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
 
  #121  
Old 12-23-2011, 03:13 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,459
I understand you're responding to what I wrote, but I don't understand what you're point is in what you're writing?
I was referring to George VI who had Elizabeth II who had Charles who had William. The two monarchs who had no boys/boy first are obviously George and Elizabeth, Charles is the future monarch who was the son who had a son.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 12-23-2011, 05:24 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheManWhoSpoke View Post
@LumutQueen: No. What I am saying is that a woman cannot be a King, she can only ever be a Queen (pretty straightforward really) ...
If you do some researching, you might be surprised to find out that HM Queen Elizabeth II is also the DUKE of Lancaster. Just thought I'd throw that fact into the mixture here.


The Duchy of Lancaster continues to exist as a separate entity from the Crown Estate and currently provides income for the monarch, Elizabeth II. The Sovereign is styled as Duke of Lancaster, regardless of gender,[1] although it is an honorary title and a royal style. The Dukedom became extinct after Henry VI,[2] as the original charter restricted it to 'heirs male'. Despite this, George V approved the ongoing use of the title.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 12-23-2011, 05:50 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
And in the Channel Islands she is Duke of Normandy. She is also Lord of Man
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 12-23-2011, 06:32 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,326
Oh, and since we didn't cover this one yet: women can lead (and be an example to) men and men can and do lead (and are an example to) women.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 12-23-2011, 10:03 PM
Sherlock221B's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
I understand you're responding to what I wrote, but I don't understand what you're point is in what you're writing?
I was referring to George VI who had Elizabeth II who had Charles who had William. The two monarchs who had no boys/boy first are obviously George and Elizabeth, Charles is the future monarch who was the son who had a son.
My point is transitioning into equal primogeniture from male primogeniture is unnecessary. Other than an attack on male chauvinism, which is terrible, equal primogeniture has no purpose in the royal family.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 12-24-2011, 09:30 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Well er no. When you use the word "cannot" it's sort of wrong. As The Queen is a representative of the men and a King is a representative of women. Neither Kings nor Queens are leaders, as they have nothing to lead. I think your 'theme' is that a man cannot do a womans job and vice versa, which in this era is ridiculously old fashioned and sexist IMO.
How could my usage of the word "cannot" be wrong: Answer these questions for me plainly. Can a woman be a father? and a man be a mother? can a woman be a King? Or can a man be a Queen? I think you will agree that the answer to all these questions is no. As such my statement was self-evidently correct.

Futhermore, the concept of leadership is one that extends beyond the mere authoritative role. Though HM has value as a monarch, she has limited value to me as a role model or as a true leader - because she is a woman and unfamiliar to the peculiarities of being male. Would I give you advise on how best to deal with your period, or dictate conduct proper for a woman? No of course not! I am not qualified... The same principle applies here. The Queen is not quallified to dictate to me how to act as a man, or lead me in that manner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Well again no. Where in a christian marriage does it say that the women is subservient to her husband? You do make the Queen sound very much a slave in her own marriage....
Here are some of the many teachings for women within scripture:

The Creation
"Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.” That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. " - Genesis 2:22-24

The Apostle Paul
"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" - Ephesians 5:22-25

The Apostle Peter
"Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. " - 1 Peter 3:1-4

Proverbs
"A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies.
Her husband has full confidence in her
and lacks nothing of value.
She brings him good, not harm,
all the days of her life.
She selects wool and flax
and works with eager hands.
She is like the merchant ships,
bringing her food from afar.
She gets up while it is still night;
she provides food for her family
and portions for her female servants.
She considers a field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
She sets about her work vigorously..." - Proverbs 31:10-17

