Salic Law, Primogeniture and Equal Primogeniture

[basilforever]

No the best monarchs are not always women. There have been some good ones and some not so good ones. Victoria is my favourite. There have been plenty of great Kings too.

The Emperor of Japan's second son and his wife Princess Kiko now have a baby boy. He will one day be emperor, provided he survives. The Japanese would not just have changed the succession laws necessarily, it is a very complicated and difficult process over there and the lines of succession have never travelled through a female before, even though there have been empresses. Aiko now does not really have a chance of being Empress. That's fine with me. I'm glad Japan are now securely able to stick to their traditional laws and practices with regards to their monarchy's succession. I don't think Spain will adopt equal primogeniture, I think they will stick with primogeniture, at least I very much hope so. Norway should reverse their changing of the laws and let Prince Sverre Magnus succeed his father Crown Prince Haakon as King.

[ilyala]

I for one do not believe that the alleged adultery of the Tsarina with Rasputin mattered more than the famines and the war casualties.

aren't you the same person i argued with for pages and pages about how a adultery and failed marriages lead to the ruin of the monarchy? make up your mind!

[BorbonFan]

I for one do not believe that the alleged adultery of the Tsarina with Rasputin mattered more than the famines and the war casualties.

aren't you the same persons i argued with for pages and pages about how a adultery and failed marriages lead to the ruin of the monarchy? make up your mind!

Yes, I am. My argument, though, pertained to the adultery of a Queen regnant in her own right, not a consort like Tsarina. Read more carefully!

[ilyala]

and you never answered me: what makes you think that THIS is the ultimate reason why monarchies will fall? why is THIS the reason that worries you rather than weak monarchs, stupid monarchs, crazy monarchs, who in the past have proven to be the reason the monarchies failed (where they failed).

there was one dethroned queen, due to her adultery. and yet the monarchy in spain didn't fail, it was restored. and after alfonso 13th was dethroned, it was restored. again. which means that queen isabel's adultery did not lead to the failure of monarchy in spain. so why are you so worried about it? what convinces you that this is such an important matter?

[BorbonFan]

and you never answered me: what makes you think that THIS is the ultimate reason why monarchies will fall? why is THIS the reason that worries you rather than weak monarchs, stupid monarchs, crazy monarchs, who in the past have proven to be the reason the monarchies failed (where they failed).

there was one dethroned queen, due to her adultery. and yet the monarchy in spain didn't fail, it was restored. and after alfonso 13th was dethroned, it was restored. again. which means that queen isabel's adultery did not lead to the failure of monarchy in spain. so why are you so worried about it? what convinces you that this is such an important matter?

I already gave you the answer as to why the sexual/private life aspects and not others: because we live in an era in which the press makes or breaks a monarch and the Monarchy through scandals surrounding the life of the monarch. A sexual scandal is one of the most if not the most damaging type of scandals. We have seen the press and the political class reliant on it taking down two monarchs, Isabel II and Edward VIII, for similar sexual/private life reasons, plus a Monarchy, the Spanish one. You can go back just a few pages and find my detailed answers.

[ilyala]

edward 8th was male. so i don't think we should include him, based upon your standards.

however, i must say, i find it most peculiar the fact that this is the reason you support salic law. as i pointed out, before, monarchy in spain has been restored, so you cannot account isabel's personal life as the reason spanish monarchy failed because the spanish monarchy did not fail. in case you didn't know, we still have monarchy in spain. and the english monarchy did not fail due to edward 8th's personal life, although that doesn't count because you're only worried about queens' personal lives.

however, the history has proven that monarchies failed because of bad systems, weak monarchs, stupid monarchs, crazy monarchs. monarchies never failed because of adulteries (and please stop using spain as an example, i repeat the monarchy was restored soon after that, it really does not count). so i am amazed at how you could pick on this particular reason to support the salic law. it's one of the unlikeliest reasons a monarchy should fail. and i wonder why you think it's important. because history has proven it's not. (for a list of failed monarchies, check out page 19, i made it and i wrote the reasons too)

[BorbonFan]

edward 8th was male. so i don't think we should include him, based upon your standards.

however, i must say, i find it most peculiar the fact that this is the reason you support salic law. as i pointed out, before, monarchy in spain has been restored, so you cannot account isabel's personal life as the reason spanish monarchy failed because the spanish monarchy did not fail. in case you didn't know, we still have monarchy in spain. and the english monarchy did not fail due to edward 8th's personal life, although that doesn't count because you're only worried about queens' personal lives.

however, the history has proven that monarchies failed because of bad systems, weak monarchs, stupid monarchs, crazy monarchs. monarchies never failed because of adulteries (and please stop using spain as an example, i repeat the monarchy was restored soon after that, it really does not count). so i am amazed at how you could pick on this particular reason to support the salic law. it's one of the unlikeliest reasons a monarchy should fail. and i wonder why you think it's important. because history has proven it's not. (for a list of failed monarchies, check out page 19, i made it and i wrote the reasons too)

Your answer with its recourse to history is beside the point: those historical conditions in which a weak king with an incompetent rule could drag the monarchy down with him no longer apply today. We now live in the modern era, one in which kings - weak or not - no longer rule, but are mere figureheads - they solely reign.

The point you missed which I was trying to make with the adultery issue is: which Monarchy survives better in the modern era (i.e. the era of the press).

Do you acknowledge or not that the press has the biggest influence on the support of the people for the Monarchy in this day and age?

