Salic Law, Primogeniture and Equal Primogeniture

[basilforever]

i don't know about christian the 9th much, other than he, just like bernadotte in sweden, was *chosen* to rule, rather than born to rule. i haven't studied the genealogy long enough to know about other claims (but i know there were), and how rightful they would be today. as for bernadotte's adoption. that's not primogeniture: that's choosing your successor. i'm sure there must have been someone who had right by blood to that throne when bernadotte was chosen. there can't be a complete lack of heirs, if you go back far enough.

in russia the situation was like this: ivan 5th was peter the great's brother. older half brother. he had three daughters out of which two died without issue. one of them married and had six children out of which one was the unfortunate ivan 6th, who ruled for about a month when he was a toddler, and then was dethroned by elizabeth who imprisoned him. he was killed but his mother and his siblings, however, were left alive (i believe there were about five or six of them). the simple fact that they were descended from an older brother was enough to make them heirs to the throne. if you also count the fact that peter the great's remaining descendants were descended from his second marriage that: a. happened while his first wife was still alive (she even survived his second wife), b. when the marriage was done the two daughters that would matter (elizabeth and anna, who was the mother of future peter 3rd) were already born - meaning they were illegitimate. if you count all this you realize that from elizabeth to nicholas 2nd, all monarchs of russia were not by right monarchs of russia.

now let's assume that during the reign of nicholas 2nd (almost 2 centuries after elizabeth started ruling) a descendant of ivan the 5th had showed up and claimed the throne. do you think that even the most monarchist and traditionalist of people would have accepted his claim? even if it was - by blood - right?

there is a statute of limitation on this thing. if a dinasty is accepted by the people - and they do well by them - no-one starts thinking of alternatives.

Christian IX and his wife were in a way chosen to rule Denmark. But trust me they were also the right two for the job. It is complicated but following the Salic Law system that Denmark had at the time, (and had up until the 1950s), Christian IX was the ABSOLUTLELY RIGHTFUL King, and had his position by right of bloodline.

I know that the first Bernadotte king ascending to the throne was not primogeniture as he was not blood related to the previous king of Sweden. But I said that the current King of Sweden is the right king coming down from the first Bernadotte king,  and that's all I really care about on that front. I accept the Bernadottes as the rightful royal family of Sweden.

Well thanks for explaining about the Russian situation, however I feel I still don't know or understand enough about it to comment. Even though I look on this russian history site and forums so much, I am really  not much into at all the Russian monarchy, etc. Maybe the descendents of Ivan the 5th might have had some people on his side if he made a claim during the reign of Nicholas II, because to some people bloodlines are the most important thing that gives someone the right to rule (it is very imp. to me), and also Nicholas II wasn't doing so well.

[basilforever]

i don't know about christian the 9th much, other than he, just like bernadotte in sweden, was *chosen* to rule, rather than born to rule. i haven't studied the genealogy long enough to know about other claims (but i know there were), and how rightful they would be today. as for bernadotte's adoption. that's not primogeniture: that's choosing your successor. i'm sure there must have been someone who had right by blood to that throne when bernadotte was chosen. there can't be a complete lack of heirs, if you go back far enough.

in russia the situation was like this: ivan 5th was peter the great's brother. older half brother. he had three daughters out of which two died without issue. one of them married and had six children out of which one was the unfortunate ivan 6th, who ruled for about a month when he was a toddler, and then was dethroned by elizabeth who imprisoned him. he was killed but his mother and his siblings, however, were left alive (i believe there were about five or six of them). the simple fact that they were descended from an older brother was enough to make them heirs to the throne. if you also count the fact that peter the great's remaining descendants were descended from his second marriage that: a. happened while his first wife was still alive (she even survived his second wife), b. when the marriage was done the two daughters that would matter (elizabeth and anna, who was the mother of future peter 3rd) were already born - meaning they were illegitimate. if you count all this you realize that from elizabeth to nicholas 2nd, all monarchs of russia were not by right monarchs of russia.

now let's assume that during the reign of nicholas 2nd (almost 2 centuries after elizabeth started ruling) a descendant of ivan the 5th had showed up and claimed the throne. do you think that even the most monarchist and traditionalist of people would have accepted his claim? even if it was - by blood - right?

there is a statute of limitation on this thing. if a dinasty is accepted by the people - and they do well by them - no-one starts thinking of alternatives.

