Messages

181

The Imperial Family / Re: Romanovs and Faith/Orthodox Religion

« on: December 23, 2008, 05:51:06 AM »

Just a few points:

It the idea that they were the first ones that causes me some annoyance - they weren't the first people to die during the Russian Revolution and Civil War that followed and they were certainly not the first members of the Imperial Family to die. Nicholas and his family died on the 17 July, his brother Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovitch was almost certainly killed a month earlier around June 12/13th at Perm, and the Constantinovitchi and Ella died shortly after the Imperial family I believe.

Please correct me if I am wrong but they were recognised as martyred saints by the Church outside Russia and they were later recognised by the synod of the Russian Orthodox Church as passion bearers - and both decisions have not been without controversy. My understanding is the passion bearer in Orthodoxy is about the way in which an individual faces death in imitation of Christ.

None of the Imperial family wanted to leave Russia - but my understanding is that after the Abdication Nicholas only refused the urgent urgings for him to leave the country straight away because he wanted to be with his wife and children. once reunited they were relatively willing to leave if they could, sadly the chance was missed.

Nicholas II's decisions as Emperor and Autocrat, egged on by Alexandra were both directly and indirectly responsible for the chaos that Russia descended into and the millions that died as a result. It is perhaps unfair to blame Nicholas absolutely as it is debateable given the circumstance whether anyone would have been able to prevent it but a different more intelligent man might have been more willing to embrace the changes that early 20thCentury needed if it was to avoid chaos.

I don't think any would doubt the personal religious devotion of the Imperial couple and the rest of the Dynasty, though Alexandra's obsession, fervency and dependance on the numerous mystics that headed to the Alexander Palace was hardly conventional Orthodoxy (though I accept that there is a streak of mysticisim within the Russian Church).

Its not for me to dictate to the Russian Orthodox Church who they should or shouldn't chose to be martyrs of course and I certainly don't mean any offence to those practising members of the Orthodox Church who share their churches view on the Imperial Family as Martyrs or Passion Bearers.

182

Alexandra Feodorovna / Re: Alexandra's Personality Traits - Good & Bad

« on: December 22, 2008, 10:26:09 AM »

A few points:

Firstly the Queen of GB has indicated that only those descendants of hers requiring a surname should use Mountbatten-Windsor. Mountbatten is the badly anglicized version of Battenburg (a morganatic offshoot of the House of Hesse-Darmstadt and Philip was technically a member of the House of Oldenburg not the House of Battenberg/Mountbatten) - the Royal House remains Windsor. As of now technically none of the Queen's male-line descendants need a surname as they are all legally HRH Prince or Princess of Great Britain (though The Earl of Wessex's children at his insistance and to the disappointment of his parents bear the rank of the children of an Earl and use Mountbatten-Windsor although legally they are HRH Princess Louise of Wessex and HRH, Prince James of Wessex Viscount Severn)

That the Hessian House was not insignificant is a perfectly valid point though  - it had already provided two imperial consorts - Wilhelmine Louise (Grand Duchess Natalia Alexeievna) first wife of Paul I and sister of Louis I of Hesse, who died in child birth. Marie daughter of Louis II (though probably fathered by her mother's lover) who became the Empress Marie Alexandrovna wife of Alexander II.

In fact the choice of bride's for Romanov Grand Dukes in the 19th Century was in part designed to avoid marriages that would be regarded as highly political or would upset the European balance. None of the Empress Consorts of Russia have come from high ranking Royal backgrounds (Peter III was married to a well connected by impoverished Princess of Anhalt Zerbst the future Catherine II, Paul married firstly to a Princess of Hesse and secondly an impoverished Princess of Wurttemburg, Alexander I married a Princess of Baden, Nicholas I married Charlotte of Prussia, Alexander II married Marie of Hesse, Alexander III to Marie of Denmark and Nicholas II to Alexandra of Hesse)

Alexander II's choice of Marie of Denmark for his eldest son (and then for the second son after the Cesarevitch's death) was in part because of the fact that Denmark had been so soundly beaten by Prussia - it wouldn't be considered a political match. Ironically her fierce anti-prussian views shared with her sister Alexandra would have a significant influence on Russian policy and a growing distrust of Prussia/Germany throughout Alexander III's reign.

