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
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,496
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
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,454
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
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,647
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
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 7,256
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
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,647
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: 7,299
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
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,647
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: 9,508
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
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,647
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: 9,508
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: 7,299
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 Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,052
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
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,647
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
  #1054  
Old 11-02-2020, 04:16 PM
EllieCat's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Invercargill, New Zealand
Posts: 552
Just wondering... IF Princes Charles and William had died of Covid(God forbid), and the Queen died while Prince George still a child, I wonder who would have been Regent. The next adult in the line of succession is Prince Harry (hmmmm) and following him Prince Andrew (even more hmmmmm)... so I just wonder...
Reply With Quote
  #1055  
Old 11-02-2020, 04:30 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by EllieCat View Post
Just wondering... IF Princes Charles and William had died of Covid(God forbid), and the Queen died while Prince George still a child, I wonder who would have been Regent. The next adult in the line of succession is Prince Harry (hmmmm) and following him Prince Andrew (even more hmmmmm)... so I just wonder...
My guess, in this scenario, is that Catherine, George's mother would be appointed as Regent with a very inclusively named panel of advisors and lawyers and guardians to oversee George's reign until he reached his majority.

Just my guess anyways.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #1056  
Old 11-02-2020, 04:39 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,447
Under the Regency Act a Regent would be the next adult in the line of succession. That isn't Kate, who is not in the line of succession, but Harry. Kate would of course have a great deal of input. However, I believe there would be no worry about Harry. I think he would discharge his duties to his nephew with love and care. Regencies aren't popularity contests.
Reply With Quote
  #1057  
Old 11-02-2020, 04:43 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by EllieCat View Post
Just wondering... IF Princes Charles and William had died of Covid(God forbid), and the Queen died while Prince George still a child, I wonder who would have been Regent. The next adult in the line of succession is Prince Harry (hmmmm) and following him Prince Andrew (even more hmmmmm)... so I just wonder...

As the law is right now, it would indeed be Harry. Unless he refused/ was encouraged to refuse, then Andrew - same story, then Beatrice. So I would say realistically, it would have been Beatrice or the law could have been changed to make Catherine regent.
Reply With Quote
  #1058  
Old 11-02-2020, 04:51 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: st. paul, United States
Posts: 1,854
They would have done the same thing they did in 1953, when Philip was named potential regent over Margaret. They would have put the 2020 act naming Catherine, George's regent. If Margaret was deemed an inferior choice, there is no way in Hades that Harry or Andrew would be green lighted.
Reply With Quote
  #1059  
Old 11-02-2020, 04:57 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by miss whirley View Post
They would have done the same thing they did in 1953, when Philip was named potential regent over Margaret. They would have put the 2020 act naming Catherine, George's regent. If Margaret was deemed an inferior choice, there is no way in Hades that Harry or Andrew would be green lighted.

I agree that there is no way that Harry or Andrew would be given this task. I don't think anyone at the palace nor the government would have been in favor.

I'm sure all this was discussed when Charles and William fell ill. William surely made his personal wishes for who should act on behalf of his son known as well, and I cannot see him choosing Harry or Andrew either.
Reply With Quote
  #1060  
Old 11-02-2020, 05:01 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by miss whirley View Post
They would have done the same thing they did in 1953, when Philip was named potential regent over Margaret. They would have put the 2020 act naming Catherine, George's regent. If Margaret was deemed an inferior choice, there is no way in Hades that Harry or Andrew would be green lighted.
Agree. Personally, if not Catherine, I prefer Beatrice over Harry and Andrew to become a Regent for George. I do think it's better (just to be safe) to have a "regency plan" in place. I said "plan" rather than act, because George is currently not first in line like Charles is in 1953.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Under the Regency Act a Regent would be the next adult in the line of succession. That isn't Kate, who is not in the line of succession, but Harry. Kate would of course have a great deal of input. However, I believe there would be no worry about Harry. I think he would discharge his duties to his nephew with love and care. Regencies aren't popularity contests.
Section 1 of Regency Act 1953 has the heading, H.R.H. The Duke of Edinburgh to be Regent in certain circumstances. It was especially put in place so that The Duke of Edinburgh would be the Regent for his (and Elizabeth II) children, rather than Princess Margaret (who was 3rd in-line, behind Charles and Anne).
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...-3/1/section/1
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
camilla parker bowles, camilla parker-bowles, camilla's family


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 Dutch Monarchy Marengo Dutch Royals 72 10-14-2021 04:59 PM
The Future of the Danish Monarchy Empress Royal House of Denmark 799 10-06-2021 02:21 PM
Future and Popularity of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 1678 08-15-2021 08:22 AM
Future of the Belgian monarchy Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 122 09-27-2020 08:03 AM




Popular Tags
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian birth britain britannia british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries crown jewels doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style genetics george vi gradenigo hello! highgrove history house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family japan history jewellery kensington palace king juan carlos liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical monarchist movements monarchists mongolia names nara period plantinum jubilee politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family state visit st edward suthida thai royal family unfinished portrait united states united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:57 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×