Salic Law, Primogeniture and Equal Primogeniture

[basilforever]

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

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.

[ilyala]

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.

but how far back can you go with this? cause if you go far enough you should replace denmark's monarch because charles 9th was not actually the rightful heir to the throne.

and you should replace the swedish monarch too because bernadotte had no actual blood relation with the monarch he succeeded.

there was a documentary on the discovery channel that meant to prove that george 3rd had a legal marriage before his actual queen and he had three children out of that marriage. let's presume it was right? would anyone replace the queen now, because two centuries ago george married someone else? no. no-one would support them.

no-one would support the rights of the descendants of ivan 5th's, even if they have more right to the romanov throne than the descendants of peter the great, based on the succession law that was at the time. hell, all the descendants of peter the great came from an adulterous relationship he had with a latvian servant! does that mean that if the russian throne still existed today anyone would accept his brother's descendants as tsars?

it doesn't work that way. sometimes you can't apply a law literally from the time of christ till now. you start applying it when you issue it.

[ilyala]

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.

true but if the law hadn't existed this wouldn't have been an issue. she wouldn't have had to change her religion to marry.

[basilforever]

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.

but how far back can you go with this? cause if you go far enough you should replace denmark's monarch because charles 9th was not actually the rightful heir to the throne.

and you should replace the swedish monarch too because bernadotte had no actual blood relation with the monarch he succeeded.

there was a documentary on the discovery channel that meant to prove that george 3rd had a legal marriage before his actual queen and he had three children out of that marriage. let's presume it was right? would anyone replace the queen now, because two centuries ago george married someone else? no. no-one would support them.

no-one would support the rights of the descendants of ivan 5th's, even if they have more right to the romanov throne than the descendants of peter the great, based on the succession law that was at the time. hell, all the descendants of peter the great came from an adulterous relationship he had with a latvian servant! does that mean that if the russian throne still existed today anyone would accept his brother's descendants as tsars?

it doesn't work that way. sometimes you can't apply a law literally from the time of christ till now. you start applying it when you issue it.

Yes there are many complications when you go back. The situation with each monarchy is different. I don't know about the complex bloodlines of all monarchies in detail. Just the British one really.

But to address your questions:

You must mean Christian IX of Denmark. I have done a lot of reasearch ito the danish royal genalogy and I came to the conclusion that Christian IX was the rightful heir to the throne and he and his wife were the rightful monarchs. I would want no one else but Margrethe the Second to be the rightful monarch of Denmark at the moment.

Bernadotte was the legal heir of his adopted father, I accept no one but the current Swedish King as the rightful heir coming down from the first Bernadotte king. I don't know enough about it before then to say who should be on the throne from another line of the last non-Bernadotte king's family.

George III was never married to anyone but his Queen Charlotte. Allegations that he married Hannah Lightfoot and had children with her are absolutely wrong and impossible. The current Queen is the right monarch descending from George I.

I don't know enough about the Russian bloodlines and Ivan the fifth, etc. to comment.

[ilyala]

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.

[grandduchessella]

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.

[Taren]

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.

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.

That was the Reader's Digest version of this thread, for anyone just tuning in.

Nevermind the fact that many male monarchs also never had children or were unfaithful or were just all around scoundrels. It's the women that should be held accountable. Me, personally, I don't agree with this assessment.

[ilyala]

however, borbonfan was trying to prove that women rulers have failed marriages and those failed marriages cause the corruption of their people. i don't think that these kind of failed marriages cause any corruption. it's the failed marriages of the catherine the great - peter 3rd type (she kills him and then has many lovers) that corrupt. and i have a given a great deal of examples of such failed marriages of male rulers that caused just as much corruption as the women ruler's failed marriages.

borbonfan argumented that the corruption was greater to a woman ruler because it was much more disturbing. that there is an example of a woman ruler that was dethroned for her adulteries, while there's no example of such male ruler. however, i think it is a weak argument for two reasons:

a. the fact that people were not bothered by the male ruler's adultery doesn't mean it didn't corrupt them. actually, it means that they were already so corrupted before the monarch that they accepted adultery and were not bothered by it. -> when sin becomes  common and accepted, that is a sign of corruption.

b. the fact that people were bothered enough by a woman ruler's adultery means exact the contrary of a. means they were still righteous enough to care. so isabel's adultery in the end led to people becoming more virtuous in contrast.

everything being argumented from borbonfan's "pure christian" point of view, of course, to prove that male primogeniture is not necessarilly the best succession type.  

