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
 
  #461  
Old 12-30-2012, 08:20 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
But that is what they are doing with the Equal Primogeniture Bill - changing tradition and trying to make things more equal for women.

So why have this bill at all? It is changing 1000+ years of tradition.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #462  
Old 12-30-2012, 08:24 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalistbert View Post
Yes let's destroy 1000 years of history. I don't want any future concorts denied queenly style just becauces of equality. If they really want equality instead of downgrading woman's titles, they should upgrade men's titles.

I think they should create the title "King consort" if they really want eqaulity.
But what's the big deal about "queenly style" anyway? A queen consort has no official role other than brood mare, just as a prince consort really has no other role than to sire the next generation.

To suggest that there should be a title of 'King consort' overlooks the fact that within our system king is a superior position to queen. It just isn't an option.

And, yes, I am very happy to destroy 1000 years and more of history for equality. To destroy the practice of allowing men to dictate to women what they wear and where they go and what they say and how they vote - if they have the vote, which they didn't until relatively recently because they weren't considered worthy of such a huge responsibility or capable of making such important decisions - and the right to physically punish them for disobeying the man, and the right to force their wives to have sex if they weren't in the mood; and to give women the right to divorce their husbands on the same grounds as are available to the husband. I could go on and on, but I won't. I think I've made my point and I'm getting off topic. Equality is not a concept that should be taken lightly.
__________________

__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #463  
Old 12-30-2012, 08:26 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Albany, Australia
Posts: 2
To me, Prince Consort or Princess Consort denotes the spouse of a Prince or Princess. If at present the wife of a King is Queen Consort, why cannot the husband of a Queen be King Consort?

Historically, most of the time a King has ruled, due to male succession laws. His wife, since time immemorial, has been Queen. By allowing women equal rights we are now wondering what to call their spouses - let them be King Consort! No historical precedent (if that is the case) doesn't mean it is wrong, it just means that times have changed.

Subjectively speaking, I think a King and his Princess sounds wrong, as though she were his daughter, not spouse. And I have always thought that a Queen and her Prince sounded wrong too, as though he were her toyboy, not her spouse.

A King and his Queen Consort or a Queen and her King Consort sounds better IMO. It brings to my mind a couple, one primarily supporting the other perhaps, but far more equal, more of a team, united in their work.
Reply With Quote
  #464  
Old 12-30-2012, 08:27 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,272
Absolutely. I see no real reason for this bill at all.
Reply With Quote
  #465  
Old 12-30-2012, 08:27 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
From the moment of conception we are unequal. Why start mucking around with the monarchy to make things "equal" when nothing else is?
If they are going to change things to bring in absolute primogeniture then I think equality of the monarch's consort should also be introduced. Now whether that is to make a male consort King Consort as proposed by Royalistbert or to make a female consort Princess Consort is neither here nor there to me provided both are treated equally.

Just because something has been unequal or unfair for a thousand years is no reason not to rectify it given the chance - legal and formal racial discrimination has been legislated away by many governments over the last 50 years or so. What if governments had refused to enact change because life's full of inequalities and it had been the norm for hundreds of years? Why should gender equality be any different?
Reply With Quote
  #466  
Old 12-30-2012, 08:38 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,186
An institution like monarchy demands a certain amount of tradition. Almost every monarchist I know accepts the fact that the rules and traditions of the monarchy, while not up to the political correctness standards of 2012 Britain, are necessary or the entire institution will collapse.
Either do away with monarchy or accept the fact it is never going to be equal and fair.
Reply With Quote
  #467  
Old 12-30-2012, 08:39 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
From the moment of conception we are unequal.
Do you really believe that?

Quote:
Why start mucking around with the monarchy to make things "equal" when nothing else is?
We have to at least try.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #468  
Old 12-30-2012, 08:41 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl View Post
An institution like monarchy demands a certain amount of tradition. Almost every monarchist I know accepts the fact that the rules and traditions of the monarchy, while not up to the political correctness standards of 2012 Britain, are necessary or the entire institution will collapse.
Either do away with monarchy or accept the fact it is never going to be equal and fair.
Just like life.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #469  
Old 12-30-2012, 08:43 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn
King is a greater status than queen.
Yes, but that's just weird. I know that most monarchs in history has been men (kings), so most queens have "only" been a king's consort. But there have also been several regent queens, who have been just as good as a monarch as any man could have been in the same situation. So I don't see why "king" should be a higher rank than "queen". I understand that it has something to do with old gender roles, but still, it doesn't make much sense.
Reply With Quote
  #470  
Old 12-30-2012, 08:50 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 524
If W & C 's first child is a daughter, I think at the very least, she will marry from the British Aristocracy. I am not sure that an everyday man could live through the subservience that D o E has done proudly for all these many years.
Reply With Quote
  #471  
Old 12-30-2012, 08:54 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
Do you really believe that?
Of course I believe that. A baby conceived in the belly of a single teenage crack addict is unequal to a baby conceived by a middle class, married, well educated mother in the suburbs who takes care of herself and will receive proper medical attention throughout her pregnancy and afterwards for both herself and her child. Their chances of success in life, or even just living, are not equal.
In the western world a white blue eyed blond male, from a middle class family with a descent education will always have advantages over a woman or a person of colour. People who are taller make more money than people who are shorter. The same for good looking people. Its just how life works. It is not necessarily fair or equal but that is life. You can write all the laws you want but you cannot make everyone equal.
Reply With Quote
  #472  
Old 12-30-2012, 08:54 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by padams2359 View Post
. I am not sure that an everyday man could live through the subservience that D o E has done proudly for all these many years.
But it's ok for a woman to be expected to do so?
Reply With Quote
  #473  
Old 12-30-2012, 08:58 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
Of course I believe that. A baby conceived in the belly of a single teenage crack addict is unequal to a baby conceived by a middle class, married, well eductaed mother in the suburbs who takes care of herself and will receive proper medical attention throughout her pregnancy and afterwards for both herself and her child. Their chances of success in life, or even just living, are not equal.
In the western world a white blue eyed blond male, from a middle class family with a descent education will always have advantages over a woman or a person of colour. People wo are taller make more money than people who are shorter. The same for good looking people. Its just how life works. It is not necessarily fair or equal but that is life.
You make good points, of course, but that's not the sort of equality I was talking about.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #474  
Old 12-30-2012, 09:06 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,186
A lot of politicians proposing these changes are republicans and know once they start mucking around with the traditions of monarchy, the institution will die a slow death.
In a lot ways , monarchy isn't 'real life' and trying to make it real life by 'modernising' it and making it political correct is just going to kill it off.
Reply With Quote
  #475  
Old 12-30-2012, 09:27 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl View Post
A lot of politicians proposing these changes are republicans and know once they start mucking around with the traditions of monarchy, the institution will die a slow death.
In a lot ways , monarchy isn't 'real life' and trying to make it real life by 'modernising' it and making it political correct is just going to kill it off.
Or they recognise that to survive the monarchy must remain relevant and it cannot do that if it's preserved in aspic.

