The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1041  
Old 10-16-2020, 02:53 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The delay is ordinarily one year ( and 30 days only in the case of money bills). Furthermore, the House of Lords rarely uses its veto power and, when it does nowadays, it is generally justified.
How do you define justified, though? If it was passed by the elected House of Commons, how can an unelected body delaying it be justified? And one person's definition of "justified" is always going to be different from another's.

I wish they'd just abolished it in 1911, but that would have caused an uproar!
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1042  
Old 10-16-2020, 03:20 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
How do you define justified, though? If it was passed by the elected House of Commons, how can an unelected body delaying it be justified? And one person's definition of "justified" is always going to be different from another's.

I wish they'd just abolished it in 1911, but that would have caused an uproar!
Speaking of abolishing the upper house/chamber, New Zealand abolished Legislative Council (upper house) in 1951. The Legislative Council Abolition Bill became an Act on 1950 and came in effect on 1st January 1951. The National Party leader, Sidney Holland introduced the Bill on August 1947 in order to abolish the Legislative Council. I don't think there is a referendum for it.

https://nzhistory.govt.nz/legislative-council-abolished
Legislative Council Abolition Act 1950 No 3 (as at 19 August 1950), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation

Today New Zealand only has House of Representative, in other words unicameralism (The practice of single legislative or parliamentary chamber in government)

P.s. I did not know about the abolishment of Legislative Council until recently.

We could probably discuss about the House of Lords in the British Nobility thread
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1043  
Old 10-16-2020, 03:45 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by victor1319 View Post
So, you mean, a born English Prince/ss should have less titles, than the youngest of many children of the German Baron of Backwater-Town, which is a Baron/ess too?

Why? They are spare-Monarchs, they must have at least something from their birth - since they are not allowed to have any real career! I mean, look at all the fuss about Citizen just Harry...
From the Encyclopeadia Britannica:


"Not until the accession of the German George I (1714), however, did it become settled practice for all the sovereign’s descendants in the male line (that is, his children and the children of his sons) to be styled prince or princess and royal highness; great-grandchildren in the male line were prince or princess and highness. Before that, in both England and Scotland, the children of the monarchs were styled as Lord Forename or Lady Forename."

Why not return to this earlier, more British practise?
Reply With Quote
  #1044  
Old 10-16-2020, 03:59 PM
Blog Real's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 4,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
From the Encyclopeadia Britannica:


"Not until the accession of the German George I (1714), however, did it become settled practice for all the sovereign’s descendants in the male line (that is, his children and the children of his sons) to be styled prince or princess and royal highness; great-grandchildren in the male line were prince or princess and highness. Before that, in both England and Scotland, the children of the monarchs were styled as Lord Forename or Lady Forename."

Why not return to this earlier, more British practise?
I think that would be a setback. The monarch's sons must continue to have the title of Prince and Princess.
__________________
My blogs about monarchies
Reply With Quote
  #1045  
Old 10-16-2020, 04:08 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,065
I wonder how younger children would have continued to be addressed if the line of Queen Anne had continued.

Convention only changed because of the Hanoverian succession. The traditional native custom may well have survived to the present.
Reply With Quote
  #1046  
Old 10-16-2020, 04:57 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
From the Encyclopeadia Britannica:


"Not until the accession of the German George I (1714), however, did it become settled practice for all the sovereign’s descendants in the male line (that is, his children and the children of his sons) to be styled prince or princess and royal highness; great-grandchildren in the male line were prince or princess and highness. Before that, in both England and Scotland, the children of the monarchs were styled as Lord Forename or Lady Forename."

Why not return to this earlier, more British practise?

It was not an exclusively British practice. Sons of the French King (Fils de France) did not routinely use the title of Prince prefixed to their names either. They were referred instead by their peerages.
Reply With Quote
  #1047  
Old 10-16-2020, 05:24 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,065
If Britannica is correct it says that there was the use of lord/lady forename.

Was this also the practise in France?
Reply With Quote
  #1048  
Old 10-16-2020, 05:26 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
If Britannica is correct it says that there was the use of lord/lady forename.

Was this also the practise in France?
I think that the titles Monsieur or Madame were used, but alos the peerages held by sons of the King.. Anyway, what does it matter waht they did in France?
Reply With Quote
  #1049  
Old 10-16-2020, 05:33 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I think that the titles Monsieur or Madame were used, but alos the peerages held by sons of the King.. Anyway, what does it matter waht they did in France?

In the spirit of Anglo-French friendly rivalry:

What does anything they do in France matter?
Reply With Quote
  #1050  
Old 10-16-2020, 05:38 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blog Real View Post
I think that would be a setback. The monarch's sons must continue to have the title of Prince and Princess.
i take it you mean the monarch's children.. but I don't quite see why. Its a convention but it doesn't have to go on if the British public or RF dont want to keep it going
Reply With Quote
  #1051  
Old 10-16-2020, 08:46 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
How do you define justified, though? If it was passed by the elected House of Commons, how can an unelected body delaying it be justified? And one person's definition of "justified" is always going to be different from another's.

