Salic Law, Primogeniture and Equal Primogeniture

[ilyala]

i'm thinking that most people think that men are more inclined to rule than women. in a way that is true. you can check that by checking the statistics of politicians in a country. there are more men then women. however, that does not mean women wouldn't do a good job. it just means that they are less inclined towards the field.

i have nothing against any system of succession. i do however profoundly dislike affirmations of the "women can't rule, they shouldn't be allowed to" type. women are as capable to rule as men but just like most men don't like cooking, most women don't like politics. it's as simple as that. and i think a woman should be granted the chance to work as a politician, if she wants to take it.

[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.

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

I agree both share equal blame, but I was pointing out why Diana was not blamed so much for her adultery. It wasn't just because she was more popular that Charles was viewed as worse that her, but because Diana was viewed as the one who was cheated on first, and I think that was the case.

[basilforever]

i'm thinking that most people think that men are more inclined to rule than women. in a way that is true. you can check that by checking the statistics of politicians in a country. there are more men then women. however, that does not mean women wouldn't do a good job. it just means that they are less inclined towards the field.

i have nothing against any system of succession. i do however profoundly dislike affirmations of the "women can't rule, they shouldn't be allowed to" type. women are as capable to rule as men but just like most men don't like cooking, most women don't like politics. it's as simple as that. and i think a woman should be granted the chance to work as a politician, if she wants to take it.

I think because you think it's wrong to ban women from ruling you must have something against the Salic system. I have something against it as well - my favourite monarch of Britain is Queen Victoria. I think some women have done great jobs as monarchs, and they should be ALLOWED to reign/rule but I don't think they should take precedence over men (their younger brothers). But as I think someone pointed out a while back - who cares? None of us have any impact on succession laws! And just because I'd like the succession laws of Belgium, Sweden, Norway to go back from equal primogeniture to primogeniture, doesn't mean I can do anything about it!

[ilyala]

i can see where you're coming from and in a way i agree with you. but unlike you i see nothing wrong with any system, except the salic one. as long as it is understood and followed (with the possibility to back out/dethrone unfit monarchs) it should work.

[basilforever]

i can see where you're coming from and in a way i agree with you. but unlike you i see nothing wrong with any system, except the salic one. as long as it is understood and followed (with the possibility to back out/dethrone unfit monarchs) it should work.

Equal primogeniture has never actually HAPPENED. The first time it will happen will almost without doubt be when Victoria of Sweden ''takes over'' after her father instead of her brother Carl Philip. We shall have to wait and see quite a while whether equal primogeniture works because we haven't seen it actually happen yet. Personally I don't think it will work, but who knows? Well just for ME, it won't work because I won't accept it as right! Remember that what is ''unfit'' for a monarch to be is purely subjective, and people will always have different opinons about a monarch's performance.

[ilyala]

if she is loved by the people, and i understand she is, it will work. and since they have had female monarchs before, i don't think it takes that much to get used to...

[Marlene]

I can assure you that as a Lutheran I am hardly a lapsed Christian ... 

I don't really understand your logic of how constitutional monarchies are anti-christian.

I have detalied and reposted my initial message. Hope this helps explain my views better.

@ jehan: As I said, it was never the good Christians, but the lapsed ones (heretic Protestants) and, especially, the anti-Christians (atheists, peoples of other faiths, satanists) who were revolutionary. A good Christian is fobidden from being revolutionary (see my message on "The overthrow of the British Monarchy"). As to why Karl Marx was a satanist, see this: http://forerunner.com/predvestnik/X0013_Karl_Marx.html

[BorbonFan]

Sorry for this off-topic message, but I do want to clarify that I am not a bigot as some would have me painted here and to explain the reasons why I do not seek to proselytize or impose my religious/moral views on anybody.