[BorbonFan]

however, borbonfan was trying to prove that women rulers have failed marriages and those failed marriages cause the corruption of their people.

Please, stop twisting my words! It's the umpteenth time I have to repeat myself: the poll of failed vs. happy marriages is meant to prove my point that women monarchs are more likely statistically speaking to have failed marriages than happy ones, failures which render them prone to adultery and, thus, exposed to press/political attacks, which, as we saw in Spain, can lead even to the toppling of the Monarchy. This inclination to failed marriages is due in my opinion to the fact that it is extremeley hard, if not impossible, for a normal man to always be one step behind a woman, even more so behind a powerful woman ruler. It's simply not natural for men to accept to always be trumped by women! Once, twice, sure, but not all the time. It's the law of testosterone vs. estrogen.

@ Taren: Please, stop twisting my words, you too! In your above summary, you claim my point about adultering women was that "all female rulers are or would be this way and therefore there should be no female rulers." I never claimed that all women rulers are/would be adulterers, but that statistically speaking they are more likely to have failed marriages or an impossibility to contract acceptable marriages, for reasons above explained, failure which renders them prone to adultery/fornication, the consequences of which I outlined above.

Having repeated myself yet again, given the evidence so far (e.g. the reactions of the press/the politicians in two most prominent adultery cases, Isabel II vs. Edward VIII), I can say that female-led Monarchies are more exposed to harsher attacks on adultery than male-led Monarchies, rendering the former more likely to fall than the latter. This is, in my opinion, due to the higher public tolerance of male adultery vs. female adultery, for a variety of religious, biological, old common law reasons, which have all shaped public opinion across centuries and of which I talked a bit on another thread, the most important being that Jesus Christ only allowed the man to divorce an adultering woman, but not viceversa.

God bless!
Borbon Fan

[ilyala]

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?

[BorbonFan]

so?

So, since women-led Monarchies are more likely to be toppled than male-led ones, given the great difficulty of women monarchs to contract successful (if any) marriages, and since I am a monarchist who wants to preserve the Monarchy, I cannot support any succession law except for the Salic.

God bless!
Borbon Fan

[grandduchessella]

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.

[ilyala]

so?

So, since women-led Monarchies are more likely to be toppled than male-led ones, given the great difficulty of women monarchs to contract successful (if any) marriages, and since I am a monarchist who wants to preserve the Monarchy, I cannot support any succession law except for the Salic.

God bless!
Borbon Fan

? what does a successful marriage have to do with being a successful monarch?

edward 7th had an unhappy marriage. he is considered a successful monarch
charles 1st had a happy marriage. he is an unsuccessful monarch.
females:
elizabeth 1st had no marriage and was subjected to many rumours with the earl of leicester and with the earl of essex - she is considered a successful monarch. she was extremely popular with her people, yeah they gossiped - but in the end they loved her.

the monarchy will remain as long as the monarch does good. and a monarch who is successful is considered so based on whether he did good or not.

[Forum Admin]

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...

5:14 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
5:17 And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.
5:18 And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him.
6:8 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 6:9 Command Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering, because of the burning upon the altar all night unto the morning, and the fire of the altar shall be burning in it.
I'd buy Ram futures if I were you...

7:22 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 7:23 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Ye shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat.
7:24 And the fat of the beast that dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn with beasts, may be used in any other use: but ye shall in no wise eat of it.
Uh oh... Sell that McDonald's stock...

11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
Ditto for Farmer John sausage...

11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Ditto Red Lobster...

16:29 And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you: 16:30 For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.
16:31 It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever.
Hmmm, I don't see July 10 on the calendar of National Holidays...

20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Gear up those Capital Punishment centers...

[BorbonFan]

so?

So, since women-led Monarchies are more likely to be toppled than male-led ones, given the great difficulty of women monarchs to contract successful (if any) marriages, and since I am a monarchist who wants to preserve the Monarchy, I cannot support any succession law except for the Salic.

God bless!
Borbon Fan

? what does a successful marriage have to do with being a successful monarch?

edward 7th had an unhappy marriage. he is considered a successful monarch
charles 1st had a happy marriage. he is an unsuccessful monarch.
females:
elizabeth 1st had no marriage and was subjected to many rumours with the earl of leicester and with the earl of essex - she is considered a successful monarch. she was extremely popular with her people, yeah they gossiped - but in the end they loved her.

the monarchy will remain as long as the monarch does good. and a monarch who is successful is considered so based on whether he did good or not.

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).