|
Post by observer on Jan 9, 2014 9:52:06 GMT
I seem that talking with you is very difficult, because you always understand different things from those I meant. ...... Why didn't she take her place in normal line? Charles - William - George - Anne - Peter - Savannah - Isla - Zara - Andrew - Beatrice - Eugenie - Edward - Louise - James - David - Charles - Elizabeth.....clear, simple, easy and right. I regret that I do not always understand what you meant in your postings. With regard to your last sentence, the reasons why the legislation did not affect the position of Princess Ann (who, incidentally, would follow Prince Harry, whom you missed) is that Britain and most other common law Commonwealth countries do not like retroactive legislation. I believe that I mentioned this earlier. Moreover, as common legislation had to be approved by all the Commonwealth realms, the path of least resistance was chosen, with minimal changes affecting (at first) only the children of the Prince of Wales and (later) people born after 2011. I believe that there are an estimated 5700 people at least in the line of succession to the British and Commonwealth thrones.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jan 6, 2014 11:48:13 GMT
I'm not sure King Harald's wish to introduce new genes into the Norwegian royal family was a factor in his marriage = after all, the Oldenburgs had been intermarrying happily for centuries.
Many years ago there were newspaper cartoons that featured the words "Happiness Is...." I can remember one rather tasteless extension being an adaption of the words from the old Woodbury soap advertisement about "having the skin you love to touch" - it dropped the "s"!
I think it tapped a hidden truth that intermarriage has been (and still is in some places) far more common that modern society believes or admits and not just limited to members of royal families.
Intermarriage or cousin-marriage used to be wide spread in the days before the invention of railways and the migration of rural communities to urban centers during the Industrial Revolution - and even after. In fact, throughout most of human history, intermarriage or inbreeding has probably been the rule rather than the exception. In some cultures, such as in Pakistan and the Near East, most marriages still are between relatives, I believe.
There was numerous well-known examples of intermarriage. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Elinor Roosevelt were fifth cousins. Edgar Allan Poe married his 13-year old first cousin, Virginia Clemm. The Darwins (of Charles Darwin fame) and the Wedgwoods (of Josiah Wedgwood fame) were as intermarried as any royal family. The Rothschilds intermarried as as much as the Bourbons, I believe. The present King of Thailand and his wife are first cousins. The Crown Prince's first wife was/is also his first cousin (of course, they descend from King Chulalongkorn, who married four of his half-sisters). Even Wikipedia has lists of such people.
I think we simply know more about royal intermarriage than that of commoners, and so assume that it was/is something peculiar to them.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jan 5, 2014 0:34:44 GMT
wind2706, perhaps I should have said that none of the changes to succession laws, other than the Swedish one, stripped an existing crown prince of his title in favor of an elder sister.
To my mind, there is a difference between displacing an existing heir and altering the order of the line of succession. Princess Astrid was in the line of succession, not the heir, and she simply changed places with her younger brother without materially affecting her chances of becoming monarch. Sweden altered the line of succession and displaced someone who had been born crown prince. The current King of Sweden is reported to have commented that this was wrong, by the way. Norway didn't, and Spain probably won't, though Prince Felipe has not one but two elder sisters.
Denmark displaced an heir presumptive in the 1950s by changing its succession laws to male-preference, but the heir presumptive was extremely unpopular and his wife was a suspected Nazi sympathizer, and the change had nothing to do with gender equality.
With regard to the right to refuse, in European constitutional monarchies, who succeeds whom is a matter of law, and generally heirs have no right of refusal, as I (and, I think, Paulchen) understand it.
Monegasque succession is in a class by itself. Charlotte was legitimated and declare heiress presumptive to stave off the possibility of a German becoming Prince of Monaco. She ceded her rights, it is true, perhaps because the 1911 constitution (as does the present one) permitted it and the reigning prince allowed. Monaco, however, is not a kingdom and I doubt whether its example would be followed by any other monarchy.
With regard to the Arab states you mentioned, I think succession passes according to Islamic law and custom, and who succeeds is often the decision either of the reigning king (who can choose his successor) or of a family council, and often is not a matter for the state or the people to decide. Succession is often brother to brother, or the eldest male member of the family, or the male deemed most worthy of succession. Of course, none of them has gender equality.