From these passages you will see that christian doctrines on the wifely submission is consistant with the whole of scripture, and is reiterated by both Paul and Peter. But there are also some other observations that can be made:
  1. That wives must submit to their husbands in everything
  2. That husbands have a reciprocal command to love their wives
  3. Husbands are to always act in their wives best interest in a benevolent and self-sacrificial manner - with Christ himself as our role model. So I find it very unfair for you to think of me as a chauvenist
  4. Wives enjoy equal status with their husbands, as they share a 'one flesh' union with their husbands
  5. The wife shares equal status before God as co-airs in Christ
  6. God himself holds the woman, as having great value in His sight, specifically because she is submissive... She is not regarded as inferiour, but is highly valued
  7. The wife is not prohibited from the workplace, but fully participated in providing for the family
  8. The wife was not prohibited from handling money or employing staff - she is not a "dumb servant". Instead she is a smart and very capable business partner (and this writing comes from Ancient Times !)
  9. The husband of such a wife is not ridiculed for not providing for his family, but instead he is highly esteemed and considered blessed to have such a wife. (Contrary to modern day attitudes, even in Christian circles)
You see, the problem is not that Christian ideals on men and women are outdated. The problem is actually more to do with you not understanding them.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 12-24-2011, 09:54 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 451
That's the words from Peter and Paulus ... not what Jesus said; I can't stand that mysogynistic bu**er Paul anyway
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 12-24-2011, 09:55 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
^^^
What century are you living in?
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 12-24-2011, 10:11 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheManWhoSpoke View Post
...You see, the problem is not that Christian ideals on men and women are outdated. The problem is actually more to do with you not understanding them.
Trust me you do NOT want to get into a scripture debate with me and as I know its frowned upon by the mods here it not going to happen. Read the agreement . the rules here.

What you need to wake up to is the fact that you have your beliefs as does the rest of the world and they are respected. They seem to most of us very outdated and archaic especially to the women in this forum you talk to. It doesn't mean that your points aren't valid (to you) but they can and will create opposition.

We come here to talk about royals. not religions or scriptures or the Goddess.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 12-24-2011, 10:38 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,697
To our awesome mods this is just too good to pass up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheManWhoSpoke View Post
...The Apostle Paul
"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" - Ephesians 5:22-25
In this respect I really do hope you have the ability to study and learn that what Paul created was from his own human mind. It created a big split back then between the what the message was and what Paul wanted it to be.

I know you'll disagree with me but take a chance.. read the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library if you have the time.

As someone once told me. the closer I get to the flame of knowledge. the further from me it goes.. we never stop learning

Rev. OsipiEWM
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 12-24-2011, 05:38 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Well again no. Where in a christian marriage does it say that the women is subservient to her husband?

In the marriage vows that Elizabeth took in 1947 - when she promised to 'obey' her husband.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 12-24-2011, 06:00 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,326
...if he ever gives her an order...

But I still don't think obeying an order from a husband makes a woman "subservient." For a lot of couples, the man's ordering the woman about is confined to emergency situations (as when a man orders a woman to retreat to safety).

So, the degree of "obedience" would very much depend on the man in question.

Very glad people have dropped that word from many vows - but didn't Kate say that word in her wedding service? Jog my memory, someone.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 12-24-2011, 07:24 PM
Grandduchess24's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cambridge, United States
Posts: 1,318
I think all monarchs should change their laws and let their oldest daughters be official heiresses eventually the sons will inherit the throne and should follow the swedish royal family and the Norwegian royal family whose daughter princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway will inherit the throne after her father the crown prince of Norway.
__________________
" An ugly baby is a very nasty object, and the prettiest is frightful when undressed."
- Queen Victoria
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 12-24-2011, 07:39 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
Very glad people have dropped that word [obey] from many vows - but didn't Kate say that word in her wedding service? Jog my memory, someone.
No Kate didn't say 'obey'. She used the same vows that Diana did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandduchess24 View Post
I think all monarchs should change their laws and let their oldest daughters be official heiresses eventually the sons will inherit the throne and should follow the swedish royal family and the Norwegian royal family whose daughter princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway will inherit the throne after her father the crown prince of Norway.
It isn't up to the monarch but the parliaments of the different countries - in the case of the BRF it will take at least 16 nations to agree (I have read that some of the states in Australia will also, independently of the federal government, have to pass the legislation as they have declared the Queen Queen of their individual state as well as Queen of Australia). Until all of them have passed the legislation nothing will change.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 12-24-2011, 10:26 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Trust me you do NOT want to get into a scripture debate with me and as I know its frowned upon by the mods here it not going to happen. Read the agreement . the rules here.
I take your point, but I see nothing in the rules to indicate that this line of argument is out of order. It you seek to say that I am being intollerant, then you are wrong - I am simply setting forth the christian position. I am not asking you to agree with it.

