Nice Nofret
Courtier
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2010
- Messages
- 694
- City
- Zürich
- Country
- Switzerland
Well of course this is a 'political stunt' - as you choose to call it. But do we talk politics in this forum ?
It's certainly a victory for gender politics and religious ones as well, but I'm not a total fan. The media landscape has changed a lot since QEII took the throne. Any little girl today who would be destined to become Queen is going to face a lot of criticism from her looks to her behavior--looks, especially. She will not get the same pass her father did for youthful hijinks: clubbing, looking drunk in public, and any other sort of behavior that looks messy. I think for a girl, it won't be as easy on her psyche.
From reading a couple of previous posts, I don't think it does. Prehaps someone will make it a bit clearer.
Hummm...there are lots of nobles in the succession. Or is everyone outside the Windsors disqualified?
It's interesting to me to know something deeper on this law.If they've adopted the equal law,will this law apply to the British nobility as well?
As I know,Lord Mountbatten's title passed to his eldest daughter,as exception done in this way.
It's certainly a victory for gender politics and religious ones as well, but I'm not a total fan. The media landscape has changed a lot since QEII took the throne. Any little girl today who would be destined to become Queen is going to face a lot of criticism from her looks to her behavior--looks, especially. She will not get the same pass her father did for youthful hijinks: clubbing, looking drunk in public, and any other sort of behavior that looks messy. I think for a girl, it won't be as easy on her psyche.
Elizabeth though was born as a member of the House of Windsor and so there would have been no change in 1952. Any change would take place with the accession of Charles - just as in 1901 Victoria was the last monarch of the House of Hannover and Edward VII became the first King of the House of Saxe-Coburgh Gotha. Same with Mary II who reigned as a member of the House of Stuart and not the House of Orange - although if they had had a child then the royal house would presumably have changed to Orange. Mary I reigned as a Tudor not a Hapsburg despite being married to one - but again if they had had a child then the royal house would have changed to Hapsburg.
It's much better, from a human perspective, to do it before the child is done and more mannerly, in my opinion.
And I'm totally confused about the transmission of this "House" thing - got into a discussion with another editor on Wikipedia about it recently. The woman stays her own House (whatever she was at birth, which she took from her father unless the mother is a queen regnant? What?) but her children are their father's house (unless the father is lower ranking than the mother? Is that it?)
Women's liberation, that is what this is all about! This is at the top of Cameron's agenda?! THIS! What nonsense! What a maniacal waste of time. The Duke and Duchess do not even have a child yet. Victoria and Carl Philip were born before Sweden adopted absolute primogeniture. To do so on assumption is insane. What if William and Catherine's first born child is a son? This is a political stunt to regain popularity and why not include dukes, earls and barons?
The issue of peerage inheritance should be addressed as well, and may very well be in the future, but at least this is a good start.