The Queen did away with presentations at Court, Royal walkabouts were introduced in the 1930s, George V introduced the Christmas broadcast, the Queen started paying income tax. After Diana's death there was almost revolution because the Royal Family stuck to tradition and failed to fly the Union Flag at half mast.

IMHO not all traditions are bad and not all modernization is good but there has to be a happy medium. To say we cannot change something because it has always been done that way risks alienating people and making the
Monarchy irrelevant.

It seems that some of those arguing against change were more than happy for the Cambridges to break with tradition and spend Christmas with her family because that's what modern couples do and because it was only fair.
Reply With Quote
  #476  
Old 12-30-2012, 09:34 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,186
Organic change I have no problem with. Its when politicians try and legislate fairness and equality in monarchy that things fall apart.
Reply With Quote
  #477  
Old 12-30-2012, 10:00 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Birmingham, United States
Posts: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl View Post
It will really make me mad if she does not become Queen Catherine. I think there should be a counter proposal to make male spouses King Consorts. It would be awesome for the DoE to become King Phillip after all these years.
Reply With Quote
  #478  
Old 12-30-2012, 10:30 PM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,811
I doubt very much at this stage Prince Philip would become a king consort. If any changes would be implemented, I'm sure it would be in Charles' or William's reigns.
__________________
A book should be either a bandit or a rebel or a man in the crowd..... D.H. Lawrence
Reply With Quote
  #479  
Old 12-30-2012, 11:09 PM
COESpiral's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The South, United States
Posts: 183
If Camilla is still married to Charles when he becomes King then she should be the Queen. End of story. Doesn't matter what the Diana worshippers want, she wouldn't have been the Queen anyway as the divorce took care of that, so even if she were still living, would there still be such an uproar? I don't even know if Charles would have re-married were Diana still alive, but it's obvious that Camilla makes him very happy and no one should go throughout life miserable or being made miserable, so as his wife Camilla deserves the title and the respect that goes with it.

As an American, I admit I don't get why Diana is practically sainted, but then I was in college when she died and didn't start paying much attention to any of the European royals until a few years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #480  
Old 12-30-2012, 11:10 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 3,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaB View Post
Or they recognise that to survive the monarchy must remain relevant and it cannot do that if it's preserved in aspic.

The Queen did away with presentations at Court, Royal walkabouts were introduced in the 1930s, George V introduced the Christmas broadcast, the Queen started paying income tax. After Diana's death there was almost revolution because the Royal Family stuck to tradition and failed to fly the Union Flag at half mast.

But many of those changes were rooted in necessity.
The Queen had to do away with the presentations due to widespread corruption in the process. It was supposed to be that an older woman would present a younger relative, but people were taking fees to present strangers and it got out of control.

The broadcasts and walkabouts were to give the Monarchy a way of interacting with the public.
It wasn't change for the sake of change.
__________________

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 Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change GrandDuchess Royal House of Sweden 455 07-19-2015 09:05 AM
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 942 03-09-2015 11:32 PM
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary's Official Visit to Australia: November 19-26, 2011 Princess Robijn Crown Prince Frederik, Crown Princess Mary and Family 295 08-28-2014 09:34 PM
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary's Official Visit to Brazil: September 16-21, 2012 ricarda Crown Prince Frederik, Crown Princess Mary and Family 81 10-05-2012 05:15 PM
The Third Succession Act (Henry VIII, 1543) Daz_Voz British Royal History 4 07-25-2012 04:17 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 belgian state visit to japan best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style christening of prince alexander coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll fashion suggestions gothia cup grand duke jean greece hereditary grand duchess stéphanie's fashion & style kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 sheikha moza state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:25 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises