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
 
  #61  
Old 07-04-2010, 11:37 PM
Maura724's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: St. Louis, United States
Posts: 772
Sure, it's been fun going back and forth.

And yes Lady Jane is absolutely fascinating - she was only 15 when she came to the throne and had very little say in the matter. But she was an incredibly strong-willed girl with extraordinarily firm Protestant beliefs (perhaps the point of fanaticism). She was eventually beheaded for the treason of claiming the throne, and could possibly have saved herself by accepting Catholicism, but there was no way she was ever going to bend on that issue, which I think shows an amazing strength of character for a teenager.

I see you're also an American, so I hope you've had a good 4th!
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 07-05-2010, 03:38 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
George VI never made Philip Prince Consort. He actually didn't make him a Prince at all. George VI created Philip HRH Duke of Edinburgh etc but it wasn't until 1957 that the Queen created Philip a Prince of the UK (he had given up the title Prince when he became a British citizen - although later it was discovered that he had been one all along under the Sophia Naturalization Act). Philip has never had the title Prince Consort. Britain has only ever had one person with that title and that was Albert.
There see... I knew I'd muck it up somewhere along the line. . Thanks Bertie! This stuff fascinates me and I'm learning a lot!

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotAPretender View Post
From what I've heard, he's intended that all along: to change the title to 'Defender of Faiths.''
You're absolutely correct here. Thanks all too for the information of what it would take for Charles to actually change such a small grouping of words. The fact that he has thought it would have been something appropriate to do in today's globalized world, shows me that this is a man that honors and respects the personal beliefs off all British citizens. With all that would be required to change something that to a lot of us looks like a relatively small thing to do, we're reminded also of just what the British Royalty and all their titles, orders, dukedoms really represent... an ongoing, living, breathing continuity of history. I'm sure a lot of things that worked 900 some years ago really don't fit well in the 21st century, but it also serves as a reminder of centuries of history leading up to the now. I'll remember that the next time I see a royal cutting a ribbon.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 07-05-2010, 01:44 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotAPretender View Post
From what I've heard, he's intended that all along: to change the title to 'Defender of Faiths.
He has always intended to do that and in my honest opinion I think it's wrong to do that.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 07-05-2010, 05:17 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
I don't think he always intended to do anything. He expressed the idea that he would like to be 'Defender of Faith' rather than 'the faith' during the Dimbleby interview. He hadn't been recorded before that interview nor have I heard him say that again. He expressed a personal viewpoint as to what he would like to have happen but nothing suggests that he really intended to do anything about it as he would have been and is well aware that it would take a major piece of legislation and change of a large part of English/British way of life (having the monarch as Head of the Church). Grassroots sure most Brits couldn't care less but it is part of the fabric of British society and he was and is well aware of that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 07-13-2010, 07:17 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Most people forget that the designation "Defender of the Faith" was actually given to Henry VIII by The Pope......and he and his successors have continued to use it even after they no longer defended the Roman Catholic faith.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 07-13-2010, 08:12 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
Most people forget that the designation "Defender of the Faith" was actually given to Henry VIII by The Pope......and he and his successors have continued to use it even after they no longer defended the Roman Catholic faith.

Originally given by the Pope but after Henry split from Rome it was revoked by the Pope and reawarded by the English Parliament so the current usage came from legislation of the English Parliament not the Pope.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 07-14-2010, 12:13 AM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,189
That's an interesting point, Iluvbertie. Thank you for mentioning it. Protestantism was already on the move in England, as it was in Europe. Quite possibly the monarch would have broken with Rome at some point in any case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Originally given by the Pope but after Henry split from Rome it was revoked by the Pope and reawarded by the English Parliament so the current usage came from legislation of the English Parliament not the Pope.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 07-14-2010, 01:02 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
That's an interesting point, Iluvbertie. Thank you for mentioning it. Protestantism was already on the move in England, as it was in Europe. Quite possibly the monarch would have broken with Rome at some point in any case.

I do think that there was sufficient support in England for a monarch, sooner or later, to realise that politically they would be better off outside the Roman Catholic Church rather than in it as they would have total control over people's lives rather than have an outsider telling people what to do and possibly being in conflict with the ideas of the state.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 11-19-2010, 03:31 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
Royal Wedding: if Prince William's first is a girl, she could be heir - Telegraph

Prince William's first child with Kate Middleton would become his heir, regardless of gender, under a change to the laws of succession being considered by the Government.
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 11-19-2010, 08:37 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
This was also muted when Diana was pregnant with William but was put on hold when he was a boy and it is possible the same thing will happen again.

