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
 
  #21  
Old 01-23-2007, 06:59 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by yvr girl
As the rules currently stand, Harry's children will be Lord and Lady until his father ascends the thrown.

As will any of William's except the eldest son.

I know that but I didn't make it clear that I was refering to when Charles becomes king and they are entitled to be HRH.

When Diana was pregnant with William there was discussion about changing the line of succession for first born but as William was a boy it didn't happen.

I expect the discussion to arise again when William's wife is expecting but don't expect anything to happen until the first born child is a girl.

It would raise too many chances for the anti-monarchists to try to get rid of the monarchy altogether, or make other legislative changes as it would require debates in Parliament and also affects the passing of many other titles.

How fair is it for the throne to pass to females while other titles can only pass to males as it is? e.g. the Duke of York title can't pass to his daughters due to the Letters Patent. Maybe that needs to be considered along with changing who can be the monarch - why shouldn't a title pass to the daughters just because it was the norm in earlier times.

Unless Parliament is to change all inheritance laws I wouldn't support changing the inheritance laws for the monarch and as another poster said I think it would be harder for a Crown Princess to find a man prepared to give up his career etc for her than a Crown Prince to find a girl to give up her career. We still live in a world where the sexes are different and see their worth differently.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-23-2007, 07:36 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine
I know this. The point I was trying to make though, is that Norway streamlined their RF so that there aren't multitudes of people with titles floating about.
But then Norway does not have an aristocracy, but Britain has. So if they downgrade their Royals where will this end? They can't get fruther down as to "Lady" Louise Mountbatten-Windsor as the girl is the daughter of an earl and any daughter of an earl has the right to use the style of "Lady" in Britain. Once you stop giving the male Royals titles of dukes, you downgrade them into the lower ranks of the nobility while other families keep their higher titles.
__________________

__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-23-2007, 08:49 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
I'm not just a chromosomal faux pas

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main...t19.xml&page=3

Equality Bill for royal daughters

Every peerage is governed by separate rules of succession depending on the terms of its creation and few allow for female heirs in the way that the monarchy does. (This is what I object to - skydragon).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlConte...29/nroy29.html

Could British king marry a Muslim?

London - Playwright Alistair Beaton put Prime Minister Tony Blair on trial over the Iraq war. Now he wonders what would happen if a British monarch married a Muslim.

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?f...9552520971B216
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-23-2007, 02:08 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Whilst the sexes are obviously different, I don't see them as having different worth. Indeed, a reform law for the throne should also cover peerages and arms. It will be a welcome reform and I am sure it will be brought in within the next ten years.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-23-2007, 02:59 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
Whilst the sexes are obviously different, I don't see them as having different worth.
I don't either; its obvious the women can do the job as well as men and since its a ceremonial, non-political position without power, one could argue that women can do that type of position better than men.

If it were an elected position with a limited term, I would see no reason why a woman couldn't campaign for the job as well as a man. But a hereditary position for life means that every man knows right off the bat when he meets a crown princess that whoever marries her will take a subservient, powerless role for life. I think men's unwillingness to play second fiddle to a woman in general and especially to a woman in a figurehead role makes it much harder for the crown princesses who will inherit a crown for life to fulfill one of their duties in a hereditary system which is to marry suitably and provide an heir.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-23-2007, 04:05 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Again, I do not agree. There is no need or duty to "produce an heir" - there will already be an heir, be it a sister, brother, cousin or whatever. And I think in the modern world most young mothers work too, so the "career" of head of state-ship should no more prevent a sua juris Princess of Wales than it prevented HRH the Duchess of Edinburgh having plenty of princelings...

The man will have plenty of compensations; the love of his wife, the prestige of the inevitable princedom, raising the next monarch, oh, and a life of eternal comfort and luxury. He can have his own charitable "career" as much as he wishes. Ought we to insult young women in order to flatter the egos of men? I think not... I will welcome the reform when it, in my view inevitably, comes in a few years.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-23-2007, 04:38 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
Again, I do not agree. There is no need or duty to "produce an heir" - there will already be an heir, be it a sister, brother, cousin or whatever. And I think in the modern world most young mothers work too, so the "career" of head of state-ship should no more prevent a sua juris Princess of Wales than it prevented HRH the Duchess of Edinburgh having plenty of princelings...
However, that can mean that the throne can be inherited by someone who was not trained for the role. Right now, Prince Albert of Monaco is not married, has no child as heir and there is a lot of speculation surrounding the throne of Monaco because his eldest sister Caroline was never raised to assume the responsibilities and her eldest son Andrea does not look like he's been trained for any responsibilities. Monaco's situation is not the ideal situation.

Also Albert's reputation has also taken a nosedive because of the public's assumption by his single state that he is irresponsible and unwilling to commit which may or may not be true. A crown princess or Queen Regnant that remains unmarried will face even harsher criticism than Albert.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-24-2007, 10:35 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
I think that Monaco undernines that argument itself. Albert was "trained to rule" and what a disgrace he is! Playboy, ever-changing succession of arm candy, children out of wedlock, attempts to deny paternity until caught by a DNA test... they could hardly have worse, could they?

