Salic Law, Primogeniture and Equal Primogeniture

[ilyala]

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.

[BorbonFan]

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.

Nope, they are not. I am talking about monarchs, you gave me examples of princes. You need to come up with counter-examples chosen from amongst monarchs.

[ilyala]

you are just being picky because i'm right and you can't admit it. prince charles' right to succeed to the throne of england has been put to question after he divorced diana for this particular reason. because he is the head of the church of england that does not accept divorce. and just like his mother's uncle, edward 8th, he disregarded that, when he decided to divorce (like his uncle decided to marry a divorcee). the simple fact that there was a question (and there was, if you want i can look for it but i read newspapers - many - who asked that question) of skipping him and going straight to william when queen elizabeth dies shows that this kind of thing affects your image - male or female. and edward the 8th was deposed on a simmilar issue - and he was male.

that's the first thing. the second thing i kept on stating here is that no-one will depose a fornicating successful monarch for the simple reason that he is fornicating - adulterous - or whatever other term you might like to use. the best example i can think of recently is that of king juan carlos, who has admitted of his affairs, and yet they haven't affected his public image. diana was considered fit to be queen - even after numberless affairs with sportsmen and soldiers and other 'common' men. no-one even thought of replacing king edward the 7th - although he was notoriously unfaithful. what do these three people have in common? a good public image based not on their family lives but on their achievements as monarchs/princes.

diana was unfaithful but she was the 'princess of hearts'. she had numerous charities, she had numerous public engagements and no-one gave a damn about who she was sleeping with. however, had she been a lazy princess, sitting on her arse (excuse the expression) and saying 'wow this is so cool, let's party' people would have suddenly started to say 'she's so imoral, she doesn't give a damn about the people she's just out there partying and sleeping around' and *then* her affairs would have been an issue.

[BorbonFan]

The public opinion on anything or anybody, including Charles vs. Diana, is largely shaped by the press: whatever the majority current of opinion within the press is at one time, that's what prevails in the public opinion, too. The public opinion and the press, therefore, match their views pretty closely. The press can make and has made the most ridiculous accusations against Prince Charles, while using gloves with Diana, because they can do so with much more legal leeway than they dare do against a ruling monarch. When the press dares to accuse a monarch of anything as grave as they have accused Prince Charles of, the press better have solid proofs, or else they risk being punished for les-majeste. In the case of any other royal, however, there is no such crime of les-majeste, safe for, perhaps, the queen consort of a ruling king. 

That's why your example of whatever the press/public opinion attitude towards a prince is does not apply to the opinions towards a monarch. The standards of accuracy of opinions are way different in the two cases, thanks to the harshness of the laws protecting the person of the sovereign.

[ilyala]

well, a few pages back you said:

"My corrolary to this was that most of the Queens with failed marriages (except, say, Mary I, Mary II, and Ann of England) had lovers. They could get away with it hundreds of years ago, when the press didn't exist or wasn't free and the people throughout the country at large was, thus, uninformed, but they could definitely not get away with it in this day and age, with an all-powerful press (dis)informing everybody. A Queen with lovers would definitely bring shame on Herself and the institution, hastening the downfall of Monarchy."

and yet now you say:

"The press can make and has made the most ridiculous accusations against Prince Charles, while using gloves with Diana, because they can do so with much more legal leeway than they dare do against a ruling monarch. When the press dares to accuse a monarch of anything as grave as they have accused Prince Charles of, the press better have solid proofs, or else they risk being punished for les-majeste. In the case of any other royal, however, there is no such crime of les-majeste, safe for, perhaps, the queen consort of a ruling king. "

so if the press doesn't talk as freely about a queen as about the princess of wales, and yet the princess of wales, with all the talk, was able to get away with it, why exactly are you worried that a queen wouldn't?

[Forum Admin]

Guys,

You are straying way off topic...PLEASE....

[ilyala]

not really. borbon fan said:

"Since, based on historical statistics, it is much more likely that Queens have unhappy/failed marriages and, therefore, take lovers, it follows that it is much more likely for Monarchies with female monarchs to disappear. Reason enough for me to support 100% the Salic law.”

he supports salic law because a queen is more likely to put monarchy to shame than a king. i am trying to prove him wrong. on topic

[ChristineM]

I agree entirely with Grandduchessella - it is such a pity when posters find it necessary to descend to personal attack in order to make a point on what is a very interesting, informative and entertaining thread.   I have just read the entire eleven pages posted since I last was able to look at the Forum and frankly I am very impressed by the depth of knowledge our posters.   However, this is totally sullied by some of the unpardonably rude remarks directed at posters whose, equally valid, opinions may be at variance.   Every opinion is worthwhile, but posts are open to interpretation - irrespective of how often they are read.

May I pass a couple of observations - I was astonished to have to read ten pages before there was a reference to Edward VIII.   

