The Political Asylum

Vintage Girl · Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:02 am Post subject: Royal succession reform

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7967142.stm

What are your views on this?

I find myself feeling very unsure. As a traditionalist I don't usually like to see our culture and traditions tinkered with, but I can't actually see any real objection this time. Maybe there is something in the bigger picture that I'm not seeing.

I wonder if I can convince Blue to come back and give us his views?
_________________
Girls are like phones. We love to be held and talked to, but if you press the wrong button you'll be disconnected!

muppetmurderer · Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:44 pm Post subject:

It does seem that a review might be in order by now. While it may be true that women are generally less capable than men in many respects, the 'job' of Queen (or King) requires no skills or abilities which could not be taught to either gender (waving regally, looking good in a crown, talking down to ethnic minorities... - ok maybe that last bit is Phil the Greek), and so discrimination on the basis of sex is a bit out of place in this day and age.

Tradition does has its place (as do women!), but there are times when we have to move on.

And I understand that while it would be legal for the monarch to marry a Hindu, Muslim, Jehovah's Witness, Scientologist, or Jedi Knight, a Catholic is out of the question! I realise in the times of Henry VIII this was a major concern, but I think we should move on from his outdated views and attitudes (though the concept of beheading wives who are a nuisance does still have some merit in my opinion - possibly a minority view on here!)
_________________
.
.
Do you know what it means when you come home to a little affection, a little tenderness, and a little sympathy? It means you're in the wrong house

wakeyboy · Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:21 pm Post subject:

I agree that its time the rules of succession were reformed.

There's no rhyme or reason as to why a monarch shouldnt be able to marry a catholic or why a woman has a weaker claim to the throne than a male.

I think most people of all political backgrounds has no real problem with this.

If the monarch were catholic then I'd see no problem with this although it would be weird to see one as head of the church of England. However, it seems bizzarre that in theory a muslim, hindu, budhist, jewish, or orthodox christian could be head of the church of england but a catholic cant.

Ridiculous.
_________________
http://www.realradioyorkshire.co.uk/

BlueEmperor · Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 3:23 pm Post subject:

I've actually no objection to these reforms in principle. I think the Queen's 57-year-reign has made a pretty strong case for giving equal succession rights to women. Of course, we need to recognise the full implications of what such a change would mean. It would essentially mean an end to the 'dynastic' system. The Royal Family, like any other family, is generally traced through the male line. Anyone who has done their 'family history' will know that your family tree essentially consists of those who share your surname. Females who marry are generally considered to have married into another family.

A female monarch is, traditionally, the final member of each reigning dynasty (as she only succeeds in default of male heirs). So Queen Elizabeth I was the last monarch of the House of Tudor, Queen Anne was the last monarch of the House of Stuart and Queen Victoria was the last monarch of the House of Hanover. Queen Elizabeth II will, effectively, be the last monarch of the House of Windsor. Though it is likely that, after the accession of the Prince of Wales, our ruling dynasty will continue to be known as Windsor (or possibly Mountbatten-Windsor). The Prince will, however, dynastically be the first British monarch of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, a cadet branch of the Oldenburg dynasty of which his father, the Duke of Edinburgh, is a scion. If we move from cognatic to absolute primogeniture, we can expect to see these changes in dynasty far more frequently. Although, were the Princess Royal to succeed, for example, and pass the throne to her son, could we really call the 'House of Phillips' a 'dynasty', as such?

On the issue of Roman Catholics in the succession, of course, the main problem is the Sovereign's position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Were the Act of Settlement to be reformed to allow Roman Catholics equal rights, it is likely that at some point we would have a Roman Catholic monarch and, therefore, a Roman Catholic Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Now, this need not be the end of the world. Despite being routinely referred to as the 'Head' of the Church, the Supreme Governorship is not an ecclesiastical office. The Supreme Governor's function is a purely secular one - namely to defend the rights and privileges of the Church of England, as established by law. Indeed, there have already been non-Anglican Supreme Governors (most recently King George I and King George II, who were both Lutherans). Still, I think there are a lot of Anglicans who would be very unhappy with the idea of a non-Anglican Supreme Governor.

I think it is a fair point to note that there is not a similar constitutional bar placed on Jews, Moslems, Sikhs, Buddhists or Hindoos from the Line of Succession. It applies exclusively to Roman Catholics. Of course, there is a clear and obvious reason for that. Roman Catholics are almost unique in their relationship to the Pope as a central spiritual authority. There is no Jewish or Islamic equivilent to the papacy and we should be in no doubt as to the implication of this. During the papal coronation ceremony, the senior cardinal deacon crowns the Pontiff with these words: