The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #121  
Old 12-13-2006, 03:54 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 12,810
My warning was not to cancel any discussion regarding Act of Succession (which is the subject of this thread) but rather to end the discussion on any mental illness which is not the subject of this thread.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 12-13-2006, 04:57 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Furienna,

The obvious difference between discriminating by age and disciminating by sex is that in the lottery of 'who is the oldest' both sexes have an equal chance; in the lottery of 'boys first' women are totally disadvantaged.

There are no, absolutely zero, differences between men and women when it comes to ruling a country as a constitutional monarch.

In my lifetime I expect to see the changes of Sweden and Norway applied to Great Britain, too. You may be sure that if Prince William's eldest child is a girl, the current climate will not admit of her being disinherited by a younger brother. I cannot wait to see that change and I will be agitating for it.

In the meantime the best of luck to the Crown Princess. As a woman it makes me so glad to see it.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 12-13-2006, 05:45 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,407
I don't really get what you mean there. If we're going to talk discrimination, Carl Philip is now discriminated in favor of Victoria, instead of the other way around, because he happened to be born after her. And Madeleine has to be the only one left to have a chance, no matter if Victoria or Carl Philip is the heir. We can't talk about equality when it comes to succession, but we have to talk about tradition. If the politicians feel they can change the act of succession only because of their ideas on equality, why not get rid of the monarchy all together in the name of equality? And how will you be able to change the Brittish succession laws from USA?
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 12-14-2006, 08:18 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
I'm in the UK, should have updated the profile.

It isn't just "politicians"' ideas about equality, Furienna; your idea that males are inherently more suited to rule than females is the minority one. There is widespread acceptance in Sweden of Victoria as CP, and when you say "politicians", remember that politicians are only in a position to enact changes - as in the case of the change to the Swedish succession, planned before the births of Victoria and CP - because a majority of the people elected them into government.

The people chose the politicians who made the changes, so the people ultimately approve this change.

A constitutional monarch has little power, and women as well as men are equally able to act as a symbol. It is not suprising that the least discriminatory method of succession is chosen - primogeniture discriminates only on age, male primogeniture (your choice) on both age and sex.

As for tradition, there is not a monarchy in the world which hasn't changed ruling house, laws, etc at one point or another.

Speaking as an ardent monarchist, I want the institution to survive, and to do that it needs to be made as relevant as possible. A British stripped-down monarchy with equal succession rights for men and women will be the way forward.

It is working very well in Sweden. And now we see the idea taken up all over the place - Norway and Holland too. We are in an ideal situation to bring in changes, because with either male primogeniture or regular primogeniture, the first three in line to the throne would be Charles, William and Harry. To make the change now before William's daughter or son is born makes every kind of good sense. Nothing practical will change for two generations.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 12-17-2006, 08:17 AM
Lox's Avatar
Lox Lox is offline
Commoner
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: -, Sweden
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
Speaking as an ardent monarchist, I want the institution to survive, and to do that it needs to be made as relevant as possible.
You're absolutely right, if the European monarchies wants to survive, then a gender neutral succession is inevitable. There isn't really any good argument against such a succession.

However, Carl Philip is the rightful Crown Prince of Sweden. I hope that Victoria never gets married, so that Carl Philip and his descendants will inherit the throne.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 12-17-2006, 08:41 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 265
Well I just don't think its very nice to take a position away from you when you're only a little kid. It would have been nicer to execute this act for carl phillip's descendants, like Norway!
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 12-17-2006, 09:00 AM
Henri M.'s Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eindhoven / Maastricht, Netherlands
Posts: 1,896
It is always unfair

Why boys first and not girls?

Why the eldest first and not the youngest?

Why the eldest of the King and not the eldest of one of his sisters?

The whole succession is an invention of man. For centuries it was a firstborn male-preferred system, in almost all monarchies.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 12-17-2006, 10:05 AM
Gita's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: ., United Kingdom
Posts: 773
Even if you feel Lox that Prince Carl Philip is the rightful heir to the throne I don't think it is very nice of you to say you hope that Crown Princess Victoria never marries.
__________________
Where does ones childhood go? Gita.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 12-17-2006, 11:47 AM
Lox's Avatar
Lox Lox is offline
Commoner
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: -, Sweden
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gita
Even if you feel Lox that Prince Carl Philip is the rightful heir to the throne I don't think it is very nice of you to say you hope that Crown Princess Victoria never marries.
Let me rephrase that, then. I hope that Victoria never gives birth to an heir.
Nicer or worse?