If you are saying that I am deliberately going off topic, I was not the one who started it. Lumutqueen, made the assertion that christian wives are not commanded to submit to their husbands... I was prooving otherwise.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 12-24-2011, 11:03 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,326
It is the height of disrespect to lecture other Christians about the true meaning of Christianity - and it is not on topic, either.

But, to pull this back on topic, it is true that interpretations of Christian doctrine have supported male primogeniture (and been used to support male primogeniture). Even the books of the Bible were shaped by this - and in the earliest English translations of the Bible up to and including the King James version of the Bible, the language of male dominance (God as a "Lord" rather than as Adonai or Elohim or any of his actual names in the texts) is used - but these were translations written for or commissioned by Kings. No wonder that God is seen as a Big King in the Sky in these translations. The places where the divine is referred to in more feminine - or indeed, more ineffable terms - were suppressed or mistranslated.

That's changed. And so has doctrine. We could argue endlessly about what Jesus meant the status of women to be (as opposed to rulers and Bible-composers), but this is not the place. Much of Christianity has been devoted to the suppression of women - but some of us view our religion as capable of enlightenment and advancement...

There are plenty of Christian churches that have female leaders (take a look around). You may think it is heresy, but the Church of England has long been quite progressive. Women have been ordained as priests (and bishops) since 1992 or so (perhaps due in part to Her Majesty's role and leadership).

I count it a blessing that the British monarchy has survived - and is capable of progressive motion, albeit slowly (which seems appropriate). To imply that Her Majesty is not a proper Christian seems a poor show, especially on a forum dedicated to respectfully discussing her.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 12-25-2011, 09:14 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
It is the height of disrespect to lecture other Christians about the true meaning of Christianity - and it is not on topic, either.
Are you not doing the same? Many of the details of your previous post reveal a progressive and liberal theology. A common view held amongst members of the Church of England. My views on the other hand are more representative of an evangelical, or (what you might call low church) theology.

The liberal position questions the very nature of truth, in saying that truth is a relative concept, or that there are many 'truths'. The evangelical position holds to the claim that Jesus is, "the way, the truth and the life", and as such we believe God and the scriptures are a point of reference for our lives - that the truth is a certain, knowable and immovable concept. Both are diametrically opposed positions that cannot be resolved without compromise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
To imply that Her Majesty is not a proper Christian seems a poor show, especially on a forum dedicated to respectfully discussing her.
Actually, I am not certain what HM beliefs are or what her point of view is in relation to this argument. Any implication was not intended, and if I had wanted to comment on HM - I would have indicated that plainly. Implication and insinuation are tenuous claims in this medium.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 12-25-2011, 09:22 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,326
No, actually - I am fine with others believing whatever they wish. I am not fine with people speaking for all of Christendom. My point, if you can read it, is that even Christians do not agree on things so don't make it sound as if they do.

Further, my point is that Her Majesty is actually head of a Christian Church - which gives her some authority and a different point of view than you or I or anyone else posting here.

Man, you seem to have trouble with others taking a topic where they wish it to go. I never said you said anything about the Queen. Instead, I said that perhaps having a woman as the head of a major religion might in fact change how people view archaic ideas about Christianity.

And with that, like the others, I'm done with this conversation. If you can't tell the difference between someone else's viewpoint and an insinuation, it's very hard to communicate with you. Frankly, I don't usually have any trouble communicating with people in writing.

But, I find your overall tone uncompromising and somewhat insulting, which is not the way I'm accustomed to RF members coming across. You might wish to hang out some more on these boards before you become so accusatory.

Joyeux Noël.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 12-25-2011, 11:04 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,326
I understand that the Bible (which was not written in English) says (in the words of St. Paul, at least in terms of Christian/New Testament doctrine) that women shall not have authority over men. However, I'd like to know where Jesus actually says that (he doesn't). So churches vary on this point - and that still doesn't explain why Supreme Governor is okay but Head is not. I guess it's a semantic thing.