The possibility does exist under Thai law for Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn to succeed on the death of the present king despite the fact that she has an elder brother because the king has the sole prerogative to nominate his successor. He has already nominated the current crown prince, but technically Princess Sirindhorn is of equal rank and title and could succeed if the current king so decided - or perhaps if the cabinet or privy council so decides. She is the third child and second daughter of the king and queen. Her elder sister married an American commoner and lost her title, etc.
With regard to other matters that would be "unworthy of a civil country," or that "Everyone has the right to do what he/she wants, this is basical in modern life." recall that members of royal families may need by law to be members of a particular church or faith (e.g., Christian in Europe, Muslim in Malaysia and Brunei or Buddhist in Thailand and Cambodia - and Hindu in the case of the former Kingdom of Nepal) , to have their marriages and/or divorces approved by the sovereign and/or the government (a cause of the Nepali royal massacre and why the Norwegian king Harald took so long to marry), may have to bring up their children in a particular country or particular way (as in Denmark and Sweden), to have public scrutiny of their income and/or expenditure (as in Belgium, Spain, UK, etc), and often need governmental approval to travel outside the country (most European sovereigns). Even abdication needs governmental approval - in Cambodia it needed a constitutional amendment to allow King Sihanouk to do so.
That's the dark side of privilege - the root meaning of which is "private law," meaning something that is specific to an individual. Royals may be privileged but they are also subject to laws that the rest are not.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jan 1, 2014 23:10:46 GMT
Paulchen, of course, is correct about someone having to draw the line somewhere.
If one counts all the kings of England, Edward VIII should have been Edward X! as there were three kings Edward before the Norman Conquest whom the Normans, etc., never counted. If pre-Conquest kings were to be counted, and under the highest numeral convention, as well as copying, e.g, Norwegian and Bulgarian precedent. then the UK could have a Harold III, Edmund III, and so on. An interesting counterpoint, perhaps, to an Alexander IV, Robert IV or David III based on Scots numbering.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jan 1, 2014 9:25:20 GMT
Short answers to your questions which may help: (a) The UK is essentially a union of two previously independent and co-equal kingdoms. The Principality of Wales, legally, was part of the Kingdom of England and not an equal partner in the kingdom. There had been no independent King of all Wales from whom to take a regnal number. The former Kingdom of Ireland is no longer part of the UK, so why would the UK sovereigns use a regnal number derived from there? Moreover, as legally the King of Ireland was such because he was King of England, the former Irish Kingdom used the English regnal numbers. The Kingdom of Ireland was subordinate to the Kingdom of England, too. (b) with regard to Commonwealth realms, they traditionally use the British regnal number - as the old Kingdom of Ireland did. c) Other kingdoms have used odd regnal numbers. Haakon VII revived a numbering system used by ancient Norse kings, though there hadn't been a separate Kingdom of Norway since the end of the 14th century. Boris III and Simeon II of Bulgaria similarly used numbers derived from a previous medieval Bulgarian kingdom. Constantine II of the Hellenes is sometimes known as Constantine XIII, in succession to the former rulers of the Byzantine Empire. The Austrian Emperors adopted new numbers when they ceased being Holy Roman Emperors and became emperors rather than archdukes of their Austrian possessions In some cases, I think, regnal numbers like regnal names are a matter of interpetations of history.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Dec 29, 2013 2:32:46 GMT
I don't agree. Every country who changed succession law did it in the normal way, putting everyone in his/her right place, but Norway, where new law will be effective beginning with the children of current Crown Prince (who was already 20 when law was changed). The case of Sweden was different because Crown Prince was only 1, so he didn't know that his position was changed. In the case of Britain there was no effective changement, following line Charles-William-George-Henry, so it would be unprobable that Princess Anne and her issue could reign. The fact that Peter Phillips lives a private life isn't important, being a theorical succession line: everyone has the right to refuse succession, of course, when theory becomes reality. I seem very unfair that old Princess Anne is preceeded by her young nieces. More, in future we'll have to know the birth date of everyone to establish his/her place in succession line..... I am not sure that you are correct in stating that countries that have changed their succession laws "did it in the normal way." As I understand it, the succession laws have usually affected only future possible heirs rather than those already in place. Sweden's law was retroactive, depriving Carl Philip of a place he already held. Other countries have changed, as Norway did, to affect heirs born to current heirs only, as retroactively affective laws are usually deemed as unconstitutional. I am sure that you are incorrect when you write, "everyone has the right to refuse succession, of course, when theory becomes reality." As I understand it, succession is automatic under the relevant succession law, and no one can refuse it. Either they have to be deprived of the right to succeed by, e.g., contracting an illegal marriage, living outside the country, etc., or they have to seek a law that effectively declares them dead and thus ineligible to succeed. That is why Charles will become king whatever ignorant journalists write about the succession skipping to William - it would take an Act of Parliament/s to allow him to refuse.