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
 
  #661  
Old 01-07-2013, 11:45 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Los Alamos, United States
Posts: 1,032
Speaking of early homes in London, I was in one on Harley St. which was a medical office. It was kept by law looking more or less as it was in the eighteenth century. It was four stories, none of the stories wide, and one can imagine the poor maids clambering up and down those four stories. It had a scales on which the patient sat, which was preserved from the eighteenth century. It's one thing I don't like about Downton/Highclere, that the maids had to clamber up and down so much, and live in the attic in the real Highclere, as shown in the video last night in the USA
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #662  
Old 01-08-2013, 06:19 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,169
Royal Succession Laws to Be Rushed out
Quote:
New laws to ensure the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's baby accedes to the throne even if it's a girl will be rushed out within two weeks.

The royal couple are currently expecting their first child together and the British government are keen to get the succession laws - which currently see a male child take preference over any female siblings regardless of age - changed before he or she arrives.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #663  
Old 01-08-2013, 09:22 AM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 1,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl View Post
I understand that there are some high tech tests out there now that can tell you gender, along with some abnormalities fairly early - like 9-10 weeks, where we all used to have to wait until about 18 weeks, and sometimes longer.

Could they know something we don't?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #664  
Old 01-08-2013, 11:32 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
I understand that there are some high tech tests out there now that can tell you gender, along with some abnormalities fairly early - like 9-10 weeks, where we all used to have to wait until about 18 weeks, and sometimes longer.

Could they know something we don't?
They could, but it's unlikely that the new laws are going to be rushed through 14 parliaments in two days.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #665  
Old 01-08-2013, 02:23 PM
Excalibur's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jacksonville, Florida, United States
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
They could, but it's unlikely that the new laws are going to be rushed through 14 parliaments in two days.
I don't think that is the intention here. My take on the "rush" article is that it will be rushed through the British parliament in the two-weeks timeframe. If I understand correctly, the other parliaments cannot even consider the legislation unless/until it is passed by the British parliament. So this is the "jump-start" to get things moving.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #666  
Old 01-08-2013, 02:28 PM
ZaJa's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New York , United States
Posts: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elenath View Post
Funny how people say they would love to live in a certain century and how the things were done so much better back then. I always wonder if they would still feel that way after a few years in that time. We women are used to so much freedom and rights we often take it for granted. Having a job, getting married to whom ever we wanted, going wherever we want, owning property and money, the right to vote (or not), etc, etc. Women didn't have those things in the 1700...
Being African American I can def say I would not want to live in the 1700s lol !
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #667  
Old 01-08-2013, 02:49 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 1,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
I don't think that is the intention here. My take on the "rush" article is that it will be rushed through the British parliament in the two-weeks timeframe. If I understand correctly, the other parliaments cannot even consider the legislation unless/until it is passed by the British parliament. So this is the "jump-start" to get things moving.
I agree. They need to get a jump on it as all governments move slowly. I think they last thing they want is the legislation passing after the birth.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #668  
Old 01-08-2013, 02:54 PM
dbarn67's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: BROOKLYN, United States
Posts: 3,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZaJa View Post
Being African American I can def say I would not want to live in the 1700s lol !
Count me with that same view.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #669  
Old 01-08-2013, 02:56 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,256
^^^^
After the birth won't be that big a deal....as long as it is before the birth of a second child if it is a girl first and a boy second but even then no biggie. Its not as if an infant and a toddler would have a real idea that their lives are planned out for them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #670  
Old 01-08-2013, 03:16 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
I agree. They need to get a jump on it as all governments move slowly. I think they last thing they want is the legislation passing after the birth.
Actually I think that would be the best thing, wait until Catherine gives birth and then change the succesion laws. If it's a boy then no one has to bother for another 60 years, if it's a girl then pass the law. Simple. Countries in the commonwealth have bigger issues to deal with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
I don't think that is the intention here. My take on the "rush" article is that it will be rushed through the British parliament in the two-weeks timeframe. If I understand correctly, the other parliaments cannot even consider the legislation unless/until it is passed by the British parliament. So this is the "jump-start" to get things moving.
They can consider legislation prior to something being passed in the UK courts. However in December it had been agreed that the UK would draft legislation first, but would not introduce it to the government until all 14 realms had agreed to the terms of the new legislation (roman catholic bit, limit line of succesion that asks for marriage permission etc). Also, even after they receieved agreement, the UK government would not go ahead until the other realms had their domestics situations in place for the change.

