Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 12      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   Next   »
Murtagon

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 237
Reply with quote  #46 
I have the feeling that Azadi's purpose as a member of this forum is to make us think of better arguments in general. [wink]

I don't think that marrying the daughter of a baron and not the daughter of a baker is going to matter much to Joe Average. Most Europeans are (sadly) not monarchists and I suspect they wouldn't be able to name all ten hereditary monarchies of Europe, much less the methods of succession employed by them. 

As long as the order of succession is changed only when it's absolutely necessary (lack of an heir-male, the heir presumptive is unsuitable in a major way, etc.), then all should be fine and politicians should stay away from such matters.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #47 
I don't necessarily mind if the Romanovs marry commoners, but talking what most Europeans want is not very convincing. We aren't primarily Europeans for a start. We're British Spanish, Russian, etc. It also isn't clear what the majority want in most cases, nor that they particularly care. And, at the risk of sounding elitist, may I suggest the majority is mostly led in its views of any political and social matters.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #48 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murtagon
I have the feeling that Azadi's purpose as a member of this forum is to make us think of better arguments in general. [wink]

I don't think that marrying the daughter of a baron and not the daughter of a baker is going to matter much to Joe Average. Most Europeans are (sadly) not monarchists and I suspect they wouldn't be able to name all ten hereditary monarchies of Europe, much less the methods of succession employed by them. 

As long as the order of succession is changed only when it's absolutely necessary (lack of an heir-male, the heir presumptive is unsuitable in a major way, etc.), then all should be fine and politicians should stay away from such matters.

I'm not opposed to royals marrying commoners. I'm criticizing the Pauline laws, because banning a Romanov from marrying a Russian noblewoman makes even less sense than banning a Romanov from marrying a commoner. The Pauline laws are at odds with Russian traditions. Female succession to the Russian throne was allowed before the introduction of the Pauline laws, and the Romanov Tsars used to marry Russian noblewomen before the Westernizing reforms of Peter the Great.
I'm not opposed to Maria Vladimirovna being elected Tsaritsa of Russia. Maria Vladimirovna will be an excellent Tsaritsa of Russia, because she is a Russian patriot, who supported the reunification of Crimea with Russia, and she is a devout Orthodox Christian. But I support the right of a Zemskiy Sobor to elect a new Tsar of Russia, if the Russian monarchy is restored. The Zemskiy Sobor ought to introduce a new law of succession to the Russian throne. 



azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #49 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
I don't necessarily mind if the Romanovs marry commoners, but talking what most Europeans want is not very convincing. We aren't primarily Europeans for a start. We're British Spanish, Russian, etc. It also isn't clear what the majority want in most cases, nor that they particularly care. And, at the risk of sounding elitist, may I suggest the majority is mostly led in its views of any political and social matters.

The majority of the Danes voted in favour of introducing absolute primogeniture in a constitutional referendum in 2009, and absolute primogeniture would likely not have been introduced in Britain, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, if the majority of the population hadn't supported it. The majority of the Spaniards supports introducing absolute primogeniture according to opinion polls. The majority of the Liechtensteiners appear to be content with Salic law, and the majority of the Monegasques appear to be content with male-preference primogeniture. Most Romanian monarchists supported King Mihai's decision to introduce absolute primogeniture. Monarchism is insignificant in Italy.
Queen Elizabeth of Britain is the only current European monarch, who is married to a fellow royal. King Felipe of Spain, King Carl Gustaf of Sweden, King Harald of Norway, King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands and Prince Albert of Monaco are married to commoners, and King Philippe of the Belgians and Prince Hans-Adam of Liechtenstein are married to noblewomen. Queen Margrethe of Denmark, who is a widower, was married to a nobleman. The wife of the Grand Duke of Luxembourg is descended from Spanish nobility. Peter the Great was married to a commoner. 


Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #50 
That's some more data at least, but support is a vague word. Most Brits probably didn't think one way or another about the introduction of absolute primogeniture. They support it in the sense that they didn't mind too much.

As I said, also, opinion polls aren't necessarily trustworthy on this kind of thing. It would depend a lot of how the question is phrases, the context it's asked in (like if other questions are asked first and what these are), what they answer they thought was expected, etc. You'd also have republicans included in the polls, and most of those will, again, favour what sounds most egalitarianism. But they're opposed to monarchy anyway, so I think we can set them aside.

As monarchists, by all means let's not look obstinate and reactionary, but there's no need for us to jump at every trend opinion that presents itself.