It is myth that all previous Empresses had adapted with ease and become instantly popular perhaps the only two who really made the role their own (largely due to being widowed young) were the two Maria Feodorovna's (wives to Paul I and Alexander III) both were Cesarevna's for a long period of time and adapted well to their new home and religion, both were well loved by their husbands and were popular and charitable whilst living in considerable style.

Turning to Alix, I don't think any of us can doubt that she was a devoted wife and mother, but she was in many ways the worst possible wife for Nicholas II. Had she been married to a stronger, less insecure man like his father or grandfather then she might have made a perfectly acceptable consort.

With Nicholas though her retreat into an isolated, family life, her imperiousness (which her own family commented on), her reluctance to take part in public ceremonies, her rigid morality and her increasing religious fanaticism became a huge liability. Much of this is exused by her apologists on the grounds of her health and the tragedy of Alexei's haemophilia but these traits were noted in the first few years of their marriage.

Ironically in many ways her quiet family life might have been what Russia and the monarchy needed in the early 1900's had Russia been a constitutional monarchy - in just the same way that the quiet domesiticty of Victoria and Albert tied them with the burgeoning British middle class and provided a more 'moral' contrast to the outrageous extravagance and loose morals of Victoria's uncles and high society in general. Or it would have been had Nicholas and Alexandra been willing to recognise that to survive they needed to abandon Nicholas' determination to rule as his father had done especially as he was quite incapable of ruling like that, instead her retreat into the daily life and isolation of the Alexander Palace implied a haughtiness and a distaste for not only the Russian Court, the rest of the Dynasty and society but a distaste for the entire nation.

I think sometimes people tend to excuse her behaviour on the grounds that the family took an instant dislike prompted by the Dowager's attitude - but that tends to overlook the fact that Marie Feodorovna was initially quite welcoming and seems to have initially put aside the fact that she hadn't been keen on the marriage. We also tend to overlook the fact that Marie was in deep mourning for her husband whose death had shattered her. By the time that Marie was recovered and rediscovering her zest for life the rift was established - there were faults on both sides but Alix didn't help herself much and subsequent behaviour pushed more of the family away from them. Nicholas' attitudes to the rest of the family were blamed on Alix rather than the Emperor however unfairly and as Nicholas felt more and more isolated naturally he relied on her and her advice more and more which in turn alienated the family even more. Tragic really.

183

The Imperial Family / Re: Romanovs and Faith/Orthodox Religion

« on: December 22, 2008, 08:36:09 AM »

Personally devout certainly but i've always had rather an issue with the suggestion that they died for their faith! True they were murdered by a regime that was entirely secular and that regime was forceful in trying to wean its citizens from their dependance on any religion, but Nicholas II and his family were murdered because of their secular position.

184

The Imperial Family / Re: Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna

« on: December 22, 2008, 08:21:29 AM »

I think its perfectly reasonable for Maria Vladimirovna and her widowed mother Leonida to regard her as the legal heir - her grandfather and father were recognised as the senior dynasts and heads of the dynasty by almost all the surviving male dynasts of the Russian Imperial House (the only exception being Grand Duke Nicholas, Grand Duke Peter and Prince Roman Petrovitch - Prince Nicholas' father). In their view none of their family had made dynastic marriages and therefore Maria would be the legal heir.

As to her son's position - he is her heir and he is certainly born of a dynastic marriage (the Prussian Royal house seem to regard Maria as the product of an equal marraige as her son is regarded as a Prussian Dynast as well as a Russian one). The Imperial House changed with the death of Elizabeth and the accession of Peter III from Romanov to the House of Holstein-Gottorp (technically Oldenburg) - the Imperial family continued to use Romanov (Peter III's mother was Grand Duchess Anna Petrovna of Russia) therefore its technically not an issue that George Mikhailovitch is technically a Hohenzollern - presumably the house would become Hohenzollern-Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov???

As to the views of the Queen of The United Kingdom of Great Britain etc (she is not Queen of England - a bit pedantic but no such title exists and hasn't since the Act of Union) - she's never expressed them so we can't know nor does her view or opinion really matter. in fact the incident as it is related suggests that she permitted Prince Nicholas to sit in her presence which has been read as suggesting she recognised his rights or claims but its a far stretch.  Maria is far more closely related to the Queen than Prince Nicholas as far as that matter goes. Maria - Vladimir - Kyril - Victoria Melita - Alfred - Victoria Queen of The UK of GB etc, Elizabeth II - Albert (George VI) - George V - Albert Edward (Edward VII) - Victoria.