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Dec 21, 2013 3:19:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by observer on Dec 20, 2013 0:12:56 GMT
That's what I imagined, but it's absolutely unfair, a discrimination amoung brothers in this case. Do you know why they didn't simply change rules for everyone? The Act affects only the situation of children born after 28 October 2011. It did not change the relative positions of the-then currently living members of the royal family in the line of succession. I imagine that they did not change the position of everyone because (a) legislation that is retroactively affective is not generally done (the situation with regard to Sweden was unusual), and (b) it could call into question past successions. The Act is still discriminatory in that it favors older children over younger, of course. But any Act is discriminatory is some fashion or other.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Dec 19, 2013 14:02:53 GMT
I've a doubt. New succession line will be effective for peoples born in 2012 and following years, while peoples born before are under Old Law, is it? Prince Edward has two children, Louise and James, both born before 2012 and under Old Law, so James is in line for successione before his older sister. Suppose that Prince Edward will have a third child, a son: what about him? Being born under New Law he will be in line after both his siblings, but sister Louise is under Old Law, so she is in line after all her brothers.....I really don't understand why they didn't simply change Law for everyone putting every woman in her right place.... Lady Louise would rank after Viscount Severn but before her new-born brother.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Nov 23, 2013 3:44:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by observer on Oct 29, 2013 10:43:31 GMT
According to the Wikipedia article on the Perth Agreement, not all Commonwealth realms have yet to pass the necessary legislation, some have said they don't need to pass any legislation, and the government of Quebec has a constitutional challenge to federal Canadian legislation, so the process is not yet complete to change the succession to absolute primogeniture.
I imagine, however, that the earliest date at which the legislation would have any effect is if or when Prince George's eldest child is a daughter.
Of course, by that time, the situation could be overshadowed or overtaken by debate about whether or not a same-sex marriage for the heir or monarch would be acceptable to all the Commonwealth realms. And I imagine that might be more contentious than any debate about equal succession rights.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Oct 22, 2013 8:18:29 GMT
Cinderella, thank you for finding the explanation. I had wondered if it was a practice Austria-Este in its origins, but this is so much simpler and more logical.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Oct 21, 2013 12:30:16 GMT
Sorry, Paulchen, I meant I was agreeing with you about the children being named after their godparents, but phrased it badly.
I, too, would like to know the "why" of this odd sort of naming. I don't think Wikipedia is wrong as the same names are given on other websites.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Oct 20, 2013 0:12:15 GMT
Looking through things royal I was amazed to notice that HI&RH Princess Astrid of Belgium's three eldest children each have a given name of the opposite sex (according to a well-known online encyclopaedia...). Amadeo has (amongst others) Paola, Marie Laura has Gerhard and Joachim has Isabelle. All after their godparents. I know that many Catholic Royal men (and maybe non-royal men, too) carry the name Marie after the Virgin Mary, but I never realised that other names were used. Is this peculiar to Princess Astrid's children? Is this a Belgian custom? Or is this just plain peculiar? (Or, is the online encyclopaedia wrong?) Named after their godparents, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by observer on Sept 21, 2013 10:08:45 GMT
... Playing the devils advocate on titles being passed to the next generation why should females not be able to pass their princely status to their own children in the 21st century of absolute primogeniture? F At least one former monarchy with male primogeniture did this. The grandsons and granddaughters of the late Shah of Iran have the HH Prince/Princess title if their mother married an Iranian national. The Aga Khan's Iranian HRH princely title was awarded because of his descent in the female line from Fath Ali Shah, one of the Qajar shahs, I believe.
|
|