Marlene, there is a single Truth, a single Church as God is one and He is never changing. Therefore, there are such things as heresies, as departures from Truth. In an absolute sense, heretics are lapsed Christians, as heresies are distorted Truth. Now, being a heretic doesn't automatically condemn one to Hell, unlike what Protestants would have us believe, "thanks" to the heresy of predestination. Christ is impartial and judges each of us according to their own conscience (Romans 2:10-15) unless born and raised Orthodox: if one never got the chance to learn the unaltered Truth (i.e. Orthodox Christianity), he or she is not at fault and so will be judged according to his/her conscience. In the Orthodox understanding, even a canibal amazonian or an atheist can go to Heaven, if he or she lives up to the conscience formed in him/her in his/her youth. This is the reason why the Orthodox Church, unlike the Protestants who want to save all non-Christians from Hell, sees proselytism as un-necessary.

God bless!
Borbon Fan

[basilforever]

if she is loved by the people, and i understand she is, it will work. and since they have had female monarchs before, i don't think it takes that much to get used to...

Well it might take some getting used to for those that would rather see her brother on the throne.

I myself will never get used to Equal Primogeniture when it excludes the eldest son of a King from his rightful place.

Maybe she won't be so ''loved by the people'' if we have Prince Consort Daniel Westling. Ugh!

[Taren]

if she is loved by the people, and i understand she is, it will work. and since they have had female monarchs before, i don't think it takes that much to get used to...

Well it might take some getting used to for those that would rather see her brother on the throne.

I myself will never get used to Equal Primogeniture when it excludes the eldest son of a King from his rightful place.

Maybe she won't be so ''loved by the people'' if we have Prince Consort Daniel Westling. Ugh!

I don't understand the problem with Daniel Westling. Is he a bad guy? All I've ever heard about him is that he doesn't care for the spotlight. Seems like a Tim Lawrence type. Mette-Marit is accepted as the future queen consort of Norway despite a checkered past and Kate Middleton with a virtually nonexistant past seems accepted as a possible wife for William. All three were born commoners, so what's the issue with Daniel?

[basilforever]

Well Taren perhaps a lot of people just feel that a Prince Consort should be more respectable and noble than a Queen Consort in order to justify their position. Don't ask me to explain why, It's too complicated. A gym owning Prince Consort? Just doesn't sound good enough.

As regards the other two you mentioned. There's no point not accepting Mette Marit as the future Queen Consort of Norway, she is married to the Crown Prince and they have two children. What's done is done. And personally I like her and her Nordic grace and beauty.

I don't accept Kate Middleton as a possible wife for William. I see no reason to even consider it as it is his first serious girlfriend. Prince William will probably not get married for many years. Let's not get off topic and start discussing all these people.

[Marlene]

You may not be a bigot - but you are certainly a confused Christian ... there is indeed on church of Jesus Christ throughout the entire world - --- demoninations are not churches ... the Church is not the steeple,  the church -- well, all CHRISTIANS are the Church.  We are saved solely by faith ... justification by faith alone -  Grace is a free Gift from God ...     Scripture says nothing about demoninations -- there is no Orthodox church in Scripture - nor is there a Lutheran church in Scripture ...

You obviously know very little about Christianity and theology and Protestantism  ... Lutherans who are the real Protestants do not believe in predestination.  Perhaps you should read the Word - because the answer is solely in the Word - and nowhere else.
Being saved is largely a done deal -- Jesus died so that we may live ... You and I were saved on that Cross more than 2000 years ago in Jerusalem.





he Scripture

Sorry for this off-topic message, but I do want to clarify that I am not a bigot as some would have me painted here and to explain the reasons why I do not seek to proselytize or impose my religious/moral views on anybody.