There are always some people thinking of alternatives. There are people thinking of alternatives (the Jacobites) with regard to who should be the monarch of Britain. Please note I am not a Jacobite.

[basilforever]

Borbon Fan, I believe it is unfair for you to label the marriages of three English Queens (Anne, Mary I and Mary II) a failure just because they failed to produce an heir. They all tried VERY VERY hard to do this. And Queen Anne and Queen Mary II both had multiple failed pregnancies, with poor Anne being pregnant 18 times or more.

If I can wade into these choppy waters.   If looked at from a historical, as opposed to modern view, and also not from a personal one of individual happiness, it's not unfair to label childless royal marriages as 'failures'. For all the years that AF tried to produce a male heir (something that wouldn't have been so stressful if there wasn't the Pauline Law, something I think was disastrous) if she hadn't and had only produced the 4 girls, it would have been labelled a failure. Never mind the personal happiness of the 2 or the fact that they had 4 healthy, lovely girls, it was the heir that was important. If she had produced no children at all, or Ena hadn't, or Queen Alexandra and so on, the marriages would've been labelled as 'failures' from a dynastic viewpoint.

Yes I can see you're right about this. Marriages that didn't produce an heir were failures from a DYNASTIC standpoint/viewpoint, but not necessarily from a personal happiness viewpoint.

[basilforever]

so?

edited to add: what i mean is, i have given you plenty of examples of male rulers who have caused corruption and disruption in their reigns. either they were insane, either they were plain incompetent. what exactly are you trying to prove?

as someone mentioned in this topic, charles has been much more criticized than diana. he's a male, she's a female. it has nothing to do with gender. it has to do with a thing called popularity. that is why diana was preferred and people closed their eyes to her affairs. there were so many rumours about elizabeth 1st... - she is still popular. catherine the great is still called the great and so is peter the great - despite imoral lives and affairs on both sides.

what exactly is your point? what exactly in your point proves that absolute monarchy based on male primogeniture (as you wrote at the beginning of this topic) is the best way?

Actually Ilyala, Borbon Fan has been arguing that absolute monarchy based on SALIC LAW is the best way. He does not support Primogeniture. I support Primogeniture which allows women to rule but gives preference to men (the British system).

[basilforever]

Grandduchessella, I commend you for being brave enough to post in this thread. As I'm sure you've seen, it's been quite a ride! 

The point that I believe BorbonFan was trying to make that was to a female monarch like Anne and Mary II, a childless marriage = unhappy marriage = they weren't worthy of the crown = one of his many examples of why no female should be a monarch. Similarly, Elizabeth I = no marriage = bad example = another example of why women shouldn't rule. The most cited example was Isabel II. Isabel II = adulteress = abdcated = Spanish monarchy temporarily done away with = all female rulers are or would be this way and therefore there should be no female rulers.

Thank you, Taren. I'm feeling rather brave today.    

I understood BF's point, I was trying to throw my own interpretation and perhaps steer the conversation back to a calmer tone. In that spirit, I need to remind people to keep personal comments out of it. Many of the posts contain really good historical information and well-laid out and thought out viewpoints. However, there are some posts that contain various pejoratives such as 'hysterical', 'rude', 'rubbish', 'nonsense' and so on--and that's after Tsaria posted a request to tone it down. If that goes on, the thread may have to be locked and that would be unfortunate since I think this is very interesting thread with lots of differing viewpoints. The thread has a bit of an inherent tendency to cause controversy since it touches on religion, gender, equality, politics and all those other goodies that raise people's tempers but which are inextricably linked to the topic since those factors all play a part in the Salic and primogeniture laws.  We just need to keep all viewpoints and posts civil.

That's exactly right, we could have had another King today, because Eddy and Helene could have had a child after their marriage in their ''year of happiness''. Eddy got over it though and was happy in his last year or so anyway. He was happy to marry May. This sort of thing wouldn't happen anymore anyway to answer your question. Helene was prevented from marrying Eddy not because of the law, but because her father and the Pope wouldn't let her renounce Catholicism and marry a ''heretic''. It was their closed minds that prevented Eddy and Helene from marrying, not the no Catholics law. Helene wanted to convert. Eddy and Helene not being able to marry was indeed a true shame. The Pope and a woman's father could no longer and would no longer legally be able to prevent her from marrying who she wants and from changing her religion.