The better way to sort out the dynastic squabbles would be for Maria to offer formal recognition of her cousins as dynasts and they to offer to accept a switch to male preference primogeniture and recognise her claim - but that would be far too sensible of course. On one side you have a rigorous and unbending view of the rules governing marriage and on the other a rigid determination to stick to semi selic laws regarding succession. The reality of this is that if her son doesn't marry or marries unequally the dynasty will be by her standards defunct - as most Grand Duchesses of Russia were required to rennounce their rights on marriage to foreigners the only eligible descendants will be the descendants of Vladimir's sisters (both of whom married equally)

185

The Windsors / Re: Queen Mary- part 4

« on: December 18, 2008, 05:45:59 AM »

I suspect you mean the long Imperial Tours they took before George V became King or perhaps the tour to India (for the Durbar in 1911)
Mary and George undertook an 8 month imperial tour in 1901 as Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York (George didn't become Prince of Wales until their return to Britain), they undertook another 8 month tour to India in 1905.
In 1911 of course they travelled to India  again (Mary was very fond of the sub-continent) for the Durbar.
They also made a number of European trips during the reign of Victoria and Edward VII and after their own accession however after the war they rarely travelled abroad (the courts of May's youth were gone).

186

The Imperial Family / Re: Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna

« on: December 11, 2008, 12:04:57 PM »

Thanks for your kind comments - i don't pretend to have any great knowledge of the situation i am not a legal expert, the above was mainly from what i'd read over the years.

I will say a couple of other things I do believe that Kyril's insistance on maintaining the rules was understandable given that in the twenties the chance for a restoration was felt still to be far more likely.  I do believe that Vladimir should have exercised his rights to amend the house rules over marriage (given that so many other reigning and non-reigning houses were doing so) but I do think his decisions to stick to the rules were motivated by a desire that his only child should succeed him in his pretensions rather than a distant cousin who's branch of the family had always been opposed to his and who himself only had daughters.

There are faults on both sides of the arguement and there is a case that both sides are technically correct, the status of marriages of Prince's of the Blood was never properly clarified, although the Pauline Law on equal marriage would still apply.

I personally don't buy the arguements advanced that the House of Bagration were a sovereign house and therefore equal but again it is debateable - Grand Duke Vladimir made a different judgement (once when he was consulted over the marriage of Leonida's brother to the niece of Alfonso XIII of Spain and again on his own marriage to Leonida) to the one made by Nicholas II when Tatiana Constantinova married and technically that was his right to do so as de jure Emperor.

One interesting point worth mentioning is if (and its a big if) Grand Duke Kyril's mother's failure to convert to Orthodoxy before his birth would bar his succession (if not his membership of the dynasty) then the heir to the throne following the death of Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovitch (murd 1918) was Grand Duke Paul Alexandrovitch (murd 1919) and then Grand Duke Dimitri Pavlovich in which case as head of the house his unnequal marriage would be irrelevant as he would have been de jure Emperor at the time of his marriage and his Illynsky descendants might then have been considered dynasts.

Of all the issues relating to Europe's former reigning houses the attempt to maintain their rules regarding equal marriage into the 20th and 21st centuries has been one of the most damaging - causing serious dynastic problems for not only the House of Holstein Gottorp Romanov, but for the Royal House of Prussia and many others. Sadly the only people to blame for these problems and dynastic divisions are the members of the houses in question.

None of them seem capable of facing modern realities - ironically the surviving reigning houses have shown more pragmatism which is why their thrones remain relatively secure and their unequal consorts have proved rather popular - Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, Diana Princess of Wales, the Crown Princess of Denmark, The Queen's of Sweden and Norway, the Crown Princess of Norway, The Princess of Orange, The Princess of The Asturias etc.

187

The Windsors / Re: Queen Mary- part 4

« on: December 11, 2008, 09:24:07 AM »

I've actually always thought that Miranda Richardson portrayal was rather good. A cauldron of restrained emotions and I don't think in that portrayal she is cold at all. The Lost Prince is largely about John and his nanny and their relationship so the portrayals of George V, Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary are not as central to the story.