Caroline appears to be a sober woman in a royal marriage and would make a good heir.

Who in fact is the present heir to Monaco?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-24-2007, 10:50 AM
Oppie's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 537
Heir to Monaco - Caroline followed by her sons then daughter then Stephaine her son and daughter.
__________________
Like a pirate map, but way cooler.

Map for the British Royals
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-24-2007, 11:40 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
I think that Monaco undernines that argument itself. Albert was "trained to rule" and what a disgrace he is! Playboy, ever-changing succession of arm candy, children out of wedlock, attempts to deny paternity until caught by a DNA test... they could hardly have worse, could they?

Caroline appears to be a sober woman in a royal marriage and would make a good heir.

Who in fact is the present heir to Monaco?
Well if Albert undermines the argument of male primogeniture, he also undermines the argument for a hereditary system to begin with because unless you elect a person, there's no guarantee that the heir will live up to the job whether they are a man or a woman.

The idea of a hereditary monarchy is a bit archaic to begin with because hereditary not a person's own worth is the determining factor of who gets the job.

Your argument for cognitive primogeniture changes the nature of the arbitrariness but doesn't change the underlying arbitrary influence of heredity on the system.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-24-2007, 12:14 PM
selrahc4's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 760
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
Removal of the monarch as Head of the Church (separation btw Church and State)
Isn't it true that even if the monarch's title "Supreme Governor of the Church of England" were removed, the Archbishop of Canterbury would still remain the Head of the Church and the Church would still be an established one?
If so, that one action (removal of the monarch's title) wouldn't be enough to constitute a separation between Church and State.
__________________
aka Janet on some other forums
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-24-2007, 12:39 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by selrahc4
Isn't it true that even if the monarch's title "Supreme Governor of the Church of England" were removed, the Archbishop of Canterbury would still remain the Head of the Church and the Church would still be an established one?
If so, that one action (removal of the monarch's title) wouldn't be enough to constitute a separation between Church and State.
I think you are right, it would not separate the church and state!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-24-2007, 02:43 PM
Claire's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 841
I think the months between the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the coronation are doing to be fill of constitutional legal wranglings. I expect that Charles' will not be coronated in any religious fashion and that will serve his 'defender of the faiths' credo. just like his legal team will come up with a way to have Camilla crown Queen without her becoming Queen.
He will also narrow down the family. I expect the first in the firing line will be the Kents, Glouchester, Wessexs and Princess Alexander. It will simply be explained that they are not longer necessary and will be shortly dismissed. It depends on his own family whether he will do the same to Princess Anne and Andrew and his children. If William and Harry is married - they will also not be needed. So the royal family will simply be - the current Wales family with spouses.
I expect the family to be media savvy. Otherwise saying they will live out of the hands of the press. This is not to say that this will be good as I expect the Wales to have more problems then they have already faced in the future.

Andrew and Anne could possibly go on to jobs in the UN. It might work well. Anne could do her Save the Children full time. I expect that Beatrice and Eugenie will became fully American probably marry there and raise their family there. Edward and Sophie could possibly do something similiar and the possiblities are endless for Louise.
I only feel sorry for the elder members of the royal family. They are too old to start something new. Maybe Charles will let them continue doing engagements till their deaths.
I also expect the royal households to be narrow down. I believe that Sandringham and the scotish castle will be giving to back to the Government. Kensington Palace will possibly became the new American embassy.

I expect Charles and maybe William to reign (if you could call it that ) will not last long. Scotland will move away. As will Australia, New Zealand and Canada and after that they will no longer be the figurehead of the Commonwealth. I expect the monarchy to be dissolved within a decade of the Queen's death. The reign of Prince Charles and William will be in final death knell.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-24-2007, 03:37 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire
I think the months between the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the coronation are doing to be fill of constitutional legal wranglings. I expect that Charles' will not be coronated in any religious fashion and that will serve his 'defender of the faiths' credo. just like his legal team will come up with a way to have Camilla crown Queen without her becoming Queen.
Huh? Why bother with the crowning if she isn't Queen?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire
He will also narrow down the family. I expect the first in the firing line will be the Kents, Glouchester, Wessexs and Princess Alexander. It will simply be explained that they are not longer necessary and will be shortly dismissed.
I'm not sure exactly how you fire royalty. I can certainly see the Queen's generation scaling back their activities. I don't think 70 year old Princess Alexandra is going to have to go out and get a job.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire
I also expect the royal households to be narrow down. I believe that Sandringham and the scotish castle will be giving to back to the Government. Kensington Palace will possibly became the new American embassy.
Balmoral and Sandringham are private (much loved) property. They have never belonged to the government. Why would Charles give them away. He could sell them if he wanted to, but I don't see that happening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire
I expect Charles and maybe William to reign (if you could call it that ) will not last long. Scotland will move away. As will Australia, New Zealand and Canada...
I don't think it will happen in Canada. There isn't a demand for it to happen. It would also be near impossible to accomplish because of our constituion.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-24-2007, 03:45 PM
Next Star's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 872
It seems I am not the only one who believes the eldest child regardless of sex should the heir to the throne and not the middle child or the youngest child because their were born male. Elizabeth II is respected by the British people and Charles is not there are aspects that the British people would love to see Charles passed over as king and William succeed his grandmother as king. Some commonwealth nations will want to become a sovereign nation and be totatlly free from Britain after Elizabeth II passes on because then Charles would be king. All members should be trained to be head of state because you never know oiu just might inherit the throne example (Elizabeth II the woman we are talking about she was not even suppose to be queen but being her uncle Edward abdicated in favor of marrying an American divorcee making her father George become king and her becoming heiress-presumptive to the British throne. I don't think the monarchy will last that long after Elizabeth's death she was the one keeps the family and monarchy from not looking totallly ruined and when she's gone that's gone with her.
__________________
Patience is a virtue.