"The waters are out and no human force can turn them back, but I do not see why as we go with the stream we need sing Hallelujah to the river god." -
James Fitzjames Stephen
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #51 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
That's some more data at least, but support is a vague word. Most Brits probably didn't think one way or another about the introduction of absolute primogeniture. They support it in the sense that they didn't mind too much.

As I said, also, opinion polls aren't necessarily trustworthy on this kind of thing. It would depend a lot of how the question is phrases, the context it's asked in (like if other questions are asked first and what these are), what they answer they thought was expected, etc. You'd also have republicans included in the polls, and most of those will, again, favour what sounds most egalitarianism. But they're opposed to monarchy anyway, so I think we can set them aside.

As monarchists, by all means let's not look obstinate and reactionary, but there's no need for us to jump at every trend opinion that presents itself.

"The waters are out and no human force can turn them back, but I do not see why as we go with the stream we need sing Hallelujah to the river god." -
James Fitzjames Stephen

Heads of non-reigning royal dynasties ought to be allowed to change the law of succession to the throne in order to prevent their dynasty from being fossilized. The current monarchies of Europe are evolving, and the non-reigning royal dynasties ought to evolve too. A non-reigning royal dynasty, which evolves, is far more likely to be restored to the throne than a fossilized non-reigning royal dynasty. Reza Pahlavi is very popular among the Iranians, but most Italians don't care about the Savoias, and most Germans don't care about the Hohenzollerns. King Mihai was universally respected by the Romanians. King Mihai was was granted the privileges of a former head of state by the government of Romania and he regained Savarsin Castle and Peles Castle. The Savoias haven't managed to regain property in Italy, and King Umberto II of Italy was never granted any privileges by the government of Italy after the abolition of the Italian monarchy.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #52 
Evolved is a vague term, as well as implying the falsehood that what is a current trend is always an improvement. You are talking of worshipping the river god - acclaiming change for change's sake, which I'll accords with monarchism. Some respect for tradition and limit to egalitarianism is inherent in monarchy.

I personally am not much attached to Salic Law or rules that bar monarchs from marrying outside royalty/nobility. I see no great need to change those rules, but if it's necessary to maintain the dynasty, then I have no objections. I think male-preference primogeniture is more important, as absolute primogeniture does tend to have an effect on the historical-dynastic continuity of the monarchy. See my post above. So it should be resisted; however, not so obstinately that the very resistance undermines the monarchy.

In Britain, whatever the majority may have felt, or to be guided to feel, when asked, male-preference primogeniture was not a big issue and probably wouldn't have become so. So I consider the change a mistake.

azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #53 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Evolved is a vague term, as well as implying the falsehood that what is a current trend is always an improvement. You are talking of worshipping the river god - acclaiming change for change's sake, which I'll accords with monarchism. Some respect for tradition and limit to egalitarianism is inherent in monarchy.

I personally am not much attached to Salic Law or rules that bar monarchs from marrying outside royalty/nobility. I see no great need to change those rules, but if it's necessary to maintain the dynasty, then I have no objections. I think male-preference primogeniture is more important, as absolute primogeniture does tend to have an effect on the historical-dynastic continuity of the monarchy. See my post above. So it should be resisted; however, not so obstinately that the very resistance undermines the monarchy.

In Britain, whatever the majority may have felt, or to be guided to feel, when asked, male-preference primogeniture was not a big issue and probably wouldn't have become so. So I consider the change a mistake.


I personally don't care about gender equality concerning succession to the throne. I prefer male-preference primogeniture to Salic law, because I want the king to be succeeded by his daughter rather than by a distant relative. I prefer male-preference primogeniture to absolute primogeniture, but opposing absolute primogeniture weakens monarchism.
My proposed Constitution of Kurdistan actually introduces male-preference primogeniture concerning succession to the Kurdish throne. Introducing male-preference primogeniture, if Kurdistan becomes a monarchy, will make sense, because Kurdistan is conservative compared to Western Europe, but it's progressive compared to the Middle East. I want an Osmanoglu to be elected Shah of Kurdistan. I prefer Kurdistan being a republic to the Shah of Kurdistan not being an Osmanoglu.
Introducing male-preference primogeniture in Russia, if the Russian monarchy is restored, will make sense, because Russia is conservative compared to Western Europe, and because female succession to the Russian throne was allowed before 1797.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,547
Reply with quote  #54 
And after. How else do you think Grand Duchess Maria became heiress under the Pauline laws? Female succession in fact was not ancient in Russian tradition, first occurring in 1725. Before that it had been unthinkable.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #55 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
And after. How else do you think Grand Duchess Maria became heiress under the Pauline laws? Female succession in fact was not ancient in Russian tradition, first occurring in 1725. Before that it had been unthinkable.