She herself denied she was shy after George V became Prince of Wales and then King. She wasn't conventionally maternal and clearly found the whole business of pregnancy and childbirth distasteful which is partly why she was labelled as distant or cold by biographers and some members of her own family. However I don't believe that in an age of infant mortality parents somehow viewed the death of a child any differently to how we would today her diary entries about John's death I find quite touching and it is clear that she found the Duke of Windsor's comments at the time of John's death deeply hurtful.

The Countess of Airlie who knew her and George V well thought they were far more interested in their children than many of their contemporaries but just lacked that understanding.  To be fair the Duke of Windsor himself said that when the children were alone with Queen Mary she was a very different person.

She certainly allowed her husbands like and dislikes to dominate her home and family - but in that she wasn't that different to many other wives of her period, her own deep interest in family history and her devotion to the ideals of monarchy certainly meant that she saw her husband as a monarch first and put him first perhaps to the detriment of her children.

I've always thought that the biggest "victims" if you like of George and Mary's parental errors were actually their three eldest children - David, Bertie and Mary.

188

The Imperial Family / Re: Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna

« on: December 09, 2008, 09:56:29 AM »

It is an important question -

"the better question to ask here might be if a non-reigning head of the imperial house has the legal ability to change the laws of succession to an abolished Throne?"

Though it's important to bear in mind the real arguement within the Romanoff family actually concerns the pre-revolutionary rules regarding who members of the dynasty could marry whilst retaining their dynastic rights. So a better question might be "whether a recognised head of an exiled imperial house has the right to change the rules regarding the marriage and status of other members of that exiled imperial house?"
The answer to that is yes they did, but the Romanov's didn't which is why the great divide has continued.

Point 1: Like it or not - Grand Duke Kyril was the senior surviving male Romanov, irrespective of the views of the Dowager Empress or any other member of the family, with the death of Nicholas 11, Alexei and Michael, Kyril was next in line to the Imperial Throne (we can debate for hours whether or not Marie Pavlovna's late conversion to orthodoxy affected his rights but the reality is that once the Dowager was dead the vast majority of the family did recognise him as such and in time the vast majority of the male dynasts alive in 1938 recognised Vladimir as head of the house.)

Point 2: Nicholas II was approached prior to the First World War by senior Grand Duke's requesting that he ammend the rules over equal marriage - he refused and in fact re-emphasised the requirement for a Grand Duke to marry equally and that descendants of an unequal marriage did not have dynastic status.

Point 3: Nicholas II never formarly recognised the Bagraton's as equal (irrespective of what Russia's treaty obligations to them might have been) they did not have the same status within the Empire that say the Leuchtenberg or the Oldenburgs enjoyed. A casual comment and a note to Grand Duke Constantine (at the time of his daughter Tatiana's marriage) does not equate with a formal change or recognition of equal status.

Point 4: The 1911 emphasis on the need for Grand Duke's to marry equally is silent on the Prince's and Princesses of the Blood (great grandchildren of an emperor) that doesn't in itself mean that they could marry unequally and transmit their rights to their children. In fact a strict reading of the rules would suggest that whilst the Emperor was willing to permit and authorize an unequal marriage for a Prince or Princess of Russia (though not for a Grand Duke) it still mean that their offspring were not dynasts.

Point 5: If you accept (as most Romanov's do) that Grand Duke Kyril was head of the house until his death, and that as such he exercised his rights (as de jure Sovereign Emperor) to raise his children to Grand Ducal status - then you can accept that the head of the Russian Imperial House did have the right to exercise sovereign power in exile and therefore could ammend the rules if he so wished.

Point 6: The fundamental rules are quite close the the British situation - they don't clarify anything about the marriage of someone who is already sat on the throne - technically therefore Grand Duke Vladimir as de jure Emperor declared his own marriage to be valid and technically he was the sole arbitor of whether it was or not.

Point 7: As it became apparent that his only child would be his daughter Maria - he seems to have refused any suggestion that as head of the family he should adapt or change the rules governing the marriages of members of the dynasty - in effect ensuring that at his death there would be no surviving male dynasts left and thereby ensuring that his daughter would succeed him in his pretensions.