[ilyala]

yes, and that press made diana the princess of hearts. diana was an adulterer. a heavy one. i know of at least three relationships she had outside her marriage (while her much blamed husband had only one or at least a proved one). the press didn't care. the people didn't care. they knew all about it and yet diana was extremely popular.

as you pointed out in a previous mail, a queen has the law of 'lese majeste' to defend her. the press cannot write as much about the queen than they did on princess diana. so you have a princess, about whom everyone knew was an adulterer. and you have a queen about whom the press might not write because they are afraid of the particular law defending the monarch, so there will be rumours, but not many articles. the princess was hugely popular. why wouldn't the queen be?

[ChristineM]

BourbonFan

I am posting this publicly rather than make a personal appeal which I doubt would have much effect.

I am sure you do not mean to, but the way you address other members is nothing short of arrogant.   

Exhorting people to read YOUR posts properly is extremely rude.   Perhaps you are unaware that, what you think you write, and how it is interpreted by others, are two very different things.   In this I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I understand your views are strongly held, but that makes them more less valid than any others.   As Ilyala noted, you are very adept at not addressing questions which don't suit YOUR argument with responses like 'do not put words in my mouth' or to read your posts carefully.

Three moderators have found it necessary to call you to order in this thread.   To be honest, this moderator is getting thoroughly fed up with your high handedness and is not prepared to take much more.   You have been warned.   

You must respect the Forum and its members.

[BorbonFan]

yes, and that press made diana the princess of hearts. diana was an adulterer. a heavy one. i know of at least three relationships she had outside her marriage.

I am glad we agree on something important. The press can distort the reality very much as you well pointed out with the Diana example. That's why a monarch has to be very careful in what he or she does nowadays, for the slightest of mistakes, especially the worst kind - sexual -, can cost his or her public support and throne. Wouldn't you agree?

[BorbonFan]

BourbonFan

I am posting this publicly rather than make a personal appeal which I doubt would have much effect.

I am sure you do not mean to, but the way you address other members is nothing short of arrogant.   

Exhorting people to read YOUR posts properly is extremely rude.   Perhaps you are unaware that, what you think you write, and how it is interpreted by others, are two very different things.   In this I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I understand your views are strongly held, but that makes them more less valid than any others.   As Ilyala noted, you are very adept at not addressing questions which don't suit YOUR argument with responses like 'do not put words in my mouth' or to read your posts carefully.

Three moderators have found it necessary to call you to order in this thread.   To be honest, this moderator is getting thoroughly fed up with your high handedness and is not prepared to take much more.   You have been warned.   

You must respect the Forum and its members.

So I can be called in each and every way (e.g. "make up your mind!", "nonsense", "bizarre", etc.) - which is nothing short of a personal attack - while I cannot urge others to do something much less provocative as to read my posts more carefully?! I find this extremely discriminatory and unfair.

I officially ask that you recuse yourself from moderating me on this forum and leave it up to the other three moderators, since you cannot be impartial: you took very serious offense with the religious views of my Church and accused me of making stuff up, of bigotry, etc. all of which were proven untrue by my Church's official theological position.

If you are fair with yourself and everybody else on this forum, you will recuse yourself from moderating me.

Thank you and the rest of the Administrators in advance!
Borbon Fan

[ilyala]

no. because if the press wants to bring down a monarch they can make them look bad even if they are adulterers or not. they can always look on the bad side of what they're doing. they can always exaggerate their mistakes (and there will always be mistakes - we're only human and so are the monarchs) and make them look bad to the public. whether they are adulterers, or exaggerated virtuous people (queen victoria was hugely unpopular at first when she mourned for albert - she was made to look bad because she isolated herself and the press and the people interpreted that as indifference to her job), whether they make one little mistake or many big ones.

the press can make or break a monarch if it chooses to. whether the monarch is an adulterer or not. and again i go back to princess diana and prince charles - i personally think she was much more to blame and yet she always was favored by the press and therefor by the people. every little mistake prince charles did was picked on and judged while she got away with adultery and few ever commented on it. that is a distinct example of the press choosing sides, not necessarilly the right sides, and sticking to it. and then the one they are against is constantly made to look bad... because the press wanted to.

there is no person that makes no mistakes. not even a monarch. the only way to avoid the press destroying you for them is by having a good relationship with it. and it is my experience that women are better at human relations then men (which does in no way mean men are no good at it). and it is proven by the history of popular queens, that are much better remembered than the popular kings.

[BorbonFan]

Ok, I can see how the press would take sides regardless of the faults or merrits of a monarch. However, if given the juicy subject of an adultery, I doubt the press would ignore it.

Why would you say, though, the press takes sides? What is it after?

[ChristineM]

BourbonFan

You have gone too far.   I have travelled the extra mile with you.   Out of our thousands of members, you will be happy to know, nobody has caused so much ill will and ill feeling.   Nobody has had the audacity to tell a moderator to stop moderating.   

All you want is attention - and to be singled out for special attention at that.  So you will get special attention.

   

BourbonFan has left me with no choice - I am locking this thread.

I will discuss the situation with fellow moderators and decide where we go from there.

tsaria

[Forum Admin]

Borbon Fan, you seem to be unaware of one rule of this Forum. All moderators are "Viceroy" so to speak. They speak as if from me personally. Their decisions are as if made by me. They have my 100% support and authority.

You are out of line to question Tsaria on this point. This thread remains locked.

FA