A new law of succession to the Russian throne will likely be adopted, if the Russian monarchy is restored.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,547
Reply with quote  #56 
Yes, I expect it would be. But until that happy event occurs (and I'm hardly holding my breath waiting) the Pauline laws will apply, and in the absence of an Emperor or regnant Empress are unamendable. So if Grand Duke George or anyone else in the line marries unequally their children and further descendants will be excluded from succession.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #57 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Yes, I expect it would be. But until that happy event occurs (and I'm hardly holding my breath waiting) the Pauline laws will apply, and in the absence of an Emperor or regnant Empress are unamendable. So if Grand Duke George or anyone else in the line marries unequally their children and further descendants will be excluded from succession.

A Zemskiy Sobor will be entitled to choose a new Tsar of Russia according to Russian tradition, if the Russian monarchy is restored.
Some Russian politicians, who support Putin, have proposed a Montenegro-style partial restoration of the Russian monarchy. Russia will remain a republic, but the Romanovs will be granted a special status and a Romanov will be allowed to live in a former imperial palace, such as Livadia Palace in Crimea. Monarchism is far stronger in Russia than in Italy, Germany and France.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #58 
To say that male-preference primogeniture would do damage to monarchism grossly simplifies the issue. It really depends on the context. Intrinsically it doesn't harm monarchism. Indeed, if anything, absolute primogeniture is more intrinsically problematic, especially in a non-matriarchical society. Other than that, it depends on the situation, in particular whether it is a big issue in the country concerned. In Britain, for example, I doubt it would have harmed monarchism up to now if the government hadn't decided to introduce absolute primogeniture. Whatever the polls might say, or be made to say, most people just wouldn't have cared enough. Only if it became some feminist celebrity cause might it have done real damage, but it's unlikely that it would have so become, as most people accept that the monarchy is not an egalitarian institution. But trying to now reintroduce male-preference primogeniture, unless the social and cultural situation changes, would harm monarchism in Britain. Absolute primogeniture is ensconced by law, so it would call negative attention to the issue to try to change that. It would be perceived as actively anti-feminist in a way that just defending the previous status quo wouldn't have. And, obviously, a split between British monarchists had Prince George and Princess Charlotte been born in the reverse order would have been very damaging to the monarchy. Anyway, the point is that to call maintaining male-preference primogeniture damaging to monarchy is simplistic. It's a lot more nuanced and complex than that.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #59 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
To say that male-preference primogeniture would do damage to monarchism grossly simplifies the issue. It really depends on the context. Intrinsically it doesn't harm monarchism. Indeed, if anything, absolute primogeniture is more intrinsically problematic, especially in a non-matriarchical society. Other than that, it depends on the situation, in particular whether it is a big issue in the country concerned. In Britain, for example, I doubt it would have harmed monarchism up to now if the government hadn't decided to introduce absolute primogeniture. Whatever the polls might say, or be made to say, most people just wouldn't have cared enough. Only if it became some feminist celebrity cause might it have done real damage, but it's unlikely that it would have so become, as most people accept that the monarchy is not an egalitarian institution. But trying to now reintroduce male-preference primogeniture, unless the social and cultural situation changes, would harm monarchism in Britain. Absolute primogeniture is ensconced by law, so it would call negative attention to the issue to try to change that. It would be perceived as actively anti-feminist in a way that just defending the previous status quo wouldn't have. And, obviously, a split between British monarchists had Prince George and Princess Charlotte been born in the reverse order would have been very damaging to the monarchy. Anyway, the point is that to call maintaining male-preference primogeniture damaging to monarchy is simplistic. It's a lot more nuanced and complex than that.

Not demanding that the non-reigning royal dynasties, which uphold Salic law, such as the Hohenzollerns and the Habsburgs, introduce female succession to the throne, may not do damage to monarchism, but opposing the decision of a head of a non-reigning royal dynasty to introduce female succession to the throne will do damage to monarchism.
The head of a non-reigning royal dynasty introducing female succession to the throne isn't solely about succession to the throne, if the monarchy is restored. The head of a non-reigning royal dynasty wanting his private property to be inherited by his daughter rather than by a distant relative is hardly unreasonable. King Mihai of Romania wanted Savarsin Castle and Peles Castle to be inherited by his daughter Margareta rather than by a distant Hohenzollern relative. 

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #60 
I wasn't talking about Salic Law. I don't think getting rid of Salic Law will usually be that damaging, though neither will keeping it, unless there's a pressing need, as there is in some cases we have discussed in this thread. I'd be wary of talking about royal succession or even royal palaces, castles, and land as simply private property.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.