Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,102
Reply with quote  #1 
The Commonwealth governments have apparently begun the process  of changing the succession rules to allow first born females to succeed to the throne before their younger male brothers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2004920/Will-female-heir-15-nation-talks-Clegg-royal-succession-reform.html

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,792
Reply with quote  #2 
Hopefully this will prove too complicated and go nowhere. Sometimes I find the "modernizers" almost as annoying as republicans. Fairness and Equality are not the point of a hereditary monarchy. How is it any more fair to favour the eldest child? Doesn't that "discriminate" against younger siblings? (Not to mention people not born into the royal family, as republicans--who are at least consistent, much as I despise them--will point out.) Is there no one in government who will point this out and obstruct the nonsensical egalitarian agenda? Morons.
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,531
Reply with quote  #3 

OK, my personal snits aside, this is enough to bring me back. I'm trying to create a facebook page opposed to this idiocy. Facebook is screwing up right now, but as soon as I get it done, I'll post the link here.


__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
KYMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 4,853
Reply with quote  #4 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jovan66102

OK, my personal snits aside, this is enough to bring me back. I'm trying to create a facebook page opposed to this idiocy. Facebook is screwing up right now, but as soon as I get it done, I'll post the link here.


And such a page I would happily join or like. This is the most pointless thing Britain and other Commonwealth realms could do right now. Last I checked, were there not more pressing needs than a totally unnecessary succession law change.

__________________
"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
bator

Registered:
Posts: 201
Reply with quote  #5 

yes they recently did the same thing in denmark unfortunately. and the referendum wasnt fair as a lot of government money was used to propaganda for a yes, and no money to the no side. this is horrible.

DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 833
Reply with quote  #6 
I'm almost afraid to say I like this proposal...

True, heriditary principles are opposed to equality in the first place, but for this discrimination I can give rational arguments, while I see no reasons for the distinction between men and women. That's the key difference.
Sujit

Registered:
Posts: 297
Reply with quote  #7 
As long as it is not too complicated to implant this then I am for it.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,734
Reply with quote  #8 
As a person who is fairly PC in his attitudes and a firm supporter of feminism, I am dead against it. No one in this day dreams that a woman will be an inferior Sovereign. In a previous day apart from women being believed generally inferior to men a ruler had to be able to lead in war. Women can't, hence the preference for men in some countries and complete exclusion of women in others. We know better now and mace-wielding is no longer in the job specification, so should the rules change?

I would rather not. The reason for the rules may no longer be valid, but change them and you create the potential for a disputed succession; one successor under the new rules and another under the old, and while the first is undoubtedly who would succeed support would be diminished to a greater or lesser extent. She, obviously it would be she, would be Sovereign because of rather then just because. It would also be the first change in the rules since 1701 in England, 1707 in Scotland (those changes themselves merely confirming changes made in both countries in 1689). I don't think the reason is worth the break in continuity.

And with 16 governments and legislatures plus the people of the Cook Islands needing to agree to it, and the inevitable need for a limitation beyond the existing one to Protestant descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and the need to decide on the status of spouses and children of princesses, and the need to decide to what extent to rejig the existing order within whatever limitation is decided, the process cannot help but be complicated. Very. I also note that Clegg, who clearly has too much time on his hands and a similar level of understanding of our history and traditions to that of Tony Blair the constitutional vandal-in-chief, is threatening to remove the Catholic ban as well as male preference, something that would strike at the monarchy's roots in a far graver way.  I wish the whole question would just be forgotten, and the country's traditions left alone..
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,792
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchMonarchist
I'm almost afraid to say I like this proposal...

True, heriditary principles are opposed to equality in the first place, but for this discrimination I can give rational arguments, while I see no reasons for the distinction between men and women. That's the key difference.


A rational argument is that republicans especially in the Commonwealth countries would do their utmost to turn the necessary debate into one on the very existence of the monarchy itself.  Most of us would rather not open that can of worms. 

The Kingdom of the Netherlands is relatively new, a creation of the post-Napoleonic era, so it is perhaps somewhat more appropriate for it and the Kingdom of Belgium to "move with the times" to a certain extent (though I don't agree with the adoption of equal primogeniture there either), but the British Monarchy with its roots in the 9th century is all about Tradition, and the tradition has been for male monarchs to be the norm (even if it doesn't quite seem like it due to three female monarchs having had exceptionally long reigns), with female monarchs the exception.  Personally as an admirer of Elizabeth I, Victoria, and Elizabeth II I think that female monarchs shine when they are the exception, having come to the throne due to the absence of any (living) brothers.  I would find it intolerable for William's eldest son to be bypassed by a sister, which has never happened before in the history of the British monarchy.   It is natural for the eldest son of a king to expect to be king, and cruel to deny that to him as it has been denied to Prince Carl Philip of Sweden whose sister Crown Princess Victoria would probably prefer not to be heir to the throne.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,734
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
I would find it intolerable for William's eldest son to be bypassed by a sister, which has never happened before in the history of the British monarchy.

Cough, James Francis Edward Stuart, cough ...
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,792
Reply with quote  #11 
Oh.  Yeah, him.  Oops.  You'll agree though that that was a unique situation, and not at all analogous to what that Clegg creature has in mind.   Somehow I doubt the Protestants of 1688 were motivated by concern for gender equality...
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,734
Reply with quote  #12 
I do agree of course, but couldn't resist temptation there.
NewElizabethan

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 109
Reply with quote  #13 
Quote:
female monarchs shine when they are the exception



I quite agree. 


__________________
Lord Admiral Nelson - "you must consider every man your enemy who speaks ill of your king"
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #14 
And that bit of 'order revision' left us with those who claim that the Duke of Bavaria is king...Confirmation of one of the Arguments Against.



__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
IdahoKaiser

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 29
Reply with quote  #15 
Of COURSE the republicans and "progressive" elements would like to change laws of succession.  Of course they'll tamper with something that's far too weighty for them to even comprehend, just to quell their inferiority complex.  Look, I am in love with Anglo-Saxon England.  I love those old days of mist and time, of legend.  I cannot, for the life of me, have any love for the Norman Conquest (despite my monarchist/nobility pretensions) and the subsequent wiping out of the Saxon society through conquest and the resulting emigrations that took place.  And although I, having studied Aethelflaed Lady of the Mercians this past semester for a history class, have an adoration for women as rulers...I do not see the point of tampering with this Norman Law of Primogeniture, of male-only inheritance, except as a political ploy in a base and groveling attempt for potential reelection bids.  This ultimately goes to show that politicians will do ANYTHING, even tampering with living history and all the glories and tragedies and human stories that come with it, to win a (pardon my language) piece of s**t seat in a legislative body that's becoming increasingly redundant, ridiculous, out of touch, and ultimately detrimental to the well-being of the people...the very things republicans accuse monarchists of being.

I wholeheartedly agree, women shine enough as it is, but they REALLY shine when they are the exception, not the rule.

__________________
"Democracies, more often than not, are a constant power struggle. Parties with starkly different ideologies, fighting to the death over anything and everything, constantly assuming power and undoing the policies the previous administration had and introducing their own...this is very unhealthy for a nation and undermines the nation in the long run, setting it up for countless civil wars and instability. A monarchy is a living link to the distant past, and a rallying point for those who desire to preserve the old while looking to the new without the constant power changes"-Myself
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.