Yes, but as ilyala pointed out, if there hadn't been the law, she wouldn't have been required to change her religion to marry Eddy and thus her father wouldn't have had objections on religious grounds. I think it's rather ridiculous in this day and age that the requirement is still there. If the conversation doesn't view too far off-topic, I think it's somewhat relevant since it deals with the succession.

I acknowledged Ilyala's point now. I don't think it's ridiculous at all that in this day and age the requirement is still there. I think it was ridiculous that the Pope and her father wouldn't let Helene convert, when SHE wanted to, so she could marry Eddy.

[TampaBay]

I think you will find, if the British public was asked which of the four offspring of HM Queen Elizabeth II they would prefer to see inherit the throne, the answer would be a resounding 'Princess Anne'. 

tsaria 

Americans (North & South) would also vote for Princess Anne because she is viewed as a hard worker, with a strong work ethic and a non nonsense approach to getting on with the job to be done!!! 

Almost identical to her mother, the unmatchable constitutional monarch QEII -"old Horse Drawers"!!! 

TampaBay

[basilforever]

OK,
Having now reviewed some TWELVE pages just overnight (CDT in the US), I have a headache, and some comments.

1.  Posters are taking comments FAR too personally.  Just because someone disagrees with you, is not a personal attack on you per se. SOME posters ARE making comments which ARE too much personal attack, however.  I'm not even going to begin to sort that all out, but I will suggest that if you DO think I'm talking about you, I probably am, and if you DO NOT think I'm talking about you, think again before you assume I'm not.

2.  One simply must separate Church and State in this discussion.  Historical reality is quite simply that while many laws in the last thousand years are proclaimed to be based on religious law or morals, the genuine truth is either they really were not and that was a pretext, or those laws were soon twisted by those in power for their own ends.

2b.  One really can not rely on the Judeo/Christian Bible 100% to support these arguments.  Another historical reality is, frankly, that people "pick and choose" which rules or statements in the Bible support their world view and conveniently ignore others.

A few short examples:
Leviticus:
4:14 When the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle of the congregation.
4:15 And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the LORD: and the bullock shall be killed before the LORD.
I don't recall seeing very many bullocks slain in church lately...

4:22 When a ruler hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty; 4:23 Or if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish: 4:24 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the LORD: it is a sin offering.
Are you paying attention Mr. Bush, Blair, Netanyahu, Annan et al??

4:27 And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty; 4:28 Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned.
Goats worldwide, be afraid...

With regard to all those animal sacrifice laws you posted from the Jewish Bible - I learnt in univeristy that they do not apply anymore because the Jews had to do them at their TEMPLE, and since they no longer have a Temple, they are no longer required to perform animal sacrifice. Such animal sacrifice laws wouldn't apply to Christians, even if the Temple was rebuilt.

[basilforever]

A successful monarch is nowadays the one who has the fewest press scandals, since the press vultures (most of them liberal, hence, by definition anti-monarchical) can't barely wait to rip apart any royal for the slightest mistake. Somebody said that to be a monarch in today's day and age is like walking a tight rope across the precipice: one wrong step and you're dead. One of the worst (if not the worst) scandal a royal can get embroiled in is sexual. A male monarch is better insulated by the higher tolerance of the public opinion, than a female monarch is against sexual scandals (adultery/fornication).

i have just given you the example of princess diana who fornicated a lot (god knows!) and with more people and yet is much more popular than her husband who was proven to fornicate basically with one person. and yet everyone supported diana against charles. although charles cheated because he loved, rather than out of revenge or for fun or whatever other reasons people sleep around for. he's male - she's female. your arguments are invalid.

As I wrote in a post a while back - I think Charles was blamed for his adulteries more than Diana because he was unfaithful FIRST in the marriage.

[basilforever]

Looking back on all this, I am so embarassed for taking this debate to such an extreme, and so personally. Thank you to all of the mods for not closing it, because like I said, it was a zoo. One good thing about all this, is that I think I'm going to change my major to history. Discussing these things was a hoot, and it was really enjoyable to learn so many new things and about so many people. If you have the time and patience and inclination to read this entire thread, you'll learn something.

