Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 12      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next   »
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #31 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Exactly.

King Umberto II died in 1983, but the Aostas didn't claim the Italian throne before 2006. King Umberto II didn't name the Duke of Aosta as his successor. The Aosta claim to the Italian throne is based on dislike of the Prince of Naples. Italian monarchists ought to support Emanuele Filiberto. Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples, ought to renounce his claim to the Italian throne in favour of his son Emanuele Filiberto, because he is widely disliked.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,547
Reply with quote  #32 
The fact that the claim was made belatedly doesn't invalidate it, it is very soundly based in law. So far as I am concerned Vittorio Emanuele lost his claim to succeed his father due to his own actions during his father's lifetime, and before his son was born. The latter therefore never had a claim to lose, and still does not. The Duke of Aosta is the sole valid claimant to the former throne.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #33 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
The fact that the claim was made belatedly doesn't invalidate it, it is very soundly based in law. So far as I am concerned Vittorio Emanuele lost his claim to succeed his father due to his own actions during his father's lifetime, and before his son was born. The latter therefore never had a claim to lose, and still does not. The Duke of Aosta is the sole valid claimant to the former throne.

Many Italian monarchists support Emanuele Filiberto. I support Emanuele Filiberto, because I want the claimant to the Italian throne to be a descendant of the last King of Italy rather than a distant relative of the last King of Italy. I'm sick and tired of strict Legitimism. The current monarchies of Europe have evolved. Formerly reigning royal dynasties ought to evolve too, as Reza Pahlavi and King Mihai of Romania have done. Salic law is outdated and refusing to accept royals marrying nobles or commoners are outdated too. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,547
Reply with quote  #34 
I do not view law according to whatever is currently fashionable.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #35 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
I do not view law according to whatever is currently fashionable.

King Umberto II never deprived Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples of the right to succeed to the Italian throne.
In a democracy, laws change according to whatever is currently fashionable. Italy would likely have introduced female succession to the throne, if Italy had remained a monarchy. Most Italians will support female succession to the throne, if the Italian monarchy is restored. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,547
Reply with quote  #36 
He didn't have to, the law did. Not necessarily, and when they do not always wisely. I expect so, but it didn't, therefore there is neither mechanism nor reason for such an introduction. I expect that is true as well, but the 'if' remains.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #37 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
He didn't have to, the law did. Not necessarily, and when they do not always wisely. I expect so, but it didn't, therefore there is neither mechanism nor reason for such an introduction. I expect that is true as well, but the 'if' remains.

The old law of succession to the Italian throne is invalid, because the Italian monarchy has been abolished. I consider the Italian Republic to be the legitimate government of Italy. The head of the Savoia dynasty is entitled to propose a new law of succession in order to ensure that absolute primogeniture is introduced, if the Italian monarchy is restored.
I don't support absolute primogeniture. I prefer male-preference primogeniture, but both Salic law and male-preference primogeniture are considered outdated by most Europeans. European monarchists ought to accept the introduction of absolute primogeniture, even if they personally prefer Salic law or male-preference primogeniture.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,547
Reply with quote  #38 
I don't agree that the head of the House of Savoy, which is to say the Duke of Aosta, has the right to arbitrarily and unilaterally change the old law of succession. Happily he does not propose to do any such thing. Yes, while I wish the monarchy had remained in being I too accept the present Italian state as legitimate and sovereign. I don't support changing to absolute primogeniture, because I don't support any change to succession law unless circumstances make it unavoidable. I nevertheless entirely accept absolute primogeniture as the law in countries where that law has been changed in proper form, which is to say in all European monarchies except the two principalities and Spain.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #39 
Who says that most Europeans think male-preference primogeniture is outdated? That seems to be speculation. Besides, many think monarchy is outdated, as I said, and we hardly accept that view here. Male-preference primogeniture seems a natural way of continuing the familial-dynastic existence in a way that absolute primogeniture is not as good at. I know today it's unfashionable to say, but there are differences between men and women, and there is a tendency (though not an immutable law) that they have a different relationship to their birth and the families they marry into. It might be different if we made a concerted effort as a society to become matriarchal, if that is possible. That way family identity would most strongly be associated with mothers and wives. But absolute primogeniture isn't that. It just makes a hash of things by going backwards and forwards between the sexes.

Do I accept it in Britain? It's the law of the land, so I don't have much choice. Alas, I'm not supreme lawgiver.

I admit I would have sorely tested if Prince George and Princess Charlotte had between born the other way around, but I would on balance have accepted it still, because I don't see how not doing so would accomplish anything, except weaken the monarchy. But that doesn't mean I don't think it should be changed back, and will say and argue so.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #40 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
I don't agree that the head of the House of Savoy, which is to say the Duke of Aosta, has the right to arbitrarily and unilaterally change the old law of succession. Happily he does not propose to do any such thing. Yes, while I wish the monarchy had remained in being I too accept the present Italian state as legitimate and sovereign. I don't support changing to absolute primogeniture, because I don't support any change to succession law unless circumstances make it unavoidable. I nevertheless entirely accept absolute primogeniture as the law in countries where that law has been changed in proper form, which is to say in all European monarchies except the two principalities and Spain.

