PDA

View Full Version : Vivat Rex, Vivat Regina!: The Royalty Thread



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 [66] 67 68

skatesindreams
10-28-2011, 04:58 PM
Long overdue!
This helps to bring the monarchy into the 21st century.

danceronice
10-28-2011, 05:31 PM
I think that wearing hose may have gone "out of fashion", lately.
I still prefer to do so. It's more "polished" and less casual.

Not to mention warmer.

I haven't seen a single thing the Duchess has worn that strikes me as a real misstep. And I hope she brings lace back! I love the look. (Not quite that shade of red, true, but reds are tricky.)

And while I'm not really surprised (after the arguable Top Three Reignin Monarchs in British history have all been women--Elizabeth I, Victoria, and Elizabeth II (I for you Scots), not necessarily in that order of greatness) that the commonwealth agreed to dump the requirement that male heirs take precedence, I'm truly STUNNED they dropped the anti-Catholic provisions.

Skittl1321
10-28-2011, 05:51 PM
I'm truly STUNNED they dropped the anti-Catholic provisions.

I was shocked to find out that they could marry a non-Christian. I figured it was a requirement that they be a non-Catholic Christian.

And as such, this makes sense to me. But I'm an American, so I truly know nothing about the matter.

IceAlisa
10-28-2011, 05:56 PM
I'm truly STUNNED they dropped the anti-Catholic provisions.

Why? This goes back all the way to Henry VIII and that's happened quite a while ago. I am surprised they didn't bury the hatchet before.

nerdycool
10-28-2011, 06:28 PM
This is great! About time, too. But I am also surprised that they are actually going to drop the anti-Catholic provisions. I had assumed they kept it all this time because they didn't want to go through the trouble of reinstating people who would otherwise be ineligible based on their religion, and create a possible civil war between the claimants. But now that the throne is stable and completely out of politics, I suppose they feel that won't happen.

Which thinking about it, I wonder if they'll reinstate people or just say "once you're out, you're out"? First one that comes to mind to be affected is Prince Michael of Kent.


The rule has excluded women from succeeding to the throne in the past. Queen Victoria's first child was a daughter — also called Victoria — but it was her younger brother who succeeded her on the throne, as King Edward VII.
This part makes me think "what if?". If Vicky had been the heir all along, I wonder how their upbringings would have been different. Since Vicky was bright, I don't see anything changing for her, except she wouldn't have married Fritz and gone to Prussia. But Bertie would have had far less pressure on him, and he might not have acted out as he did. This could have saved his parents a ton of trouble, and in Albert's case, his life. That's how I imagine it, anyway.

AragornElessar
10-28-2011, 11:47 PM
This is long overdue to happen, but it's the first time it's been brought up at the Commonwealth Leaders Conference AFAIK. It's not just the UK that needs to give this across the board support/approval, but all of the Commonwealth Countries as well. Now that this has happened, the UK can finally get this through and changed.

And about time too!! :D

Angelskates
10-29-2011, 01:25 AM
It was unanimous on both changes.

Interesting that in Australia, every state and the federal government will need to pass legislation to enact the changes.

Realm countries OK royal succession change (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8366925/change-approved-to-royal-succession)

mkats
10-29-2011, 02:36 AM
Not to mention warmer.


I wore my nicest and thickest pair of skating tights to my last grad school interview because I had a fifteen-minute walk to get there at 7 AM in CT. :lol:

AragornElessar
10-29-2011, 03:28 AM
It was unanimous on both changes.

Interesting that in Australia, every state and the federal government will need to pass legislation to enact the changes.

Realm countries OK royal succession change (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8366925/change-approved-to-royal-succession)

Canada too, so I think that goes for all of the Commonwealth Countries.

I think that is.

Lara
10-29-2011, 07:16 PM
I thought the no Catholic provision was to remain - glad to hear that's not the case! ITA it's about time.

AlexDSSF
10-30-2011, 03:44 AM
It applies only to the countries of which Queen Elizabeth II is the sovereign (otherwise known as the Realm countries). The realm countries are:

Antigua and Barbuda, Australia (including its territories), Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand (including its territories), Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom (including its territories).

However, the Cook Islands (a self-governing territory of New Zealand) will have to ratify the agreement on its own rather than vicariously through New Zealand. Since 1981, acts passed by New Zealand's Parliament don't apply to the Pacific territory unless the Cook Islands' own legislature approves it.

The remaining Commonwealth countries aren't affected by this change, as they are either republics or have their own sovereign monarchs (Brunei, Lesotho, Malaysia, Samoa, Swaziland, and Tonga).

Lanie
10-30-2011, 04:57 AM
I thought the no Catholic provision was to remain - glad to hear that's not the case! ITA it's about time.

I think it should stay. After all, the monarch is the Head of the Church of England. A Catholic could not be that, eys?

PDilemma
10-30-2011, 02:20 PM
I think it should stay. After all, the monarch is the Head of the Church of England. A Catholic could not be that, eys?

Someone a monarch marries is not the monarch and not the head of the church.

For example, William will be King and, therefore, head of the church; Kate will be Queen Consort and not the ruling monarch. If Kate outlives William, his heir--presumably their first child-- will become monarch, not Kate.

So that is not an issue.

milanessa
10-30-2011, 02:36 PM
Someone a monarch marries is not the monarch and not the head of the church.

For example, William will be King and, therefore, head of the church; Kate will be Queen Consort and not the ruling monarch. If Kate outlives William, his heir--presumably their first child-- will become monarch, not Kate.

So that is not an issue.

But it could be. Skip forward a generation. I'm not au courant with Roman Catholic church law but at one time in order for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic both parties had to agree to raise their children in the Catholic faith. So, to use your example, if Kate was Catholic any issue of the marriage would have been required to be Catholic. Even though William may be king his heirs would have been Catholic. Whether that's still true or not I don't know.

PDilemma
10-30-2011, 02:48 PM
But it could be. Skip forward a generation. I'm not au courant with Roman Catholic church law but at one time in order for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic both parties had to agree to raise their children in the Catholic faith. So, to use your example, if Kate was Catholic any issue of the marriage would have been required to be Catholic. Even though William may be king his heirs would have been Catholic. Whether that's still true or not I don't know.

There is church policy and there is what people actually do. Very different things in my experience. In the Catholic school I taught at, there were only two families with more than three kids. NFP doesn't work that well. :lol:

And it is possible given ongoing dialogue between Anglicans and Catholics, that an exception would be made.