All in all, there have been good and bad rulers of both genders in all monarchies. Some monarchies have lasted. Others were overthrown. During a woman's (Isabel II) reign in Spain (pardon the pun), the monarchy was abolished. It was brought back again and during the reign of a male (Alfonso XIII), it was abolished again. Once again, it was brought back, and now there is a king. In Russia, the monarchy was overthrown in the reign of a male (Nicholas II) and there's no sign of bringing it back. James II was deposed and William III and Mary II were brought in to reign on the condition that they do so jointly.

I don't believe that any of these rulers, good or bad, are considered to be so solely because of their gender. If Queen Victoria had instead been King Victor and accomplished the same things and the same things happen during his reign, this King Victor would likely still be very popular.

Something that I don't think was ever brought up, in all this "women will make the monarchies go away" debate is that maybe monarchies aren't the best ways to go anyway. I'm not saying one way or the other, but it is a fact that many people consider them to be outdated and that the change of succession allowing females in some countries precedence over their younger brothers in the succession was put there to appease critics who feel that monarchy is outdated. I'm an American and do not know everything, but I don't believe that equal primogeniture was enacted in Sweden and Norway because everyone felt that Victoria and Ingrid Alexandra were better people or more intelligent than their younger brothers. Wasn't it enacted because it just seemed more fair? I could very well be wrong, and if that's the case, set me straight! I'm here to learn.

Oh, and Tsaria, I can't believe it took so long for me to mention Edward VIII either. I blame sleep deprivation!

Well I thought that is why we are all here discussing royals and their history so much - because we thought monarchy is the best way to go. I think it is and it is the most interesting way to go. There has to be some form of succession chosen, and I choose primogeniture as the best method for all the reasons I have posted before. Maybe equal primogeniture was put there to appease critics who feel that monarchy is outdated. I think such critics should just be ignored as much as possible, not appeased. I understand to a degree those who say Salic Law is too old-fashioned and it should not exist anymore, but primogeniture is not unfair. Equal prrimogenutre is more unfair to the younger brothers who have lost their rightful positions as Crown Princes and future Kings. I feel sorry for them.

And for those who said that the British and American public would choose Anne out of Elizabeth II's four children to succeed her, I think that is very wrong. Charles SHOULD (and I think would) be chosen because he is the correct bloodline heir and has spent his whole life expecting to succeed his mother. He will be King Charles III and prove to be a successful King just as Edward VII did.

[basilforever]

I think you will find, if the British public was asked which of the four offspring of HM Queen Elizabeth II they would prefer to see inherit the throne, the answer would be a resounding 'Princess Anne'. 

tsaria 

Americans (North & South) would also vote for Princess Anne because she is viewed as a hard worker, with a strong work ethic and a non nonsense approach to getting on with the job to be done!!! 

Almost identical to her mother, the unmatchable constitutional monarch QEII -"old Horse Drawers"!!! 

TampaBay

Thankfully Americans have nothing to do with it as the British royal family are not THEIR royal family as they are the royal family of my country, (Australia). The Australian public I am confident would choose CHARLES, as he is the Prince of Wales, eldest son and eldest child. It would be unfair and illegal to skip him. Thankfully such a choice does not have to be made, it is not an elective position and Charles, unless he dies before his mother, will be King.

[Taren]

[Well I thought that is why we are all here discussing royals and their history so much - because we thought monarchy is the best way to go. I think it is and it is the most interesting way to go. There has to be some form of succession chosen, and I choose primogeniture as the best method for all the reasons I have posted before. Maybe equal primogeniture was put there to appease critics who feel that monarchy is outdated. I think such critics should just be ignored as much as possible, not appeased. I understand to a degree those who say Salic Law is too old-fashioned and it should not exist anymore, but primogeniture is not unfair. Equal prrimogenutre is more unfair to the younger brothers who have lost their rightful positions as Crown Princes and future Kings. I feel sorry for them.

And for those who said that the British and American public would choose Anne out of Elizabeth II's four children to succeed her, I think that is very wrong. Charles SHOULD (and I think would) be chosen because he is the correct bloodline heir and has spent his whole life expecting to succeed his mother. He will be King Charles III and prove to be a successful King just as Edward VII did.