For instance in Australia, for new legislation to be created they have to amend the constitution and that requires a referendum. In mid decemeber some disagreement arose about how the country, and the separate states should go about this. Nothing has been resolved and a bill (on what i'm not sure) is supposed to arrive in parliament in 2013.

Canada is also a whole different ball game, all the provinces and the federal government must agree to the changes.

New Zealand is fine and dandy apparently, just needs to implement a few changes which will occur in 2013.

As for the UK, to "rush" this act through, they need parliamentary time and as of the start of December when the bill was drafted, there hasn't been any time allocated.

Everyone needs to agree at the same time, the legislation needs to be brought to law at the same time so that any baby boy or girl will have the correct succession rights in all 14 realms. We can't have a situation where a girl in first in line in one country, but her younger brother is first in line in another can we?
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #671  
Old 01-08-2013, 03:55 PM
Excalibur's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jacksonville, Florida, United States
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Everyone needs to agree at the same time, the legislation needs to be brought to law at the same time so that any baby boy or girl will have the correct succession rights in all 14 realms. We can't have a situation where a girl in first in line in one country, but her younger brother is first in line in another can we?
I was aware that both Canada and Australia presented unique circumstances in the approval process, but I had not realized that the intent was for all of the realms to approve at the same time. Thank you for straightening me out.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #672  
Old 01-08-2013, 04:37 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,929
There is still debate in Australia as to whether or not a referendum is needed or whether it can be done by legislation - as happened with the Australia Act which severed all other ties with Britain other than the Queen.

Of course if it comes to a referendum (which I don't think it will) the referendum won't be on this issue at all but on becoming a republic.

The bigger question is whether the states have to also pass the legislation separately and independently of the Federal government and that isn't a given. With a Federal election year ahead the last thing the states and federal governments need is a stoush over states' rights that could end up in the High Court.

In Australia it could be very very simple or very complicated as each of the states have individual constutions that pre-date the federal constitution and it could be that some states have to have state referenda and others don't as well.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #673  
Old 01-08-2013, 05:55 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 1,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
There is still debate in Australia as to whether or not a referendum is needed or whether it can be done by legislation - as happened with the Australia Act which severed all other ties with Britain other than the Queen.

Of course if it comes to a referendum (which I don't think it will) the referendum won't be on this issue at all but on becoming a republic.

The bigger question is whether the states have to also pass the legislation separately and independently of the Federal government and that isn't a given. With a Federal election year ahead the last thing the states and federal governments need is a stoush over states' rights that could end up in the High Court.

In Australia it could be very very simple or very complicated as each of the states have individual constutions that pre-date the federal constitution and it could be that some states have to have state referenda and others don't as well.
It's not so much the succession order which most don't really care about, it's the question of setting a precedent for the feds trumping the states - we would have the same problem here in the United States. Interesting...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #674  
Old 01-08-2013, 06:16 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,169
Nick Clegg dismisses Prince Charles' fears on royal laws - Telegraph
Quote:
The Deputy Prime Minister told MPs that ministers’ plans to change the succession rules will not jeopardise the independence of the Church of England.
Ministers are changing succession laws to ensure that a first-born daughter of the Duke of Cambridge will be Queen, even if she has younger brother. A legal bar on heirs to the throne marrying Roman Catholics will also be removed.
Church of England concerned over royal succession reforms - Telegraph
Quote:
Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey shares the worries of Prince Charles, who is thought to believe that changing the rules which give male heir priority could throw up difficulties.
He, along with other leading members of the clergy, believe the Prime Minister's plan to remove a ban on an heir to the throne marrying a Roman Catholic could upset a "delicate constitutional balance".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #675  
Old 01-08-2013, 06:26 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,840
When this was first raised, I wrote a post about the issues regarding an heir to the throne marrying a Catholic. This does strike at the heart of the Establishment of the Church of England and its links to the Monarchy. This aspect shouldn't be rushed through - it is complex. Primogeniture for the monarchy - ok but real concerns about precedent being set; permission to marry limited to 6th in line - also ok for immediate go ahead. But more debate and answers are needed on the religious issue.

