Salic Law, Primogeniture and Equal Primogeniture

[basilforever]

Adultery can only be committed by a married person.  Edward VIII did not marry Mrs. Simpson until after he had abdicated.

I think they mean that it was adultery because Edward was sleeping with a woman who was married to another man.

[Grace]

Adultery can only be committed by a married person.  Edward VIII did not marry Mrs. Simpson until after he had abdicated.

if a married person sleeps with an unmarried person isn't the unmarried person as sinful in the eyes of the church as the married one? isn't he also an adulterer? they both together are making the adultery action.

If a married person has relations with a person other than the legal spouse, they are an adulterer, regardless of whether the other party is married or not.  An unmarried person who has relations with someone is a fornicator, regardless of whether the other party is married or not.  I am not trying to say who is the more sinful, just pointing out the correct terminology. 

[Taren]

But that's what monarchy is all about - being born to do something (eg. rule) and being in the position you are in because solely of your birth. So Mary I and Mary Queen of Scots had their destiny and that was to rule. If in both cases their legitimate brother (or brothers in Mary Queen of Scot's case) were able to survive their childhood and rule for a substantial amount of time, then they would have escaped being Queens. I don't think the fact that they were born to be Queens is a tragedy. They both tried. It was their destiny and learning history and history in itself would be a lot more boring without such characters. They both had their moments of pleasure and happiness and enjoying their power I'm sure. There is no tragic part of primogenture. It is the right system. There may be tragic parts of Salic Law and Equal Primogenture, but not Primogeniture in itself which is the right mode of succession and works for the most part. If they had equal primogenture as some people want then Mary I would have been forced to be Queen anyway, because she was older than Edward VI.

i agree that part of the monarchical system is being born to do something. i consider this one of its advantage: if you are born to do something you are raised in its spirit and you have plenty of time to prepare for it, rather than for being a president which is a function that can be bestowed to people with no proper education.

however, some people are simply unfit. you mentioned keeping them as puppets. why when you can have a proper monarch instead? i'm sure they would like to step aside too. also, i must say taht i don't agree when you say that if a monarch doesn't rule it doesn't matter. it does. the queen is a great public image for england: that is her role. and it's a very important one, in this day and age when everything is about public image. a more unfit person like, say, prince andrew, would have done a lot of harm to england's image. and that would have been bad. and i would have been the first to vote his replacement.

No you're wrong. Becuse of blood lines it is important to have oldest son or if there is no son eldest daughter inherit the thone. If they can present a good image to the public it is an added bonus. A proper monarch is one who is there by right of birth, not by their exemplary character. If Margaret had been born before Elizabeth I would have accepted her as the rightful monarch, even though her sister's character would have been better suited (perhaps - we cannot know how Margaret would have been if she was born and raised as the heir apparent). If a monarch doesn't rule it doesn't matter AS MUCH, but it still does matter for the reason you pointed out. If a slightly retarded (for example) elder son WANTED to step aside, then I would support their wish of course. Prince Andrew is not an unfit person and he could have acted differently in his life (and probably would have) if he had been born heir and was in a different positon or was King. Prince Andrew would not ncessarily have done a lot of harm (or any harm) to England's image if he was King, and it's mean to say so.

I disagree. Whst if the firstborn were mentally or physically incapable of doing the job? What if they were retarded? It's more than just being the rightful heir. It is also understanding who you and and what your position is and what it entails.

If the firstborn was completely INCAPABLE of doing the job and of producing heirs to suceed them, then they should (and their non-existent or never going to exist) descendents be removed from the line to the throne. Being more than just the rightful heir is imp. some degree of mental and physical capability is required of course, but being the rightful heir is, still, VERY important.

Yay we agree!! And we didn't even have to call each other names to reach this agreement!

[ilyala]

i am not very informed about prince andrew's engagements, so you could be right. however, he is, i understand much more inclined towards partying rather than ruling. i don't think he himself would like to rule.

[Taren]

Adultery can only be committed by a married person.  Edward VIII did not marry Mrs. Simpson until after he had abdicated.

if a married person sleeps with an unmarried person isn't the unmarried person as sinful in the eyes of the church as the married one? isn't he also an adulterer? they both together are making the adultery action.

If a married person has relations with a person other than the legal spouse, they are an adulterer, regardless of whether the other party is married or not.  An unmarried person who has relations with someone is a fornicator, regardless of whether the other party is married or not.  I am not trying to say who is the more sinful, just pointing out the correct terminology. 