The proprietor of British newspapers to whom, I believe, BourbonFan refers, is Rupert Murdoch - an Australian.   He is an avowed anti-monarchist, but even he I am sure has the wit to realise that the British Press and the British monarchy are mutually dependent especially in an age of mass media.

As a former BBC employee, I noted with interest BourbonFan's one attribution - to the BBC.   The Corporation would be negligent in not offering him/her a contract based on, if nothing else, dogged determination and entertainment value.   It is hard to believe it possible, in the 21st century, to find someone with so many archaic and dogmatic opinions.    However, these are opinions deeply held and of equal worth and interest.

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'.    Now there is an enthusiasm for skipping a generation and Prince William become successor, but that has nothing to do with the fact he happens to be male.   Prince Andrew, although no longer perceived as the playboy prince of old, is busy promoting British golf around the world.    Golf is his personal passion.

May I mention one thing in favour of female leaders, be they Queens, Presidents or Prime Ministers - not one in the history has been possessed of the evil of a Hitler, a Stalin a Pol Pot, a Mao, a Bin Ladin or the stupidity of Kaiser Wilhelm - all 'leaders' who happened to be male and who led countless millions to their undeserved and untimely deaths.   Much though I deplore adultery - whether committed by a male or a female, humble subject, king or queen - this pales into insignifance when compared with the depths of the depravities committed by those men.

tsaria 

[ChristineM]

This must be the first thread where three modertors have been contributing at the same time.   I bow to our Forum Admin and apologise for wandering off topic.   

Please do not spoil a rip-roaring thread by getting either too personal or too over-heated.

tsaria

[BorbonFan]

well, a few pages back you said:

"My corrolary to this was that most of the Queens with failed marriages (except, say, Mary I, Mary II, and Ann of England) had lovers. They could get away with it hundreds of years ago, when the press didn't exist or wasn't free and the people throughout the country at large was, thus, uninformed, but they could definitely not get away with it in this day and age, with an all-powerful press (dis)informing everybody. A Queen with lovers would definitely bring shame on Herself and the institution, hastening the downfall of Monarchy."

and yet now you say:

"The press can make and has made the most ridiculous accusations against Prince Charles, while using gloves with Diana, because they can do so with much more legal leeway than they dare do against a ruling monarch. When the press dares to accuse a monarch of anything as grave as they have accused Prince Charles of, the press better have solid proofs, or else they risk being punished for les-majeste. In the case of any other royal, however, there is no such crime of les-majeste, safe for, perhaps, the queen consort of a ruling king. "

so if the press doesn't talk as freely about a queen as about the princess of wales, and yet the princess of wales, with all the talk, was able to get away with it, why exactly are you worried that a queen wouldn't?

The press wasn't free hundreds of years back, in its infancy, when the absolutist royal censorship functioned. It is free to publish anything today, however, thanks to the freedom of the press principle of democracy.

The press is nowadays free to publish anything about anybody. However, there are laws that punish slander against the sovereign (les-majeste), but none that punish slander against any other royals. Therefore, if an accusation is brought in the media against a monarch, it is usually true, or else those journalists will probably be jailed or fined heavily for les-majeste. Not the case, though, with slanderous press accusations against Prince Charles or other royals, since they are not protected against slander by special laws.

[ChristineM]

Come on BourbonFan - you are being totally disingenuous.   Have you never heard of the laws of libel - this law has already been threatened - and used - by the Prince of Wales this year.

Again you are off topic.   Anyone who feels inclined to open a thread - Royals v the Press - please feel free to do so.

tsaria

[BorbonFan]

Come on BourbonFan - you are being totally disingenuous.   Have you never heard of the laws of libel - this law has already been threatened - and used - by the Prince of Wales this year.

Again you are off topic.   Anyone who feels inclined to open a thread - Royals v the Press - please feel free to do so.

tsaria

I have heard of it, of course. However, I believe the law of les-majeste (the "special laws" I was referring to above) is harsher than the libel law. Hence, the monarch is less likely to be slandered than anybody else.

Apologies for going off on a slight tangent, but I have to defend my viewpoint on Salic Law, which brought me here.

[ChristineM]

Slander = the spoken word
Libel     = the written word

The only reason the British Royal Family has historically been reluctant to invoke the law of libel is because of the risk of having to appear in a Court of Law and be subjected to the possible humiliation of cross-examination.   A perfect example of this is HM The Queen, suddenly and 'out of the blue' recalling a, now notorious, conversation with one Mr Paul Burrell.   

The degradation of an open court case almost happened once and concerned a well documented episode in the horse racing life of King Edward VII.

This is well and truly off-topic and is a subject which, as I wrote before, is probably worthy of its own dedicated thread.

tsaria

[Taren]

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!

[basilforever]

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.

That's right. But I meant that the Helene and Eddy scenario wouldn't happen again, because a woman (even if she is the daughter of the Comte de Paris) wouldn't be restricted by the Pope or her father from renouncing Catholicism. The Pope would hardly weigh in on such matters these days!