The Parliament of Italy ought to respect the wish of Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples and introduce absolute primogeniture, if the Italian monarchy is restored.
Do you recognize Crown Princess Margareta as the Custodian of the Crown of Romania? Karl Friedrich, Prince of Hohenzollern, who is the heir to the Romanian throne according to Salic law, lives in Germany and doesn't want to become King of Romania, while Crown Princess Margareta lives in Romania, is the President of the Romanian Red Cross and owns Savarsin Castle and Peles Castle in Romania.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #41 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Who says that most Europeans think male-preference primogeniture is outdated? That seems to be speculation. Besides, many think monarchy is outdated, as I said, and we hardly accept that view here. Male-preference primogeniture seems a natural way of continuing the familial-dynastic existence in a way that absolute primogeniture is not as good at. I know today it's unfashionable to say, but there are differences between men and women, and there is a tendency (though not an immutable law) that they have a different relationship to their birth and the families they marry into. It might be different if we made a concerted effort as a society to become matriarchal, if that is possible. That way family identity would most strongly be associated with mothers and wives. But absolute primogeniture isn't that. It just makes a hash of things by going backwards and forwards between the sexes.

Do I accept it in Britain? It's the law of the land, so I don't have much choice. Alas, I'm not supreme lawgiver.

I admit I would have sorely tested if Prince George and Princess Charlotte had between born the other way around, but I would on balance have accepted it still, because I don't see how not doing so would accomplish anything, except weaken the monarchy. But that doesn't mean I don't think it should be changed back, and will say and argue so.

The majority of the Spaniards support absolute primogeniture according to opinion polls, but Spain retains male-preference primogeniture, because the Spanish government is very reluctant to amend the constitution. The Spanish government fears that proposing amendments to the constitution will encourage Catalan and Basque separatism. In addition, introducing absolute primogeniture isn't considered an urgent matter, because King Felipe has no sons. 
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #42 
Spainards aren't all Europeans, but that's some evidence at least. Opinion polls aren't necessarily that reliable. It can depend on the question, what people feel is the expected answer etc. There's also the issue of intensity. What most people say they prefer in polls, even assuming that it accurately reflects their feelings, doesn't mean all or most care much about that preference, nor does that number reflect their other feelings about monarchy. I guess most republicans would prefer absolute primogeniture because it's more egalitarian.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #43 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Spainards aren't all Europeans, but that's some evidence at least. Opinion polls aren't necessarily that reliable. It can depend on the question, what people feel is the expected answer etc. There's also the issue of intensity. What most people say they prefer in polls, even assuming that it accurately reflects their feelings, doesn't mean all or most care much about that preference, nor does that number reflect their other feelings about monarchy. I guess most republicans would prefer absolute primogeniture because it's more egalitarian.

Male-preference primogeniture is more threatened by absolute primogeniture than agnatic primogeniture is, because most supporters of female succession to the throne prefers absolute primogeniture to male-preference primogeniture and because opposition to female succession to the throne remains predominant in the current Muslim monarchies. Male-preference primogeniture was the only alternative to Salic law before the advent of feminism, and male-preference primogeniture was often introduced, when a king had no sons. Both Spain and Denmark introduced male-preference primogeniture, because the king had no sons. Tsar Nikolay II considered introducing male-preference primogeniture in Russia.
Male-preference primogeniture is currently used in Spain, Monaco, Bhutan and Tonga. Male-preference primogeniture will likely survive in Monaco, Bhutan and Tonga, because most Monegasques, Bhutanese and Tongans appear to be content with male-preference primogeniture. In traditional Tongan culture, rank is inherited through the female line.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,547
Reply with quote  #44 
Male-preference primogeniture has historically always been the Spanish succession method. For a period semi-Salic succession was introduced following the Utrecht agreements, but as soon as this would have actually made a difference it was abandoned and the old system returned. Which led to the Carlist wars of course, and was because the King, Fernando VII, had no sons, only daughters. But it was not the introduction of a new system but rather the readoption of the old, traditional succession law. I am not aware of Nicholas II ever giving any serious thought to amending the Pauline law in that way, what is your source on this?
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #45 
The non-reigning European royal dynasties ought to emulate the current European monarchies. Discussing, whether the heir to the Russian throne is allowed to marry a Bagrationi or a Russian noblewoman appears ridiculous to most Europeans, because most members of the currently reigning European royal dynasties marry commoners. Reza Pahlavi and King Mihai of Romania have modernized their dynasties. Other heads of non-reigning European royal dynasties ought to emulate them. Otto von Habsburg allowed his son Karl to marry a baroness. The Romanovs ought to emulate Otto von Habsburg.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.