Ahh so David was a fornicator. Thanks, Grace!  

[ilyala]

If a married person has relations with a person other than the legal spouse, they are an adulterer, regardless of whether the other party is married or not.  An unmarried person who has relations with someone is a fornicator, regardless of whether the other party is married or not.  I am not trying to say who is the more sinful, just pointing out the correct terminology. 

ok, then i take back my words. edward the 8th was not an adulterous man, he was a fornicator. my mistake  

now back to the original topic...?

[basilforever]

It should not be cut off. You are wrong. It has nothing to do with realiziing that a  person's religion has nothing to do with them being able to rule properly. I know the context of the introduction of the laws. You must understand that without these laws, the current British royals woud be nowhere near the throne. The descendents of Charles I's youngest daughter and her husband would be on the throne. It invalidates the legitimacy of the current British royal family to just suddently turn around and say It's okay for a Catholic to rule England. The Queen is only the Queen because she is the direct descendent of George I, who was the CLOSEST PROTESTANT to the throne after Queen Anne died.

lol you misunderstood me. i'm not saying we should replace the queen with charles 1st's descendants. however i think that from now one, descendants from the queen (the current queen) should not be barred from succession simply based on their religion.

No I didn't misunderstand you, I know what you meant, I meant that the Queen would not be the Queen if this law did not exist, therefore the law should continue to exist, or it is invalidating the law ever existing. It's hard to explain. I don't think the law will change. It's just another issue where you and I must agree to disagree. I don't want to get into an argument about it or anything.

[ilyala]

[No I didn't misunderstand you, I know what you meant, I meant that the Queen would not be the Queen if this law did not exist, therefore the law should continue to exist, or it is invalidating the law ever existing. It's hard to explain. I don't think the law will change. It's just another issue where you and I must agree to disagree. I don't want to get into an argument about it or anything.

i don't think that you and i are arguing rather than discussing stuff we feel different about .

and i don't think it would cancel the law. because if that were so, then the introducing of equal primogeniture would change the succession drastically and would lead to a change of monarch in every country that introduces such a law. but that is not the case. you simply mention in the law the magical words: 'from now on...'.

if those magical words are not introduced, then some other person would be king of sweden today, for example.

[Taren]

It should not be cut off. You are wrong. It has nothing to do with realiziing that a  person's religion has nothing to do with them being able to rule properly. I know the context of the introduction of the laws. You must understand that without these laws, the current British royals woud be nowhere near the throne. The descendents of Charles I's youngest daughter and her husband would be on the throne. It invalidates the legitimacy of the current British royal family to just suddently turn around and say It's okay for a Catholic to rule England. The Queen is only the Queen because she is the direct descendent of George I, who was the CLOSEST PROTESTANT to the throne after Queen Anne died.

lol you misunderstood me. i'm not saying we should replace the queen with charles 1st's descendants. however i think that from now one, descendants from the queen (the current queen) should not be barred from succession simply based on their religion.

No I didn't misunderstand you, I know what you meant, I meant that the Queen would not be the Queen if this law did not exist, therefore the law should continue to exist, or it is invalidating the law ever existing. It's hard to explain. I don't think the law will change. It's just another issue where you and I must agree to disagree. I don't want to get into an argument about it or anything.

I don't think that revoking the law now would not make the Queen not the Queen. It just gives her descendants more options as to whom they can marry. To completely change the succession would be difficult and unnececessary. From QE2 to Charles to William, who if the law was changed, would have the right to marry a Catholic.

[basilforever]

i am not very informed about prince andrew's engagements, so you could be right. however, he is, i understand much more inclined towards partying rather than ruling. i don't think he himself would like to rule.

I am right, I was surprised to learn myself that he performs hundreds of royal engagements a year and is a very busy and hardworking man. He is no longer still inclined towards partying rather than working and ruling. Maybe he would like to rule but he certainly accepts that he is not going to (unless William and Harry die without descendents and Andrew survives them and Charles). Andrew's grown up now.

[ilyala]

i am not very informed about prince andrew's engagements, so you could be right. however, he is, i understand much more inclined towards partying rather than ruling. i don't think he himself would like to rule.