I wish they'd just abolished it in 1911, but that would have caused an uproar!



By "justified" I meant that the House of Lords nowadays normally uses its veto power only to block legislation that is unconstitutional or violates fundamental civil rights. For example, the House of Lords , if I recall it correctly, recently held up legislation that restricted trial by jury or extended the amount of time a person can be detained without being formally charged with a criminal offence.


Keep in the mind that the UK, unlike for example the US and Canada, does not have a written constitution or a Supreme Court that is capable of striking down unconstitutional legislation. The suspensive veto power of House of Lords therefore fulfills in part the role which the (equally unelected) courts play in other countries.
Reply With Quote
  #1052  
Old 10-22-2020, 06:49 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
I wonder how younger children would have continued to be addressed if the line of Queen Anne had continued.

Convention only changed because of the Hanoverian succession. The traditional native custom may well have survived to the present.
I'm not sure it can be faulted on the succession of foreigners to the throne. No other European monarchy surviving into this era held out against the inflation of princely titles, no matter the family origins of their monarchs. And the Hanoverian-born British monarchs conformed to native practices such as the bestowal of dukedoms on royal princes or the use of Princess Royal for the oldest daughter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
It was not an exclusively British practice. Sons of the French King (Fils de France) did not routinely use the title of Prince prefixed to their names either. They were referred instead by their peerages.
"Prince" was at the outset a European title for monarchs, so the routine use of it for children of European monarchs was comparatively recent.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Legally, at the time, Diana and Hewitt's love affair was a dire crime in the UK. It very well possibly could have been if the law was enforced, that Hewitt could have been arrested, tried and convicted of high treason. The law states:

"Offences constituting high treason include plotting the murder of the sovereign; committing adultery with the sovereign's consort, with the sovereign's eldest unmarried daughter, or with the wife of the heir to the throne; levying war against the sovereign and adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid or comfort; and attempting to undermine the lawfully established line of succession. Several other crimes have historically been categorised as high treason, including counterfeiting money and being a Catholic priest."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_t...United_Kingdom

Needless to say, this was not enforced and Hewitt lived without being hung, drawn and quartered. The Crime and Disorder Act was amended in 1998, a year after Diana's death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
absurd to think that Hewitt was going to be convicted of high treason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandy345 View Post
In this day and age, nobody would be convicted of high treason for that.
When the British Parliament amended the Treason Act in conjunction with the Succession to the Crown Act in 2013, it made the conscious choice not to eliminate the charge of high treason for "if a Man do violate the King’s [X3Companion,] or the King’s eldest Daughter unmarried, or the Wife (X4) the King’s eldest Son and Heir". Indeed, it was their choice not to so much as amend the Treason Act to be gender-neutral. It will remain high treason for a man to violate Prince George's future wife, but not for a woman to do the same, and if George's heir is a daughter, it will not be high treason for any person to violate her spouse, as it would have been if she had been a man married to a woman.

It was mentioned upthread that some British royal experts argue that this lack of modernization makes the British monarchy "unique", but I wonder if an individual charged with high treason pursuant to these regulations post-2013 would view it in the same way.
Reply With Quote
  #1053  
Old 10-26-2020, 04:18 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I'm not sure it can be faulted on the succession of foreigners to the throne. No other European monarchy surviving into this era held out against the inflation of princely titles, no matter the family origins of their monarchs.
You're probably right although it wouldn't have been surprising if a continuing Stuart dynasty (via Anne) had resisted such inflation under parliamentary (especially Whig) pressure. I think in the context of C18th Britain it would have made sense to avoid royal title inflation.

I think it makes even more sense now.
__________________

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
Future and Popularity of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 1570 10-11-2020 08:28 AM
Future of the Belgian monarchy Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 122 09-27-2020 08:03 AM
Future of the Dutch Monarchy Marengo Dutch Royals 42 09-25-2020 03:53 AM
The Future of the Danish Monarchy Empress Royal House of Denmark 771 04-18-2020 12:48 PM




Popular Tags
abdication anastasia 2020 baby names bangladesh biography bridal gown brownbitcoinqueen canada carolin chittagong clarence house coronavirus dna dubai duke of sussex dutch royal family earl of snowdon emperor facts fantasy movie general news thread george vi hill historical drama history hochberg hypothetical monarchs introduction italian royal family jewellery jumma kent languages list of rulers luxembourg mail mary: crown princess of denmark northern ireland norway norway history palestine pless popularity prince dimitri princess alexia (2005 -) princess dita princess eugenie princess laurentien princess of orange queen mathilde random facts royal court royal dress-ups royal jewels royal re-enactments. royalty of taiwan royal wedding royal wedding gown settings startling new evidence stuart swedish queen thailand tips tracts uae customs united kingdom united states of america von hofmannsthal working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:12 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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