Long live King Carl XVII Philip!
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 12-17-2006, 02:18 PM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 5,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by foiegrass
Well I just don't think its very nice to take a position away from you when you're only a little kid. It would have been nicer to execute this act for carl phillip's descendants, like Norway!
There took a second boting of the new law place after the birth of Prince Carl Philip. Could they not made this voting earlier and then let the law came in force lets say at the beginning of May, short before the expected birth. So Prince Carl Philip would have not become Crown Prince at all and n ot removed the Title after 6 monts.
Or had there elections to take place ??
__________________
Stefan



Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 12-17-2006, 02:45 PM
kwanfan's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 1,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by foiegrass
Well I just don't think its very nice to take a position away from you when you're only a little kid. It would have been nicer to execute this act for carl phillip's descendants, like Norway!
I think it makes far more sense to change the succession when the heirs are young. Therefore, you don't have someone being raised their entire life as the heir, and have their position change when they are in their adulthood.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 12-17-2006, 02:59 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: N/A, France
Posts: 1,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henri M.
Why the eldest first and not the youngest?
Most logical: when the first child is born, you never know if there will be a youngest one. And you have to wait to know which one will be the youngest...
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 12-17-2006, 03:09 PM
ZandraRae's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwanfan
I think it makes far more sense to change the succession when the heirs are young. Therefore, you don't have someone being raised their entire life as the heir, and have their position change when they are in their adulthood.
Very much agreed on this one. Carl Phillip was very small when the law was changed, as was Victoria. At that age, neither knew what was happening. It would have been very cruel to take CP's title when he was let's say in his teen years or older, b/c then he would have understood the situation. I don't live in Sweden, but if I did, I would be very proud to have a queen such as Victoria one day.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 12-17-2006, 03:50 PM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 5,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZandraRae
Very much agreed on this one. Carl Phillip was very small when the law was changed, as was Victoria. At that age, neither knew what was happening. It would have been very cruel to take CP's title when he was let's say in his teen years or older, b/c then he would have understood the situation. I don't live in Sweden, but if I did, I would be very proud to have a queen such as Victoria one day.
True. And that's the problem Spain will face if Felipe and Letizia will have a son as third or even fourth child.
__________________
Stefan



Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 12-17-2006, 03:52 PM
RoyalKnottie's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 90
I'm not a big fan of hypothetical questions, because what is done is done, however this got me thinking. I wonder if Victoria would have had an eating disorder if she wasn't CP? From what I have read her disorder developed after she was officially invested as heir and 1995 and started to gain more media attention.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 12-17-2006, 03:58 PM
ZandraRae's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 570
RoyalKnottie, I do not think her status as an heir caused Victoria to have an eating disorder. Plus, she has been the heir since she was very young and she didn't have the eating disorder then. More than likely, she would still have had a eating disorder.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 12-17-2006, 04:20 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 12,810
Let's stay on topic..this thread is NOT about Victoria's eating disorder.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 12-17-2006, 04:55 PM
Lox's Avatar
Lox Lox is offline
Commoner
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: -, Sweden
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan
True. And that's the problem Spain will face if Felipe and Letizia will have a son as third or even fourth child.
It amazes me that they are just as stupid about this in Spain. Exactly the same situation will occur in Spain, a boy will be born and then robbed of his birthright.

Changes in the succession should be done at a time when no potential heirs are being born. They could have changed the succession in Sweden a lot earlier, but they didn't. The same holds true for Spain. Great Britain will have the same problem when William gets married, so why not change the succession right now?
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 12-17-2006, 05:51 PM
Gita's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: ., United Kingdom
Posts: 773
Just as bad Lox! If it affects her happiness then I think it is unfair but you know you are entitled to your opinion like anyone else.
__________________
Where does ones childhood go? Gita.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 12-17-2006, 08:08 PM
The O.C. Fanatic's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: North Dakota, United States
Posts: 299
Why don't people move on?! The choice been made get over it!
__________________

__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
carl gustav, constitution, constitutional change, crown princess victoria, king carl xvi gustav, prince carl philip, succession, sweden


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
What Would You Change? Lena Royal Chit Chat 21 01-11-2015 07:09 PM
When did your opinion of Diana change and why? ysbel Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 1113 06-05-2011 11:20 PM
Change of name of our community to TRF... Andy R Forum Announcements and Admin 2 08-29-2004 04:29 PM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes anastasia 2020 armstrong-jones bangladesh baptism brownbitcoinqueen canada chittagong coronavirus countess of snowdon cover-up crown princess victoria danish royalty dna dragons dutch dutch royal family emperor fantasy movie future haakon vii hill history house of grimaldi house of orange-nassau interesting introduction israel jewelry jumma kent list of rulers luxembourg maxima mbs nepal nepalese royal family nobel prize prince charles prince constantijn princely family of monaco princess alexia (2005 -) princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn princess dita princess elizabeth pronunciation queen maud queen maxima rown royal balls royal court royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royal wedding russian court dress spain startling new evidence stuart sweden thailand thai royal family tips tracts united kingdom von hofmannsthal wedding gown


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:44 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×