This will come - but only when there is a need. I just hope they go the whole way and allow for equal inheritance rights for all titles and equal rights to pass a style to their spouse e.g. the wife of a prince becomes a princess but the husband of a princess doesn't become anything - very sexist. I don't care which way it goes but it should be the same - so either the spouse of both men and women get a title on marriage or neither do. Catherine remains as Catherine or Beatrice's husband becomes a prince - either way it should be the same for both genders.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 11-20-2010, 11:06 AM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 202
I agree 100%! And, furthermore, the HRH should either be expanded to all of the monarch's grandchildren, not just male-line grandchildren, or none at all. If the HRH is not extended to all grandchildren then they should be styled like the children of a Duke and that's it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 11-20-2010, 06:06 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Agree totally - in 1917 women's rights weren't what they are today and discrimination on the grounds of gender was accepted but that discrimination isn't acceptable today.

Whichever way they do it they have to be totally equal in rights.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 11-20-2010, 06:23 PM
Fürstin Taxis's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: St. Emmeram, Germany
Posts: 774
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
Royal Wedding: if Prince William's first is a girl, she could be heir - Telegraph

Prince William's first child with Kate Middleton would become his heir, regardless of gender, under a change to the laws of succession being considered by the Government.
It´s time!
But if the first born is a boy? In Denmark they changed the law after Christians birth, so Isabella is after him in the line. It would be fair.
Most of the heirs (the children of the current heirs) in Europe are female.

I think those peopel who are against the change, are people who believe that men are first class human. Sorry, but there is no other reason.
__________________
Without obsession, life is nothing.
John Waters

Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 11-21-2010, 12:17 AM
Maura724's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: St. Louis, United States
Posts: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fürstin Taxis View Post
I think those peopel who are against the change, are people who believe that men are first class human. Sorry, but there is no other reason.
I'm not sure if my response to this statement is or just . Please don't stereotype people you don't know who hold different views as sexist pigs. I am against the change, and I certainly don't believe men are first class humans! The following are my reasons - you may not agree with them, but if you read through them I think you will have to at least agree that my opposition isn't stemming from hatred of women.

First of all, I should say that I don't think women should be kept from the throne - that's unnecessary and impractical (with smaller families today it’s quite possible to have no sons, as the Dutch and Spanish heirs do, plus we’ve seen so many instances of historical chaos because there were no male heirs when there were plenty of women available). We currently have some great female monarchs, Margrethe II, Elizabeth II, and Beatrix, plus we’ve seen female monarchs do well in history (Victoria, Elizabeth I, etc.) However, I do think the law should place males ahead of females in the line – not because I hate women or want to discriminate against them, but because I think there are reasons it's better, in general, to have a King.

First, I think there's a role for both a King and a Queen. Yes, there's usually a Prince Consort, and yes, Phillip, Henrik, and Claus have all done good jobs in their role, but I think you get "more for your money," so to speak, when you have two monarchs rather than one monarch plus a prince. (And I don’t like the idea of titling a Queen Regnant’s husband King Consort – the historical tradition for the King ruling over the Queen is too strong and I don’t think most people would accept it. I somehow think the Danes would have a fit over a King Henrik! )

Second, I think Prince Consort is a difficult role for a man - it's hard to spend your life walking three steps behind your wife. I think it's difficult for a man personally and difficult for the marriage. (Maybe one could argue it shouldn't be this way, but it generally is in our society.)

Third, if a woman comes to the throne as Queen Regnant once her children are grown, then this next issue doesn't matter. However, if she has small children at the time - like Margrethe and Elizabeth - then it's difficult for her to fulfill her duties and spend enough time with them, as was the case for both these women. A King who is a young father doesn't have quite the same problem because his Queen Consort wife has more time for them and because fathers aren't expected to see quite as much of their kids as mothers are. (Once again, maybe one could argue it shouldn't be this way, but it generally is in our society.)

Even if there weren’t advantages to a King over a Queen, I don’t find the fact that there’s discrimination against daughters in the monarchy exceptionally troubling. Monarchies inherently discriminate – if you’re not born into one, you’re obviously not royal and you’re denied the privileges that involves. And even with equal primogeniture, there’s discrimination within the monarchy itself – why should younger children be further back in the line? Is it fair for Andrew to rank behind Charles, or Joachim to rank behind Frederik, just because they’re younger? Why is there no outcry about the denial of rights to middle and younger children? Do those who approve this system believe that oldest children are "first class humans?"

