What in the blankety blank fleurking schnit is this!? :mad:
QuoteGirls equal in British throne succession
If Prince William and Kate had a daughter first, she would take precedence over younger brothers
Sons and daughters of any future UK monarch will have equal right to the throne, after Commonwealth leaders agreed to change succession laws.
The leaders of the 16 Commonwealth countries where the Queen is head of state unanimously approved the changes at a summit in Perth, Australia.
It means a first-born daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will take precedence over younger brothers.
The ban on the monarch being married to a Roman Catholic was also lifted.
Under the old succession laws, dating back more than 300 years, the heir to the throne is the first-born son of the monarch. Only when there are no sons, as in the case of the Queen's father George VI, does the crown pass to the eldest daughter.
Announcing the changes had been agreed, Prime Minister David Cameron said they would apply to descendents of the Prince of Wales. They will not be applied retrospectively.
David Cameron: ''The idea a younger son should become monarch instead of an elder daughter simply because he's a man... is at odds with the modern countries we have become''
"Put simply, if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were to have a little girl, that girl would one day be our queen," he said.
"The idea that a younger son should become monarch instead of an elder daughter simply because he is a man, or that a future monarch can marry someone of any faith except a Catholic - this way of thinking is at odds with the modern countries that we have become."
Australia's Prime Minister Julia Gillard said it was an extraordinary moment: "I'm very enthusiastic about it. You would expect the first Australian woman prime minister to be very enthusiastic about a change which equals equality for women in a new area."
She said the changes appeared to be straightforward. "But just because they seem straightforward to our modern minds doesn't mean that we should underestimate their historical significance, changing as they will for all time the way in which the monarchy works and changing its history."
But the campaign group Republic - which wants an elected head of state in Britain - said "nothing of substance" had been changed.
"The monarchy discriminates against every man, woman and child who isn't born into the Windsor family. To suggest that this has anything to do with equality is utterly absurd," spokesman Graham Smith said.
On scrapping the ban on future monarchs marrying Roman Catholics, Mr Cameron said: "Let me be clear, the monarch must be in communion with the Church of England because he or she is the head of that Church. But it is simply wrong they should be denied the chance to marry a Catholic if they wish to do so. After all, they are already quite free to marry someone of any other faith."
Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond welcomed the lifting of the ban but said it was "deeply disappointing" that Roman Catholics were still unable to ascend to the throne.
"It surely would have been possible to find a mechanism which would have protected the status of the Church of England without keeping in place an unjustifiable barrier on the grounds of religion in terms of the monarchy," he said.
"It is a missed opportunity not to ensure equality of all faiths when it comes to the issue of who can be head of state."
In her opening speech to the summit, the Queen did not directly mention the royal succession laws, but said women should have a greater role in society.
"It encourages us to find ways to show girls and women to play their full part," she said.
The BBC's royal correspondent, Nicholas Witchell, said this was a hint that the Queen herself backed the change.
CHOGM summit
The Queen will celebrate her Diamond Jubilee next year and there are already two generations of kings-in-waiting - Prince Charles and his son Prince William.
The royal author Robert Hardman said there had been 11 attempts in recent years by individual MPs and peers to change the succession laws.
The laws are not a matter for the 54-nation Commonwealth as a whole, only for the 16 countries which have the Queen as their head of state, known as realms.
These are Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Papua New Guinea, St Christopher and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Tuvalu, Barbados, Grenada, Solomon Islands, St Lucia and the Bahamas.
The succession changes will require a raft of historic legislation to be amended, including Britain's 1701 Act of Settlement and 1689 Bill of Rights.
Mr Cameron said the realms would work to implement the changes but that for historic reasons the UK would have to publish its legislation first.
"People have been talking about changing the rules for some time, but when there are 16 countries sharing the same head of state and each have their own constitutional, legal and political concerns, it is absolutely right that we should all discuss this together."
In his speech, the prime minister also praised the Queen's 60 years of public service and announced the creation of a Diamond Jubilee Trust to help those in need across the Commonwealth. The trust will be chaired by former Prime Minister Sir John Major.
The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings (CHOGM) are held every two years, and present an opportunity for the 54 nations with current or former ties to Britain to discuss a range of issues.
The CHOGM summit will also discuss economic growth, climate change and human rights at this year's meeting.
Quote from: Caliga on October 28, 2011, 06:32:54 AM
David Cameron: ''The idea a younger son should become monarch instead of an elder daughter simply because he's a man... is at odds with the modern countries we have become''
Doesn't stop them from keeping the monarchy itself.
I am kinda surprised (though pleased) that this went through the Commonwealth leadership so smoothly.
We should also do away with primogeniture, an equally outdated concept, and institute a royal lottery to decide who becomes king/queen. That or a fight.
Or we could also do away with another equally outdated concept, monarchy.
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 28, 2011, 07:34:20 AM
We should also do away with primogeniture, an equally outdated concept, and institute a royal lottery to decide who becomes king/queen. That or a fight.
Or we could also do away with another equally outdated concept, monarchy.
Does it really chafe?
Actually, I think the most modern concept would be to have an elective monarchy, with the monarch being elected from eligible offspring of the previous monarch.
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 28, 2011, 07:34:20 AM
We should also do away with primogeniture, an equally outdated concept, and institute a royal lottery to decide who becomes king/queen. That or a fight.
Or we could also do away with another equally outdated concept, monarchy.
Yes, because determining leadership randomly or through a trial by combat is such a modern concept.
Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2011, 08:06:16 AM
Actually, I think the most modern concept would be to have an elective monarchy, with the monarch being elected from eligible offspring of the previous monarch.
Poland ruined elective monarchies forever. Nice going guys.
Who would marry a Catholic anyway?
Those fools!