I am not talking about the history of Christianity in general (which I think would be completely off topic - although I could), I'm talking about the movement within the Church of England, which certainly did not exist at the Nicean council. The Gnostics had women in positions of some power, and I do not accept that all Christians were represented at the Nicean council. It's interesting that Sydney remains in the anti-woman priest division.

I'm also not arguing that women have achieved equality - only that change has occurred (verrry slowly as it usually does in large, hierarchical organizations whose main agenda is to conserve power). And I was speaking of the changes in between the Renaissance and now - if you want to go even further back, you could say that in other churches (non-Christian), there were plenty of women in positions of authority (those Siberian shaman women seem to be a prime example).

But the big leap forward, for Christianity, came with the establishment of Protestantism, particularly Anglicanism - but also many other more minor offshoots - and the change in the way women saw themselves as a result. Even though she was burned, that Askew woman spoke out in church - and up until the flames silenced her. Some woman named Mary wrote one of the Dead Sea Scrolls (before the Council at Nicea) and she too was left out/silenced (at the Council).

You keep saying "based on the bible," but there isn't just one bible - and there isn't just one tradition of interpreting it.

And I hope the mods will accept that I too am trying to explain the history of religion (not just "The Church" but the various traditions that lead up to the state of affairs in England today). England was once a pagan nation, the Council at Nicea had very little direct effect on the English of 325 A.D., and the importance of abbesses within their own domains is a form of leadership. The English, for whatever reason, allowed two women of opposing religions (especially at the time) to both be Queen within the span of one year, and that is something that Henry VIII tried very hard to set up via his acknowledgement of the two girls as his heirs after Edward. Would Henry have done the same if he had still been Catholic? We'll never know. But when Henry broke away from the Catholic Church, it changed English church theology.

But none of that is "based in the Bible." It's based in particular notions people had in Western Europe about interpreting the Bible - and what should go into Biblical interpretation.

Let's not forget that a mere 100 years after Queen Elizabeth was Governor, an offshoot of protestantism - Quakerism - founded by two men and two women arose in England. The Church of England is not the only religious force in England - the Quakers were persecuted in part because, like many Mennonites, they allowed women to speak in church and to attain a fairly high - autonomous - status. Quakers are not all that hierarchical and to speak of them having a "head" would be absurd. That's why so many of them left England at that time (and Puritans in American would continue to persecute them - especially for their views on women).

But in my view, the fact that this happens just 100 years after the High Renaissance - and in England - is far more signifcant than its relationship to the Nicean Council. Once religious revolution (against Catholicism) began in earnest, England became home to many dissenting sects, some of whom have gone on to influence history regarding the status of women quite a bit. In America, the execution of Mary Dyer caused divisions within the many fracturing branches of Protestant worldview (not everyone was a Puritan).

It's true that even among Quakers women didn't have anything like true equality (and women still don't have anything like true equality in the religious or political domains, as you point out - even the Queen can't be a Head...)

But, equal primogeniture was not seriously proposed in England in 325 AD or 1066 AD or even 1550 AD. It was 2011, and the result of many prior progressive changes (which is my main point).
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 12-29-2011, 08:33 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,694
Let's get back on topic and leave religion out of the discussion.

Thanks!

Zonk

British Forums Moderator
__________________

__________________
.

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 439 06-21-2015 09:29 PM
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, Crown Princess Mary and Family 295 08-28-2014 08:34 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 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 best outfit brussels chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death denmark duchess of cambridge fashion fashion poll funeral general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king philippe king willem-alexander letizia maxima nobility official visit picture of the week president gauck president hollande prince carl philip prince daniel prince henrik prince of wales princess claire princess leonore princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary fashion princess mary style princess mette-marit princess victoria queen fabiola queen letizia queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima fashion queen maxima style queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sonja royal fashion sayn sofia hellqvist state visit stockholm sweden the hague van vollenhoven victoria wedding willem-alexander william


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 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:19 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]