria? As someone said (?) the Monarchy is not a popularity contest. Nor is it a competition.
__________________

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
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
birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern 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 nobility olympics ottoman poland pom pregnancy president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:57 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]