Point 8: Many of Europe's exiled Royal Houses have ammended their rules in exile - for example the Hapsburgs ammended their family statutes - AD Otto doing so after consulting senior members of the House of Austria-Este - it enabled his son to marry Baroness Francesca Thyssen-Bornemisza.

Point 9: Whilst many families have chosen to amend or just ignore their house rules over marriage very few have actually attempted to change their rules of succession - one sole example i can think of is the Romanian Royal House.

Finally and personally it seems to me that technically Maria Vladimirovna (whether you call her Princess, Grand Duchess or an ex Princess of Prussia) probably has the strongest claim, that none of the surviving male line descendants of the Russian Imperial House are descended from an equal-marriage and as of 1917 would not have been regarded as dynasts. Had Russia remained a monarchy had it moved slowly to a constitutional form then its highly likely that by today it would like most of Europe's remaining monarchies abandoned many of these rules and regulations and would probably have first moved to male preference primogeniture and perhaps eventually to absolute primogeniture. Its always struck me that trying to stick to the rules, twisting them to suit personal situations and personal dislikes that Kyril and Vladimir managed to extinguish the dynasty.

189

Alexandra Feodorovna / Re: Alexandra's Personality Traits - Good & Bad

« on: November 27, 2008, 06:09:21 PM »

Its always hard to be objective - on a lot of reflection and wanting to be charitable - i think she would have probably been an admirable consort and wife to a constitutional monarch she was a disasterous consort to an autocrat though. When i first became interested in the Romanovs and Russian history I felt remarkably sorry for her however the more i've read the less I feel sorry for her and the more I believe that she and Nicholas made some appalling judgements that ultimately led to their appalling deaths. A lot is made of the wonderful family life she creatd for her children - but to be honest she isolated them all at the Alexander Palace, i would be interested in a psychological evaluation of how her own health and Alexei's health related to each other, however that isolation would have had a profound effect on all the children and was hardly preparing her daughters for their futures. Much is made of how she was treated by Nicholas' family but there was considerable fault on both sides and unlike many other foreign brides she didn't do much to endear herself to her new family (her relationship with the Empress Marie was in trouble in a matter of months and whilst the dowager was in large part to blame she was in deep mourning a fact which escapes some people when discussing it), her relationship with her sisters in law seems to have been good though the relationship with Xenia appears to have become increasingly tetchy,  and she was clearly a driving force behind Nicholas' treatment of Michael following his marriage to Natalia Wulfert. She brought out the best in Nicholas as a husband and father and the worst as a ruler which is probably the real tragedy of it all. To blame her solely for all the ills of Russia in 1917 as some have done is unfair but she certainly didn't help and her political interference during the final few years of the reign helped prevent any attempt to hault Russia's journey to revolution.

190

Imperial Succession and the Throne / Re: Who is the rightful heir?

« on: November 27, 2008, 08:38:34 AM »

I've always been less bothered about the Orthodox arguements than any others. Prior to 1917 all of Grand Duke Kyril's family were regarded as Dynasts despite the late conversion of Grand Duchess Marie Pavlovna - the fact that the all bore the appropriate styles and titles and that Kyril was certainly regarded as a dynast when he married Victoria Melita suggests that although Marie Pavlovna hadn't converted at that point it wasn't regarded as being an impediment to her children's rights whatever the Pauline Laws might have said. The marriage of Prince/Grand Duke Vladimir is different and whatever has been written and argued about since there is little doubt that the marriage wouldn't have been regarded as equal before 1917.  A deposed dynasty converted into Russian Prince's was not the same as a member of the House of Holstein Gottorp Romanov - their rights might have been guaranteed by treaty but they do not seem to have enjoyed the same semi imperial status enjoyed by the Leuchtenbergs or the Oldenburgs. The Bagrations don't appear to have enjoyed any special status anymore than the princely houses who were descended from the Rurikid rulers of the varying Russian states prior to the unification of Russia.
Kyril and Vladimir were in my view undoubtedly the next two in line following the revolution - however Kyril and Vladimir's insistance on maintaining the family rules (as de facto Emperors - they could have done what other deposed Royal Houses have done and ammended their own house rules with the agreements of other senior family members - the Fundamental Laws were effectively dead - with the revolution - on an anticipated restoration new laws could enacted) put Vladimir in the position of defending his marriage whilst denigrating the marriages of his relations (many of whom had married into the Russian aristocracy) - had he had a son it might not have been such a problem for him. But his continuing insistance that his marriage was equal and secondly that with the deaths of his cousins he was the last male dynast split the family and left them where they are today. Given that any modern restoration would almost certainly do what the surviving European monarchies have done and see an ammendment to the rules regarding female succession etc then you could make arguements that the nearest relatives of the last reigning Czar (the descendants of Xenia Alexandrovna) would have the greater claim, or that Maria Vladimirovna being the senior surviving male line descendant has the greatest rights.