I think we're here discussing this because 1. it's interesting and 2. because whether or not they are the best, monarchies do insist and therefore must have some sort of succession. Personally, I don't have a preference over equal or male primogeniture. Neither option ends up leaving anyone out and I think that's important. For instance, you believe in male line primogeniture as you have stated and I have taken note of. I understand why you do, and I personally like the fact that it doesn't leave anyone out. Let's say England had Salic succession for a moment and that Philip is king and Elizabeth his consort and Charles and Anne are their only children. Charles would succeed Philip has first born, but if Charles was deceased it isn't fair to exclude Anne. That's why primogeniture works. Like you said, the oldest would succeed -the oldest living child. We're totally arguing the same point here, but I'm just explaining why, like you, Primogeniture works for me. However, unlike you, I also see the sides for equal primogeniture. I just don't have a preference.

As for the fact that most people would vote Anne out of the four to be monarch, it has nothing to do with whether you think or know that Charles, as eldest, should succeed. It's personal preference. Everyone's opinion is different. Some might choose Andrew and one or two might pick Edward. I understand what you believe, don't get me wrong. But it still remains that the fact that Charles should succeed is your opinion. Opinions aren't right or wrong. They're just opinions. We don't even know that most people would choose Anne. It's a what if. If we weren't talking about primogeniture and just about which of the four would be the best monarch, I would say Anne. That's my opinion. She's tough as nails and if anyone tried to get her to abdicate because of a supposed adultery, I could see her fighting back!  
In addition, it's also pure speculation that Charles will be a successful king. It hasn't happened yet. It could go either way. He could be the best or the worst. I know that he wants to do a good job and has good intentions, so maybe it will work in his favor. Only time will tell. I just think it's kind of pointless to state opinions as fact, because not everyone is going to agree and not everyone feels the same way. Everyone agrees that Edward VIII abdicated. Not everyone would agree that he should have abdicated in the first place. Do you see what I mean? Debating history based on personal opinion rather than fact won't get us anywhere in this. You could make the most logical argument anyone ever made, but if I came back with "the monarchies should all be abolished and I should be made ruler of the world" that would be opinion and isn't based on anything. I know that you can back up primogeniture examples and that's really helpful. But saying it's just the best can't be proven.

[Caleb]

A successful monarch is nowadays the one who has the fewest press scandals, since the press vultures (most of them liberal, hence, by definition anti-monarchical) can't barely wait to rip apart any royal for the slightest mistake. Somebody said that to be a monarch in today's day and age is like walking a tight rope across the precipice: one wrong step and you're dead. One of the worst (if not the worst) scandal a royal can get embroiled in is sexual. A male monarch is better insulated by the higher tolerance of the public opinion, than a female monarch is against sexual scandals (adultery/fornication).

i have just given you the example of princess diana who fornicated a lot (god knows!) and with more people and yet is much more popular than her husband who was proven to fornicate basically with one person. and yet everyone supported diana against charles. although charles cheated because he loved, rather than out of revenge or for fun or whatever other reasons people sleep around for. he's male - she's female. your arguments are invalid.

As I wrote in a post a while back - I think Charles was blamed for his adulteries more than Diana because he was unfaithful FIRST in the marriage.

Never the less, I still feel that both share equal blame, though I wish things hadn't turned out so tragic for Diana.

[ilyala]

i would like to thank you tsaria for pointing out something i realized as i was walking home yesterday (all this discussion happened while i was at work, at home i hardly have time to surf the net). i got so lost in trying to prove borbonfan wrong (and i'm sorry if i got personal) that i forgot i don't need to. for the simple fact that he's picking one of the unlikeliest reasons for monarchy to be replaced there ever existed.

presuming that borbonfan is right, that a woman is much more open to criticism and that because of that a failed marriage would lead to much more slander if a woman is queen and all the arguments he brought are correct (although i still think he is not right because he himself wrote that a queen cannot be as openly criticized as one might like so she's not that vulnerable to critics after all).

in order for monarchy to be replaced the following things have to happen:

