Duke-of-Earl
Serene Highness
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2012
- Messages
- 1,185
- City
- Nova Scotia
- Country
- Canada
The bill says 'Papalist". Do we need to contact the Vatican?
Romanist, papalist, they're all the same to me.
The bill says 'Papalist". Do we need to contact the Vatican?
Duke - if you read the bill - it covers Britain, Scotland and N Ireland. It's the Parliament part of the issue and it does not resolve anything for the rest of the Commonwealth.
Section 2 of this bill concerns the "Removal of disqualification arising from marriage to a Roman Catholic" and specifically states that all persons previously excluded from the line of succession due to this disqualification will be reinstated to the line of succession, provided they are still alive. So they both are back in.
I have actually read it the other way round - initially this was only to affect Charles' descendents but now it is to apply to all descendents born after 2011.
This 6-persons-next-in-line thing is not logical at all. It means that, after the Duke of Cambridge's child is born, Princess Beatrice of York will be excluded if she marries without a permission regardless of who her spouse is, while her younger sister will be able to marry a drug lord and remain in the line (provided that Eugenie's marriage takes place before Beatrice's). In fact, in that scenario, Princess Eugenie of York and her children sired by a drug lord would become closer to the throne.
I wonder where they got that idea from. No other monarchy has marriage approval requirements like that. Normally, all people in line have to obtain consent.
I knew this would happen! Once you start messing with tradition, it's impossible to stop.
My daughter is the victim of a flawed system - Telegraph
I knew this would happen! Once you start messing with tradition, it's impossible to stop.
My daughter is the victim of a flawed system - Telegraph
I read the article you linked, Mirabel, and your comment, Duke of Earl, that "there won't be an estate left in Britain after the lefties go through with their agenda." I, like the author of the article, am not an extreme feminist. I think her suggestion is good, that at least a woman should inherit a title if there is no male heir. (This has Biblical support in the law set forth by Moses that the five daughters of Zelophehad, without a brother, should inherit their father's estate if they married within their tribe--and I think England still is a Bible-revering country).
The author remarks that Scotland has had this type of inheritance for a long time, i.e., daughter inherits title and land if there is no brother. In fact it goes back to the Middle Ages, when Muriel, Lady of Rothes, inherited her father's castle in Rothes when her father, Peter de Pollock, had no sons. Muriel's daughter Eva, likewise had no sons, and passed the title on to her daughter (nameless in records). Down to the twentieth century, the title Lady of Rothes continued if there was no direct male heir. My cousin (many times removed) Georgiana Maxwell, was the last Lady of Rothes. I am descended from Robert de Pollock, Lady Muriel's uncle, who had at least one son, and thus never created a similar descent for his heirs
Why? Titles are very rarely created with an intent to prevent their extinction. Sometimes title just need to go extinct. Imagine Princess Beatrice becoming Duchess of York and thus ending the five centuries long tradition of granting the Dukedom of York to the second son of the sovereign.
Imagine Princess Beatrice becoming Duchess of York and thus ending the five centuries long tradition of granting the Dukedom of York to the second son of the sovereign.
I read the article you linked, Mirabel, and your comment, Duke of Earl, that "there won't be an estate left in Britain after the lefties go through with their agenda." I, like the author of the article, am not an extreme feminist. I think her suggestion is good, that at least a woman should inherit a title if there is no male heir.