191

The Tudors / Re: "The Other Boleyn Girl" dramatized?

« on: November 26, 2008, 09:11:24 AM »

Actually most of Anne's biographies are consistent in the view that she was almost certainly not promiscuous.
Anne was from a relatively young age, unlike her sister, under the control and patronage of women widely regarded for their piety -  Archduchess Margaret of Austria and Queen Claude of France both of whom imposed strict standards on their households. In Claude's case few flouted her moral code despite her husband's reputation. The fact that Anne was regarded well by both Margaret, Claude and Claude's younger sister Renee would suggest that her reputation wasn't an unchaste one. Incidentally Francis I's personal reputation and that of his licentious court increased following the death of Claude of France in 1524 and his second marriage in 1530.  There is also very little evidence that Mary was as unchaste as is often suggested in fiction.
Wether or not Anne gave herself to Percy or not is again highly debateable and impossible to judge - personaly I doubt it.
Let's be honest that history is often unkind to women - Anne was undoubtedly intelligent and her influence on the development of the English reformation is a key chapter in European history. Attacking a woman's morality has always been an easy way to cast doubts on her actions and on the role she played - because of her position as a key figure in the reformation she and her morality was a useful and easy target for Catholic writers keen to attack her daughter, Elizabeth I. They were aided in that by the circumstances and allegations that surrounded her trial and execution.

192

Imperial Succession and the Throne / Re: Prince or Grand Duke?

« on: November 21, 2008, 08:33:35 AM »

Irina Alexandrovna, was a great grandchild, in the male line,of an Emperor and as such was Princess of Russia. In the female line she was of course the grandchild of a sovereign but it was male line descent that dictated whether you were Prince or Princess or Grand Duke or Grand Duchess. Although her brother's births were greeted with the traditional gun salutes that would have been used to greet the birth of a Grand Duke (apparently at the Empress Dowagers insistance - mentioned i think in Xenia, Once A Grand Duchess - which I highly recommend)

193

The Windsors / Re: Prince John/Johnnie (son of George V and Queen Mary)

« on: November 20, 2008, 01:06:19 PM »

Queen Mary's portrayal is always very difficult. The problem that many people appear to have had over the years is the very different way in which children were brought up in the specific period. Queen Mary wasn't like her Wales' cousins, she'd not been mothered in the way her husband and his siblings were (which in many ways appears to have infantilised them - Queen Alexandra like her sister Dagmar treated her children as children long after they were grown adults), nor did she have their fondness for practical jokes and other rather silly behaviour! Even in the 1890's with her first three children she appeared as "unmaternal" or "cold" particularly during the pregnancies and that was the view of many of the Royal Family and close relatives.  I suspect she was one of those people who relate better to children as they grow older and their personalities develop. She was also deeply in awe of the institution of monarchy, her husband was also her King and that certainly impacted on her personality and her relationships with her children. George V's rigid and unbending views dominated their family life to the detriment of his children's development. Faults a plenty but mad no!

194

The Tudors / Re: "Bloody Mary"? (Mary I)

« on: October 13, 2008, 11:53:00 AM »

As has been said there in no evidence that Henry VIII had syphilis - its a myth that keeps getting mentioned with virtually no basis in fact.  Henry's childlessness can be but down to a genetic fault that appeared in his generation either from either of his parents or as a mutated gene of his own or through the poor (by our standards)  health care of the age - though both his sisters weren't over fertile either which might suggest a genetic problem.  Of the next generation of Tudors - Mary Tudor married later in life and never conceived, Edward died before he was married, Elizabeth never married, James V of Scotland only had one surving legitimate child, Lady Margaret Douglas only had two sons, Henry Brandon Earl of Lincoln died in his teens, Lady Frances Brandon had 3 suriviving children by her husband, Lady Eleanor Brandon had only one surviving child a daughter.  Of the above all died relatively young with the exception  of Elizabeth I and Lady Margaret Douglas

As to Mary's childlessness - she was in her late thirties when she married which is probably the more obvious reason why she failed to conceive also i think there's evidence that Philip wasn't over eager to keep doing his duty.  The most common causes for her death are has been mentioned a pituitary condition or stomach or ovarian cancer (which in part would explain her swollen state and her misguided belief that she was pregnant).

