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
 
  #181  
Old 09-04-2012, 12:28 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felica View Post
No-if the Queen was not in favour she would simply not say anything at all-not openly commend and approve it as she has done
With all due respect that isn't how it works.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 09-04-2012, 12:29 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 18
With all due respect-I have never heard Her Majesty go out of her way to commend legislation not yet drafted other than this...
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 09-04-2012, 12:32 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palmerston View Post
I can assure you, absolutely, that this legislation will not pass; you're completely misreading British politics.
Sorry but you cannot assure of us anything. Nobody can. You seem to be hell bent on convincing us that this is down to politics, which says more about you than anyone else.

This legislation is a wait and see game, we have 14 countries that need to have reforms approved by parliament and then receive royal assent. If the PM's of 14 different countries think this could happen, ALL of the proposed changes that is, then I don't see how you can be so sure they won't.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 09-04-2012, 12:53 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Sorry but you cannot assure of us anything. Nobody can. You seem to be hell bent on convincing us that this is down to politics, which says more about you than anyone else.

This legislation is a wait and see game, we have 14 countries that need to have reforms approved by parliament and then receive royal assent. If the PM's of 14 different countries think this could happen, ALL of the proposed changes that is, then I don't see how you can be so sure they won't.
On the contrary, it says more about David Cameron than anything else. In the context of British politics, it's manifestly clear why Cameron embarked upon this flawed initiative.

What the Prime Ministers think in their respective countries is moot - they're not constitutional experts; the logistical nightmare of implementing these changes shouldn't be underestimated (assuming they’re still in office). I doubt this will ever be a principal concern and it will take a PM with a dogged fidelity to the idea to implement it. That's before you even begin to factor in the rest of the Conservative Party. I’m baffled how any monarchist could support such a move: is the Monarch a public servant, or do they transcend the mores and sentiments of the present? The answer to that question is the difference between royalism and republicanism.
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 09-04-2012, 01:03 PM
Archduchess Zelia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 2,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palmerston View Post
Why the first born? That's grossly unfair to later born siblings - why not elect the monarch from all available sons & daughters? The entire thrust of the argument is flawed. It isn’t logically cohesive.
I am not entirely sure, but I think you might have misunderstood me. Obviously the change should be made for all of William and Catherine's (and Harry's and their cousins) children, not merely for the firstborn. All I am saying is that it doesn't become relevant until William and Catherine actually have a daughter. I mean, it's a fairly complicated process (or at least it was in Denmark, with the change of our constitution) so why not wait with the change until it actually become relevant?
__________________
"Blessed be god, the king, the queen and all our sweet children be in good health."
— Lady Margaret Beaufort, April 1497

Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 09-04-2012, 01:11 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palmerston View Post
On the contrary, it says more about David Cameron than anything else. In the context of British politics, it's manifestly clear why Cameron embarked upon this flawed initiative.

What the Prime Ministers think in their respective countries is moot - they're not constitutional experts; the logistical nightmare of implementing these changes shouldn't be underestimated (assuming they’re still in office). I doubt this will ever be a principal concern and it will take a PM with a dogged fidelity to the idea to implement it. That's before you even begin to factor in the rest of the Conservative Party. I’m baffled how any monarchist could support such a move: is the Monarch a public servant, or do they transcend the mores and sentiments of the present? The answer to that question is the difference between royalism and republicanism.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia View Post
All I am saying is that it doesn't become relevant until William and Catherine actually have a daughter. I mean, it's a fairly complicated process (or at least it was in Denmark, with the change of our constitution) so why not wait with the change until it actually become relevant?
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.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 09-04-2012, 01:57 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,803
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
  #188  
Old 09-04-2012, 03:32 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9
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.

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
  #189  
Old 09-04-2012, 03:36 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,332
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
  #190  
Old 09-04-2012, 05:26 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,035
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
  #191  
Old 09-04-2012, 05:39 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,256
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
  #192  
Old 09-04-2012, 07:11 PM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,672
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
  #193  
Old 09-04-2012, 07:37 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,035
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
  #194  
Old 09-04-2012, 08:08 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,881
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
  #195  
Old 09-04-2012, 08:29 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Los Alamos, United States
Posts: 1,032
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
  #196  
Old 09-04-2012, 11:11 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,035
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
  #197  
Old 09-04-2012, 11:25 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,256
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
  #198  
Old 09-05-2012, 03:22 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Los Alamos, United States
Posts: 1,032
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
  #199  
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: 4,382
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
  #200  
Old 09-05-2012, 09:43 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,803
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
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 942 03-09-2015 10:32 PM
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary's Official Visit to Australia: November 19-26, 2011 Princess Robijn Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary and Family 295 08-28-2014 08:34 PM
The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change GrandDuchess Royal House of Sweden 276 06-30-2014 12:52 AM
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary's Official Visit to Brazil: September 16-21, 2012 ricarda Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary and Family 81 10-05-2012 04:15 PM
The Third Succession Act (Henry VIII, 1543) Daz_Voz British Royal History 4 07-25-2012 03:17 PM




Popular Tags
belgium carl philip charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death duchess of cambridge fashion fashion poll germany grand duke henri infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg maxima nobility norway royals official visit ottoman picture of the week poland president gauck president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince henrik princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess mary princess of asturias queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima fashion queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sonja royal royal fashion sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague visit wedding willem-alexander



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:13 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2015
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]