Charles is right to speak out - leaving a potential mess for others to sort out in 60 years time is not his style. Nick Clegg hasn't got all the answers hence his response. What he is saying is the Head of the Church of England asks permission of the Head of the Catholic Church for their child/grandchild not to brought up a Catholic which is against canon law.

OR of course, the Church could be dis-established.

I'm not being anti-catholic, I just want to know how it will work.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #676  
Old 01-08-2013, 06:28 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,169
I agree with you 100 percent cepe
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #677  
Old 01-08-2013, 06:30 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
There is still debate in Australia as to whether or not a referendum is needed or whether it can be done by legislation - as happened with the Australia Act which severed all other ties with Britain other than the Queen.

Of course if it comes to a referendum (which I don't think it will) the referendum won't be on this issue at all but on becoming a republic.

The bigger question is whether the states have to also pass the legislation separately and independently of the Federal government and that isn't a given. With a Federal election year ahead the last thing the states and federal governments need is a stoush over states' rights that could end up in the High Court.

In Australia it could be very very simple or very complicated as each of the states have individual constutions that pre-date the federal constitution and it could be that some states have to have state referenda and others don't as well.
I don't believe we would need to change the Constitution. The relevant wording in there provides that "The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom", so settling the succession to the sovereignty of the UK is a separate matter, so no need for a referendum. However it has been argued that it's not that simple, and the United Kingdom rules of succession are incorporated into the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, and that Act can now only be changed by Australia, requiring a Referendum. I cannot imagine the High Court interpreting it that way, though the issue might find its way there. If it requires a Referendum, the change might never happen, even if it does get tacked onto a Referendum about a Republic. I doubt anyone in Australia wants a Referendum on that issue right now.

The issue of the position of the States is a very live, and complex, issue. If anyone is interested, it is addressed in some detail here: The Constitution of New South Wales - Anne Twomey - Google Books I haven't read all that yet, but I might. It's great fun if your mind is that way inclined. I'd love there to be a stoush in the High Court about all this stuff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
Charles is right to speak out - leaving a potential mess for others to sort out in 60 years time is not his style. Nick Clegg hasn't got all the answers hence his response. What he is saying is the Head of the Church of England asks permission of the Head of the Catholic Church for their child/grandchild not to brought up a Catholic which is against canon law.
I agree he is right to speak out, because him doing so might get the problems solved now. But I do think that the change needs to be made, because the current situation is blatantly and appallingly discriminatory. Maybe the truly fair answer is disestablishment.

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #678  
Old 01-08-2013, 06:40 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,256
I hope baby Cambridge is a boy, then politicians will have about 60 years to sort through the potential mess they are creating. It is also likely that in that time fewer nations in the Commonwealth will have the British monarch as head of state and thus will not be required to ratify the changes.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #679  
Old 01-08-2013, 06:42 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,169
Well as a monarchist to my finger tips, the day the the Church of England becomes disestablished, is the day I cease being a monarchist.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #680  
Old 01-08-2013, 06:48 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
I hope baby Cambridge is a boy, then politicians will have about 60 years to sort through the potential mess they are creating. It is also likely that in that time fewer nations in the Commonwealth will have the British monarch as head of state and thus will not be required to ratify the changes.
Noooo! Bring it on now, so I get to enjoy it! But, apart from my self-interest, I think this gender and religious discrimination needs to be addressed now, not put on the back-burner.
__________________

__________________
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 941 02-24-2015 06:31 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
abdication belgium brussels carl philip charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern 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 nobility official visit ottoman poland president gauck president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess charlene princess haya princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess of asturias queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia queen sonja royal royal fashion sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:42 AM.

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]