Also, the popular argument that it isn't fair to deny a girl the right to the throne because she has a younger brother seems to presuppose that the throne is a wonderful thing everyone is just clamoring to have. On the contrary, you tend to see royals reacting the opposite way. For instance, the two younger Swedish siblings say they're glad Victoria's the heir and not them, Margriet of the Netherlands says she can't imagine anything worse than being Queen like Beatrix, and I've read that when Elizabeth was a young girl after it became apparent her father would have to take the throne she used to pray for God to send her a brother. The throne is a lot of work, a lot of responsibility, and generally pretty restricting for your life, your spouse's life, and your children's lives, which is why most royals would prefer to avoid it and just enjoy royal privilege from further out on the fringe. I think the fact that the British system currently keeps women from being in this situation unless they have no brothers is actually a show of great preference to females, and I think making the succession laws gender-blind would be a loss to a royal women's rights rather than a gain.

I support the current system because I think it privileges women, not because I see men as "first class humans."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 11-21-2010, 07:00 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fürstin Taxis View Post
It´s time!
But if the first born is a boy? In Denmark they changed the law after Christians birth, so Isabella is after him in the line. It would be fair.
Most of the heirs (the children of the current heirs) in Europe are female.

I think those peopel who are against the change, are people who believe that men are first class human. Sorry, but there is no other reason.
If the first born is a boy, then it is up to William to decide to change the succesion law, or leave it as it is and wait for the actual situation to arise.

There are a lot of other reasons. Please don't state things as fact when they quite clearly aren't.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 11-22-2010, 12:32 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
...it is up to William to decide to change the succesion law...
Well no. The laws of the United Kingdom are debated and made by the Parliament. If the Government of the day with the support of the Parliament decides to change the succession, or the Royal Marriages Act, or the Act of Settlement for that matter, the personal wishes of the Sovereign (or a Prince) are largely irrelevant.

If a change to the succession is to be made, it needs to be done sooner rather than later. A future retrospective change could lead to a son of William, raised, trained and educated as the Monarch-to-be, being replaced ("usurped") in the Line of Succession by an unprepared and unwilling elder sister. She of course would be expected to do her duty but it would be a very messy situation for all concerned and therefore best avoided.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 11-22-2010, 01:31 AM
Maura724's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: St. Louis, United States
Posts: 772
I hope no monarchy would ever make a retrospective change like that - whether the change is a good idea or not, doing it that way would just be so unfair to everybody involved. If the decision were made after William has kids, I hope the Brits handle it the way the Norwegians did, where a change was made in 1990 but Haakon still kept his place.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 11-22-2010, 01:59 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
If the first born is a boy, then it is up to William to decide to change the succesion law, or leave it as it is and wait for the actual situation to arise.

There are a lot of other reasons. Please don't state things as fact when they quite clearly aren't.

William hasn't the right to change any laws. That is the role of the government. All William can do is sign them - when he is King. As he will probably have children in the present reign it will be the present Queen who will sign the legislation, once it has passed both houses of parliament and been approved by the governments of the other realms of which the Queen is Queen (I don't forsee a problem with that but they also have to agree).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 11-22-2010, 02:01 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maura724 View Post
I hope no monarchy would ever make a retrospective change like that - whether the change is a good idea or not, doing it that way would just be so unfair to everybody involved. If the decision were made after William has kids, I hope the Brits handle it the way the Norwegians did, where a change was made in 1990 but Haakon still kept his place.

I would expect that if a girl was born first and then a son it would be done immediately, as it was in Sweden, before the children were old enough to understand what it was all about rather than wait until they were young adults.

I would also not expect a retrospective law to put Princess Anne's line ahead of her younger brothers for that exact same reason - Beatrice and Eugenie have been prepared to be Counsillors of State etc whereas Peter and Zara haven't.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 11-22-2010, 06:54 PM
Esmerelda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,215
We'll wait and see what happens- it only really matters if William has a girl first. I wonder if Peter and Zara would get titles if they changed the law? In Belgium, Princess Astrid was put ahead of her brother Prince Laurent and her husband and children (admittedly already titled) were made Princes/Princesses of Belgium. Or they might decide to apply it to children born after 2012 (entirely speculative guess as to the birth date!).
__________________

__________________
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 crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games olympics ottoman picture of the month pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:21 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]