Marlene, there is a single Truth, a single Church as God is one and He is never changing. Therefore, there are such things as heresies, as departures from Truth. In an absolute sense, heretics are lapsed Christians, as heresies are distorted Truth. Now, being a heretic doesn't automatically condemn one to Hell, unlike what Protestants would have us believe, "thanks" to the heresy of predestination. Christ is impartial and judges each of us according to their own conscience (Romans 2:10-15) unless born and raised Orthodox: if one never got the chance to learn the unaltered Truth (i.e. Orthodox Christianity), he or she is not at fault and so will be judged according to his/her conscience. In the Orthodox understanding, even a canibal amazonian or an atheist can go to Heaven, if he or she lives up to the conscience formed in him/her in his/her youth. This is the reason why the Orthodox Church, unlike the Protestants who want to save all non-Christians from Hell, sees proselytism as un-necessary.

God bless!
Borbon Fan

[BorbonFan]

You may not be a bigot - but you are certainly a confused Christian ... there is indeed on church of Jesus Christ throughout the entire world - --- demoninations are not churches ... the Church is not the steeple,  the church -- well, all CHRISTIANS are the Church.  We are saved solely by faith ... justification by faith alone -  Grace is a free Gift from God ...     Scripture says nothing about demoninations -- there is no Orthodox church in Scripture - nor is there a Lutheran church in Scripture ...

You obviously know very little about Christianity and theology and Protestantism  ... Lutherans who are the real Protestants do not believe in predestination.  Perhaps you should read the Word - because the answer is solely in the Word - and nowhere else.
Being saved is largely a done deal -- Jesus died so that we may live ... You and I were saved on that Cross more than 2000 years ago in Jerusalem.

he Scripture

Sorry for this off-topic message, but I do want to clarify that I am not a bigot as some would have me painted here and to explain the reasons why I do not seek to proselytize or impose my religious/moral views on anybody.

Marlene, there is a single Truth, a single Church as God is one and He is never changing. Therefore, there are such things as heresies, as departures from Truth. In an absolute sense, heretics are lapsed Christians, as heresies are distorted Truth. Now, being a heretic doesn't automatically condemn one to Hell, unlike what Protestants would have us believe, "thanks" to the heresy of predestination. Christ is impartial and judges each of us according to their own conscience (Romans 2:10-15) unless born and raised Orthodox: if one never got the chance to learn the unaltered Truth (i.e. Orthodox Christianity), he or she is not at fault and so will be judged according to his/her conscience. In the Orthodox understanding, even a canibal amazonian or an atheist can go to Heaven, if he or she lives up to the conscience formed in him/her in his/her youth. This is the reason why the Orthodox Church, unlike the Protestants who want to save all non-Christians from Hell, sees proselytism as un-necessary.

God bless!
Borbon Fan

I guess I should have been a bit clearer about what I meant by "lapsed Christians." In an absolute sense, I repeat, all non-Orthodox are lapsed/heretics from the viewpoint of the Orthodox Church - the only true Church - to Which they do not belong, for to say otherwise is to admit their heresies as Truth. In a relative sense, though, each Christian, lapsed or not, Orthodox or not, within his/her denomination, can be devout or lapsed, depending on how well he/she lives up to the respective denomination's understanding of Christ. You may very well be a devout Christian in this relative sense, living your life up to the Lutheran teachings to the utmost, yet in an absolute sense still remain a lapsed one/heretic, as long as you do not convert to Orthodoxy. But again, I cannot emphasize this enough, this does not bar the non-Orthodox or even non-Christians from salvation, as Romans 2:10-15 teaches us.

As to my understanding of the Bible, I am not at all confused, on the contrary. However, I do not wish to continue this clearly off-topic discussion here. Perhaps on another thread, although I doubt such a theological debate is within the confines of the royalty theme of the forum.

God bless!
Borbon Fan

[grandduchessella]

Please let's keep it on topic and not have another diversion into theology. Anyone wishing to take up that discussion with another poster, please keep it to PMs. Many thanks.

[Taren]

Has King Carl Gustaf ever publicly stated how he feels about equal primogeniture or if he thinks his son should be heir apparent? Do we know if Prince Carl Philip has ever stated one way or the other how he feels? Have any royals ever spoken publicly about how they view this issue?