I'm head of a dynastic house no matter what others say.
Princess Kamorrissa,Countess of Welle
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-24-2007, 04:17 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Next Star
Elizabeth II is respected by the British people and Charles is not there are aspects that the British people would love to see Charles passed over as king and William succeed his grandmother as king.
Where did you see this information published? There are a few Diana diehards who would like nothing more but, IMO, most British people in favour of the monarchy, want Charles to succeed his mother.

Quote:
Some commonwealth nations will want to become a sovereign nation and be totatlly free from Britain after Elizabeth II passes on because then Charles would be king.
Possibly, but for many it is just a natural break and has very little to do with Charles.

Quote:
I don't think the monarchy will last that long after Elizabeth's death she was the one keeps the family and monarchy from not looking totallly ruined and when she's gone that's gone with her.
Again, IMO, the monarchy is something most Brits are proud of and it will still be here when Williams children are adults.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-24-2007, 04:31 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by yvr girl
Huh? Why bother with the crowning if she isn't Queen?
I think it's much more likely that this whole Princess Consort thing might be a way for her to become Queen without being crowned, not the other way round. If she is legally not Queen, she can't be crowned.


Quote:
I'm not sure exactly how you fire royalty. I can certainly see the Queen's generation scaling back their activities. I don't think 70 year old Princess Alexandra is going to have to go out and get a job.
You wouldn't exactly fire them; it'd just be a case of issuing letters patent restricting the royal family (i.e., the people eligible to be HRH) to the current monarch and his children and grandchildren (or eldest son of the Prince of Wales), or even restricting it to anyone who's ever been the child of a monarch, and not grandfathering in the current royals who are grandchildren of George VI and Elizabeth II. That would automatically remove the HRHs from the Gloucesters, the Kents, Prince Michael, Princess Alexandra, the York girls, and Lady Louise (even though she isn't called HRH, she's still entitled to it under the present situation). Some people lost their HRHs under the 1917 letters patent, and there'd be nothing to stop it happening again. These people haven't been covered by the Civil List for several years now, so there wouldn't be an issue with having to get that altered.

Quote:
Balmoral and Sandringham are private (much loved) property. They have never belonged to the government. Why would Charles give them away. He could sell them if he wanted to, but I don't see that happening.
Nor do I, but it's always possible. He could donate them to the government or just make them available to the government or something. Osborne House, Marlborough House, The Royal Pavilion at Brighton, and Carlton House are no longer royal residences, so there's a precedent.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-24-2007, 04:32 PM
Next Star's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 872
You have your believes and I have mine this will not change period the fact is that some people have rallied against the monarchy wanting an republic so the people can elect their leader. Suveries have been taking about rather would the people of Britain chose William over Charles as king some said yes. I not a fan of Charles but I believe in tradition so he should inherit the throne after his mother's passed on but deep down I wish William cold inherit the throne instead but then that would break thradition I wait and see what will happen to this monarchy .
__________________
Patience is a virtue.

I'm head of a dynastic house no matter what others say.
Princess Kamorrissa,Countess of Welle
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-24-2007, 04:32 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Elizabeth II is respected by the British people and Charles is not
News to me, I must say (the latter comment, not the former).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-24-2007, 05:12 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
I think all those 'the monarchy is on the way out'-ers were taken aback by the fervour of the 50th golden jubilee celebrations, and by the Queen Mother's funeral. At present there is huge affection here for Charles and William, mild disapproval of Harry which could easily by corrected by a stint in Iraq and a better gf, and growing appreciation of Camilla.

The other royals apart from Princess Michael get no press and bother nobody. Charles may well restrict HRH going forward, but I doubt he would make it retroactive; Andrew fought fiercely against any attempt to strip the Princesses of York of their titles, so for his brother's sake, i don't think it would happen.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
future of the monarchy


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
Future of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 882 06-22-2014 07:19 PM
Prince Albert, Duke of York and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon - 1923 Mandy Historical Royal Weddings 31 02-14-2014 05:14 PM
The Mechanics of Abdication and of Succession to the Throne Ellie2 British Royals 147 06-15-2013 07:14 PM
Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip's Visit to the Netherlands; February 5, 2007 Empress Dutch Royals 54 02-08-2007 03:04 AM
Relationship between King Juan Carlos and Queen Elizabeth Conde Valleverde King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia 4 11-12-2004 09:54 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games olympics ottoman poland pom pregnancy president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:08 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
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]