1. the people don't like the current monarch
2. the people want to dethrone the current monarch
3. the people hate the monarch so much that they don't see other alternative than switching to a republic (or some other form of government)

i think it is highly unlikely that this would happen ONLY because the monarch is sleeping around. i still stand by my opinion that the example borbonfan gave, isabel 2nd, would never have existed had she been an actually good monarch. catherine the great slept around a lot, god knows, she had illegitimate children, and yet she managed to stay on the throne and be called 'the great'. i don't know much about isabel, so i don't know how she handled it, but i think with catherine it was the fact that she didn't let her lovers rule her. she knew that she was the one ruling and who she was sleeping with was of no importance in state politics. she might have accepted advice from potemkin and military support from orlov, but in the end she was the one ruling.

now back to what i was saying. let's take the cases when monarchy was replaced by another form of government and study the causes:

the first case i can think of is the low countries that rebelled against the spanish rule. the ruler was philip 2nd, male. the causes were various: i suspect some degree of hate towards the idea of being ruled by a foreign nation was involved. also, i suspect they hated the fact that philip 2nd tried to impose catholicism on his protestant posessions. i don't think it had anything to to with philip being a philanderer. he had mistresses, but i don't think they were the reason the low countries rebelled. i am open to being proved wrong, borbonfan, if you have proof to the contrary.

then there was the english revolution. i'm sure we all know what happened then. charles 1st - male - tried to rule as an absolute monarch and the english wouldn't have it. there was also the religious aspect of charles being an anglican with a catholic wife while the nation was turning more and more towards protestantism. i am absolutely sure that charles had no mistress *ever*. it is a documented fact that his marriage was an extremely happy one and that he had an exemplary family life. there is no way this revolution had anything to do with him sleeping around.

then there was the french revolution. i suspect the reasons for it were of a social nature: the king was living in a very rich environment while the people were starving. the economical crisis was getting from bad to worse, the country was deeply in debt and the king was too weak to do anything about it. here i can relate this revolution not to louis 16th but rather to louis 15th who indeed slept around and had the louzy habbit of giving castles and expensive gifts to his mistresses. if you want, we can interpret this as a revolution that was *rushed* by the image of decadence that louis 15th had. however, i strongly believe that had the french been doing well they wouldn't have given a damn about it. they didn't care about henry 4th's 40 mistresses. no-one ever rebelled against louis 15th, not the way they rebelled against louis 16th. why? because as bad as it was louis 15th (i'm getting lost among too many louis  ) managed to have some kind of control and he managed to maintain some kind of popularity. louis 16th prefered his not so royal hobbies (like carpentry), he had no idea about ruling and he pretty much lost the handle on the situation.

end of part one

[ilyala]

part 2:

then there was the isabel 2nd situation. i would like to point out, as taren did, that the spanish, no matter how much they hated isabel, went back to monarchy again, after a while. that means that she didn't ruin things for the system, rather than for herself. we all know the story of alfonso 12th and 13th. and the last one was dethroned and, again, spain went back to monarchy with king juan carlos. i'd say this country knows what it wants and it wants monarchy, isabel 2nd or not.

the first world war saw a lot of monarchies fall. there was the russian one: nicholas 2nd. male. why? i'd say it was pretty much the same reasons as the french revolution: he was an unfit tsar, the country was doing really bad and of course they turned against the system. i'm sure we all know that nicholas deeply loved his wife and, like charles 1st of england, he had an exemplary family life. i dare you to try and find any proof that the russian revolution had anything to do with adultery, anyone's. nicholas' father, alexander was also a faithful husband. the most recent proof of unfaithfullness came from his grandfather, alexander 2nd. he died in 1881. do you really think the people would have waited 36 years to rebel against a dead guy's infidelities? don't think so.

the other monarchies that were lost after the 1st world war were all on the losing side: germany and austria and, if you want, turkey. i think it's pretty obvious what happened there: the country was doing bad, had lost a great war, had lots of damages to repair and on top of that they had to pay the winning countries to help them repair their damages. who do we blame? why, the monarch, of course, he was the one who started the war and couldn't win it! let's bring him down! i am open to being proved that any of these things had anything to do with failed marriages.

the 2nd world war? pretty much the same situation. romania, yugoslavia, greece, bulgaria... they all lost because of communism. in romania the monarch was very popular DESPITE (i'm not yelling, i'm emphasizing) carol 2nd's, indeed, failed marriage. carol was replaced (yes he had a louzy image, and was dethroned), however the monarchy survived and his son, michael, was immensly popular. he was dethroned because the communists didn't accept monarchy as a system. same goes for all the other countries i mentioned. oh and by the way, all these monarchs... were male. just like the ones dethroned after the 1st world war.