195

The Windsors / Re: Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy

« on: September 26, 2008, 09:06:45 AM »

As Robert said unfortunately most politicians here are not quite aware of the raft of legislation that would need ammending or removing from the statute books to make the changes - the last time this was discussed by the newspapers was when Diana was expecting William but that primarily focussed on permitting the eldest child to succeed irrespective  (at that time most of Europe's surviving monarchies were looking at making changes many of them over the last 25 years have changed to absolute primogeniture rather than the male preference system - Sweden in 1980, Netherlands in 1983, Norway in 1990, and Belgium in 1991.)
Elsewhere the Danish government has had a first reading of a new bill to ammend their male preference system - however the bills hasn't had its second reading and there is no urgency since Queen Margarets grandson is older than his sister, the Spanish government has indicated it supports a change but has not done it yet, Monaco practises a similar system, Luxembourg is complicated because of various 19th Century family pacts but effectively men come before women there, Liechtenstein still practices salic law i think from memory. Spain currently practices the same system as Britain but the government has indicated it favours a change however the birth of a second daughter to the Prince and Princess of the Asturias removed the sense of urgency so whether it happens or not will perhaps depend on whether the Princess becomes pregnant again!
As to Britain to change to gender blind succession  wouldn't require a great deal of legislation - a simple Bill would do it - providing people don't tack on more ammendments relating to the religious questions and the rest of the countries of which the british monarch is sovereign would do the same.

As to the regulations relating to Royal Marriages - the Royal Marriages Act is effectively redundant although it is still used - a simple abolition would be fairly easy - however it would need replacing with something requiring immediate descendants of the monarch who were high up the line of succession perhaps limiting it to the descendants of George V or George VI or even Elizabeth II to require the monarch's consent or Parliamentary approval for their marriages.  Almost all European Monarchies still have some rules governing the marriages of members of their Royal Family either legal ones or family house rules enacted into law - after all you are still picking someone who will a) at points represent the country b) will require the support of the state in some way shape or form, c) may become Queen Consort or Prince Consort, and d) might be the parent of a future monarch.

Religion - the fact is that Britain is still a Protestant state - most of our anti catholic legislation stems from the chaos of the 17th Century - and the "Glorious Revolution" - James II attempts to lighten the load on Roman Catholics and his belief that he could be practising Catholic and remian on his thrones was mistimed and misjudged - not helped by his cousin Louis XIV's revocation of the Edict of Nantes (that had permitted some toleration of protestantism in catholic france) - Catholicism became increasingly associated with Absolutism and with Britains traditional enemies (France and Spain).

The most important remaining prohibition is that the throne is barred to anyone who is not in communion with the Church of England - if you remove that without disestablishing the Church of England then you have the potential for a Roman Catholic King or Queen who is in the bizarre position of being the titular Head of the C of E!  Uncomfortable for everyone. A British Monarch is also still required to sign the oath on accession preserving the protestant religion.  More importantly any change in Britain would have to be made in every other country of which the British monarch still rules - Britain can't move unilateraly to amend the rules - it would therefore dominate any government's legislative programme for quite a while.  

To give an example - William marries a Roman Catholic - Australia introduces legislation to amend the succession but the strong republican element hijack the debate results in a referendum monarchy abolished on the death of Elizabeth II, Canada introduces legislation to amend succession succesfully, Britain legislation introduced but bogged down in procedure and arguements over dis establishment of the Church of England - sudden death of Charles - William succeeds as King of Canada etc, Harry succeeds in Britain as Henry IX.

The idea of an hereditary monarchy is itself essentially discriminatory and i often believe that those who seem obssessed with the religious issue are often closet republicans - meddling with the whole kit and caboodle can cause more harm than good.  However abolition of the RMA (which says nothing on religion by the way) and introducing a bill to introduce gender blind succession would be relatively easy.