The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession

[wbenson]

I would imagine that the PM would simply let another minister advise HM on CofE appointments in that case.

[serenissima]

Originally Posted by wbenson

I would imagine that the PM would simply let another minister advise HM on CofE appointments in that case.

Well, the Queen does not appoint the bishops of the Church of England but the PM does it. It's a part of his post here. Obviously, the PM, if not particularly familiar with the Anglican clergy circle and what-not, will seek some advice from people who know who's who in that circle. To me, it will be better if each diocesan chapter has more say in who their bishop is going to be etc but things are done in such old fashioned manners still that they just put up with whoever they get as their bishop.

Mrs Thatcher put a lot of people who she thought were her men in the bishoprics but she got it wrong and appointed Dr Runcie as the Archbishop of Canterbury. The late Lord Runcie was very much anti-Thatcherism.

[SIDOROFF]

Originally Posted by KingCharles

The eldest child (first born) should be heir to the throne whether they are a boy or girl.

This is disgusting. It is against nature and common sense. And it also means dynasties changing frequently, which undermines the idea of monarchy.

[SIDOROFF]

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada

in much the same way that the Dalai Lama is the head of Tibet-in-exile.

He abdicated in 2002.

[serenissima]

Originally Posted by SIDOROFF

This is disgusting. It is against nature and common sense. And it also means dynasties changing frequently, which undermines the idea of monarchy.

However, "common sense" seems to vary from place to place that a lot of things that are seen as "common sense" in Russia may not be seen as so "common sense" here in England.

My grandmother seemed to have believed that people who were born below her station were inferior to her and she understood that opinion of hers was a "common sense" but I am sure you will disagree with her. Many older English people still regard that one English man is worth ten foreigners and they call that a "common sense", too.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by serenissima

Well, the Queen does not appoint the bishops of the Church of England but the PM does it. It's a part of his post here.

The PM doesn't formally appoint the bishops. He constitutionally advises the Queen to do it. In 99.99999% situations, that is no difference. In this case, however, the PM could designate another minister to do it, as what the law forbids is not that no PM shall be Roman Catholic, but that no Roman Catholic shall advise the Queen on CofE bishoprics. That could easily be skirted by having a Catholic PM simply pick a different minister to do that.

[Al_bina]

Originally Posted by SIDOROFF

This is disgusting. It is against nature and common sense. And it also means dynasties changing frequently, which undermines the idea of monarchy.

Could you please explain why equal primogeniture is against both nature and common sense?

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by SIDOROFF

And it also means dynasties changing frequently, which undermines the idea of monarchy.

Tell that to Prince Charles, who will reign as a King in the House of Windsor.

[NGalitzine]

The government has since announced that there will be no chnages to the succession or the the RMA with respect to Catholics so future debate here can only be purely academic.

[SIDOROFF]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

Could you please explain why equal primogeniture is against both nature and common sense?

It is so in many ways:

1) Power is the art of men. When women try to rule, it is usually a disaster.
2) The Y-DNA is inherited only through the male line.
3) In normal circumstances, a family name is inherited in the male line.
4) Male primogeniture is the law in most monarchies.

[SIDOROFF]

Originally Posted by wbenson

Tell that to Prince Charles, who will reign as a King in the House of Windsor.

And will always be reminded that he is not really such.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by SIDOROFF

It is so in many ways:

1) Power is the art of men. When women try to rule, it is usually a disaster.
2) The Y-DNA is inherited only through the male line.
3) In normal circumstances, a family name is inherited in the male line.
4) Male primogeniture is the law in most monarchies.

You won't find many British people agreeing with you that Queen Elizabeth's reign has been a disaster. Or Queen Victoria's. Or Elizabeth I's. Mind you, we've had some pretty darned useless male monarchs in our time.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by SIDOROFF

And will always be reminded that he is not really such.

Of course he is. The House of Windsor is intended to continue in perpetuity and not change its name when the next female heir comes along. In many countries the House doesn't change when a female monarch is married; it depends on the country. The bloodline is the same whether the name changes or doesn't change.

[serenissima]

Originally Posted by SIDOROFF

It is so in many ways:

1) Power is the art of men. When women try to rule, it is usually a disaster.
2) The Y-DNA is inherited only through the male line.
3) In normal circumstances, a family name is inherited in the male line.
4) Male primogeniture is the law in most monarchies.

Well, the reign of the Elizabeth I brought England such a greater prosperity, so did the reign of the Queen Victoria. During the time of the Queen Anne, our country's foundation as the United Kingdom was laid. The name of our dynasty is Windsor but not Mountbatten. Our queen looks like her grandmother than her garndfather.

Maybe, in Russia, things were very different because their country did not have our sort of middle classes who were more capable in the affairs of the state.

[SIDOROFF]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

You won't find many British people agreeing with you that Queen Elizabeth's reign has been a disaster.

Do you know how to read? I did not write "reign", I wrote "rule". And in fact her reign was a disaster. The prestige of monarchy has been greatly damaged in the United Kingdom.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by SIDOROFF

Do you know how to read?

Do you know how to follow the forum rules? Or how badly are you asking to be banned?

I did not write "reign", I wrote "rule".

Which is why I also mentioned Queen Elizabeth I. One of our greatest monarchs.

And in fact her reign was a disaster. The prestige of monarchy has been greatly damaged in the United Kingdom.

The prestige of monarchy is doing fine in the United Kingdom, compared with other countries.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by SIDOROFF

Do you know how to read? I did not write "reign", I wrote "rule". And in fact her reign was a disaster. The prestige of monarchy has been greatly damaged in the United Kingdom.

Many will disagree with you on that. And if you're being touchy on words, may I say that the Republic of Ireland has been ruled for over 25 years by a woman and it's been a total success. Same thing for Switzerland.

[MARG]

Well I must say this thread is a really fun ride!

It's not every day that one encounters fully paid up members of the "Flat Earth Society"!!!

Still, I believe it is important that we debate the issue as we all know that we are only two generations away (plauge or bombs notwithstanding) from the possibility of this being a real situation.

Planning for the future is prudent. Debating it is a blast!

[SIDOROFF]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Do you know how to follow the forum rules? Or how badly are you asking to be banned?

You were rude in the first place. Or do you have short memory?

[Mandy]

Originally Posted by SIDOROFF

You were rude in the first place. Or do you have short memory?

There is nothing wrong with our memory. So long!