if you want we can talk about dethroned monarchs too (that were just replaced with other monarchs rather than replaced with another form of government). and we shall see that: a. most of them are male. b. a very small percent of them were dethroned because of marital infidelities. c. they were all doing bad jobs as monarchs and the b. point, when valid, only strengthened the populations' determination to dethrone him rather than cause it.

i am now expecting to be showed why borbonfan places so much importance on monarch's failed (or not) marriage. i think i have made my point clear.

edited to add:  i forgot the american revolution. male monarch, completely faithful to his wife (they had 15 children or so), exemplary family life, went crazy, true, but long after the revolution... i think we can agree that it has nothing to do with anyone's married life.

[basilforever]

[Well I thought that is why we are all here discussing royals and their history so much - because we thought monarchy is the best way to go. I think it is and it is the most interesting way to go. There has to be some form of succession chosen, and I choose primogeniture as the best method for all the reasons I have posted before. Maybe equal primogeniture was put there to appease critics who feel that monarchy is outdated. I think such critics should just be ignored as much as possible, not appeased. I understand to a degree those who say Salic Law is too old-fashioned and it should not exist anymore, but primogeniture is not unfair. Equal prrimogenutre is more unfair to the younger brothers who have lost their rightful positions as Crown Princes and future Kings. I feel sorry for them.

And for those who said that the British and American public would choose Anne out of Elizabeth II's four children to succeed her, I think that is very wrong. Charles SHOULD (and I think would) be chosen because he is the correct bloodline heir and has spent his whole life expecting to succeed his mother. He will be King Charles III and prove to be a successful King just as Edward VII did.

I think we're here discussing this because 1. it's interesting and 2. because whether or not they are the best, monarchies do insist and therefore must have some sort of succession. Personally, I don't have a preference over equal or male primogeniture. Neither option ends up leaving anyone out and I think that's important. For instance, you believe in male line primogeniture as you have stated and I have taken note of. I understand why you do, and I personally like the fact that it doesn't leave anyone out. Let's say England had Salic succession for a moment and that Philip is king and Elizabeth his consort and Charles and Anne are their only children. Charles would succeed Philip has first born, but if Charles was deceased it isn't fair to exclude Anne. That's why primogeniture works. Like you said, the oldest would succeed -the oldest living child. We're totally arguing the same point here, but I'm just explaining why, like you, Primogeniture works for me. However, unlike you, I also see the sides for equal primogeniture. I just don't have a preference.

As for the fact that most people would vote Anne out of the four to be monarch, it has nothing to do with whether you think or know that Charles, as eldest, should succeed. It's personal preference. Everyone's opinion is different. Some might choose Andrew and one or two might pick Edward. I understand what you believe, don't get me wrong. But it still remains that the fact that Charles should succeed is your opinion. Opinions aren't right or wrong. They're just opinions. We don't even know that most people would choose Anne. It's a what if. If we weren't talking about primogeniture and just about which of the four would be the best monarch, I would say Anne. That's my opinion. She's tough as nails and if anyone tried to get her to abdicate because of a supposed adultery, I could see her fighting back!  
In addition, it's also pure speculation that Charles will be a successful king. It hasn't happened yet. It could go either way. He could be the best or the worst. I know that he wants to do a good job and has good intentions, so maybe it will work in his favor. Only time will tell. I just think it's kind of pointless to state opinions as fact, because not everyone is going to agree and not everyone feels the same way. Everyone agrees that Edward VIII abdicated. Not everyone would agree that he should have abdicated in the first place. Do you see what I mean? Debating history based on personal opinion rather than fact won't get us anywhere in this. You could make the most logical argument anyone ever made, but if I came back with "the monarchies should all be abolished and I should be made ruler of the world" that would be opinion and isn't based on anything. I know that you can back up primogeniture examples and that's really helpful. But saying it's just the best can't be proven.

I think saying Primogeniture is the best for Britain can be proven, but I don't feel like bothering to try to do it.

Even if Charles, William, Harry, Andrew died, then Anne would still be nowhere near becoming Queen. Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward and Louise are all ahead of her, and that's the way it should be.

If Anne was Queen, we would have Prince Consort Tim? I don't like that. But it's never going to happen.