I am right, I was surprised to learn myself that he performs hundreds of royal engagements a year and is a very busy and hardworking man. He is no longer still inclined towards partying rather than working and ruling. Maybe he would like to rule but he certainly accepts that he is not going to (unless William and Harry die without descendents and Andrew survives them and Charles). Andrew's grown up now.

in this i will take your word for it 

[Taren]

i am not very informed about prince andrew's engagements, so you could be right. however, he is, i understand much more inclined towards partying rather than ruling. i don't think he himself would like to rule.

I am right, I was surprised to learn myself that he performs hundreds of royal engagements a year and is a very busy and hardworking man. He is no longer still inclined towards partying rather than working and ruling. Maybe he would like to rule but he certainly accepts that he is not going to (unless William and Harry die without descendents and Andrew survives them and Charles). Andrew's grown up now.

He is a 46 year old man afterall. Everyone has to grow up sooner or later. I think if he were to be king he'd be a better king now than he would have twenty years ago. Like everyone, I'm sure he has gained a lot of wisdom with age.

[basilforever]

[No I didn't misunderstand you, I know what you meant, I meant that the Queen would not be the Queen if this law did not exist, therefore the law should continue to exist, or it is invalidating the law ever existing. It's hard to explain. I don't think the law will change. It's just another issue where you and I must agree to disagree. I don't want to get into an argument about it or anything.

i don't think that you and i are arguing rather than discussing stuff we feel different about .

and i don't think it would cancel the law. because if that were so, then the introducing of equal primogeniture would change the succession drastically and would lead to a change of monarch in every country that introduces such a law. but that is not the case. you simply mention in the law the magical words: 'from now on...'.

if those magical words are not introduced, then some other person would be king of sweden today, for example.

Yes the words 'from now on' do make a big impact. I suppose the words ''from now on'' could be in the revoking of the no catholics law, and that would go some way to appeasing me. But I would prefer the law not be revoked or changed at all, or any of Britain's succession laws be changed and I don't think they will be. Because if William or Harry wanted to marry a Catholic girl, they (the girl or woman) would probably be more than willing to change their religion to Church of England in order to marry their Prince!!

[ilyala]

Yes the words 'from now on' do make a big impact. I suppose the words ''from now on'' could be in the revoking of the no catholics law, and that would go some way to appeasing me. But I would prefer the law not be revoked or changed at all, or any of Britain's succession laws be changed and I don't think they will be. Because if William or Harry wanted to marry a Catholic girl, they (the girl or woman) would probably be more than willing to change their religion to Church of England in order to marry their Prince!!

maybe. however, wouldn't it be a shame if  a person totally fit to be a consort is rejected for matters that are not important anymore?

look at eddy and princess helene. she was definitely the love of his life, cause it was her name he was calling when he died. she was a great person, even queen victoria approved of her. but she was a catholic and that was the only argument against her. isn't it a true shame? even if eddy would've died when he did, he would have had a year of happiness... and maybe we would have had another king today

[basilforever]

It should not be cut off. You are wrong. It has nothing to do with realiziing that a  person's religion has nothing to do with them being able to rule properly. I know the context of the introduction of the laws. You must understand that without these laws, the current British royals woud be nowhere near the throne. The descendents of Charles I's youngest daughter and her husband would be on the throne. It invalidates the legitimacy of the current British royal family to just suddently turn around and say It's okay for a Catholic to rule England. The Queen is only the Queen because she is the direct descendent of George I, who was the CLOSEST PROTESTANT to the throne after Queen Anne died.

lol you misunderstood me. i'm not saying we should replace the queen with charles 1st's descendants. however i think that from now one, descendants from the queen (the current queen) should not be barred from succession simply based on their religion.

No I didn't misunderstand you, I know what you meant, I meant that the Queen would not be the Queen if this law did not exist, therefore the law should continue to exist, or it is invalidating the law ever existing. It's hard to explain. I don't think the law will change. It's just another issue where you and I must agree to disagree. I don't want to get into an argument about it or anything.

I don't think that revoking the law now would not make the Queen not the Queen. It just gives her descendants more options as to whom they can marry. To completely change the succession would be difficult and unnececessary. From QE2 to Charles to William, who if the law was changed, would have the right to marry a Catholic.

If they revoked the law now it would kind of make the Queen's right to be the monarch non-existent since it would be negating the idea that the British throne had to go to George I and his descendents (since he was the closest Protestant in the line of succession) after Queen Anne's death. But they could add the words ''from now on'' to give William the right to marry a Catholic and still be King, but I don't think it will be necessary and if it hasn't changed by now, and it hasn't, it probably isn't going to.