They have fallen for the Jacobite plot!
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2011, 08:32:04 AM
Those fools!
They have fallen for the Jacobite plot!
Fortunately the Jacobite banner is being carried by a German dude and British people have contempt for continentals. I think you are safe.
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2011, 08:32:04 AM
Those fools!
They have fallen for the Jacobite plot!
:lol: It was the jacobites who
objected to Mary ascending the throne ahead of her younger brother. If this was a plot, it was a plot
against Jacobism.
There are many non-Catholic Asian chicks anyway.
This plays into the nazis' hands. :(
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 28, 2011, 07:34:20 AM
We should also do away with primogeniture, an equally outdated concept, and institute a royal lottery to decide who becomes king/queen. That or a fight.
Or we could also do away with another equally outdated concept, monarchy.
Or, we could hang the lot of you Quebec republicans and separatists for High Treason on a Newgate-style scaffold, like good ole times. Pied-au-Courant would be a nice spot, don't you think?
Aren't you already busy sending your precious monarch in the PQ to the scaffold lately, anyway?
Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2011, 08:06:16 AM
Actually, I think the most modern concept would be to have an elective monarchy, with the monarch being elected from eligible offspring of the previous monarch.
And give the monarchy some form of elected legitimacy to actually do something as Head of State other than appear at official functions?
Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2011, 08:06:16 AM
Actually, I think the most modern concept would be to have an elective monarchy, with the monarch being elected from eligible offspring of the previous monarch.
As royalist as I may be, it's a fair compromise for a strong monarchy.
Quote from: grumbler on October 28, 2011, 09:07:17 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2011, 08:32:04 AM
Those fools!
They have fallen for the Jacobite plot!
:lol: It was the jacobites who objected to Mary ascending the throne ahead of her younger brother. If this was a plot, it was a plot against Jacobism.
You may have missed the bit about Catholics being allowed back into the Royal Family.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2011, 09:31:32 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 28, 2011, 09:07:17 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2011, 08:32:04 AM
Those fools!
They have fallen for the Jacobite plot!
:lol: It was the jacobites who objected to Mary ascending the throne ahead of her younger brother. If this was a plot, it was a plot against Jacobism.
You may have missed the bit about Catholics being allowed back into the Royal Family.
What about :Joos ? Can we have a real-life Jewish princess? :D
They aren't allowed back, they are allowed to be married into the Royal Family. If the member becomes Catholic he or she loses his/her succession rights.
Pretty much sure that if such a man/woman married to a Catholic would ascend to the throne they would simply be prince/princess consort. Plus, it's implied the children should still be raised Anglican.
Quote from: Malthus on October 28, 2011, 09:33:45 AM
What about :Joos ? Can we have a real-life Jewish princess? :D
If she marries a Catholic then a Nazi will be reigning over Britain.
To be fair, as least the current order of succession is maintained. It has been made in a fair and honest way for all members, Kate and William's scion still not born, contrarily to Sweden where Carl Philip was actually deprived of his title of heir apparent in favor of his older sister Victoria by changes to the Swedish Act of Succession in 1980.
Heh, reading the article again, the actual monarch must still be Anglican (no Catholics or Jews) but they can already marry some hebe if they want to.
QuoteOn scrapping the ban on future monarchs marrying Roman Catholics, Mr Cameron said: "Let me be clear, the monarch must be in communion with the Church of England because he or she is the head of that Church. But it is simply wrong they should be denied the chance to marry a Catholic if they wish to do so. After all, they are already quite free to marry someone of any other faith."
Quote from: Drakken on October 28, 2011, 09:38:37 AM
To be fair, as least the current order of succession is maintained and it has been made in a fair way for all members, contrarily to Sweden where Karl Philip was actually deprived of his title of heir apparent in favor of his older sister Victoria by changes to the Swedish Act of Succession in 1980.
Yes, it is a good time to do it as there are no immediate effects. If William and Kate have a daughter first then it would be best to get the necessary legislation passed in case their second-born was a son.
Quote from: Drakken on October 28, 2011, 09:38:37 AM
To be fair, as least the current order of succession is maintained. It has been made in a fair and honest way for all members, Kate and William's scion still not born, contrarily to Sweden where Carl Philip was actually deprived of his title of heir apparent in favor of his older sister Victoria by changes to the Swedish Act of Succession in 1980.
CP dodged a bullet.
Quote from: Malthus on October 28, 2011, 09:39:05 AM
Heh, reading the article again, the actual monarch must still be Anglican (no Catholics or Jews) but they can already marry some hebe if they want too.
QuoteOn scrapping the ban on future monarchs marrying Roman Catholics, Mr Cameron said: "Let me be clear, the monarch must be in communion with the Church of England because he or she is the head of that Church. But it is simply wrong they should be denied the chance to marry a Catholic if they wish to do so. After all, they are already quite free to marry someone of any other faith."
Having a Jewish monarch would be great, it would annoy so many people who richly deserve to be annoyed :D
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 28, 2011, 09:41:14 AM
Yes, it is a good time to do it as there are no immediate effects. If William and Kate have a daughter first then it would be best to get the necessary legislation passed in case their second-born was a son.
It would also have to be passed quickly in all 15 other Parliaments, Canada included. And I predict it will open a can of political worms here because Monarchy is quite unpopular, even in the ROC, even though we have quite a monarchist Prime Minister right now. :)
Thank God for the Crown that it takes unanimous consent of all provinces to get rid of Monarchy here in Canada.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 28, 2011, 09:43:20 AM
Having a Jewish monarch would be great, it would annoy so many people who richly deserve to be annoyed :D
He or she could have a great Biblical name, too. King David the First. That would set the ultra-religious off in an apocalyptic frenzy. :lol:
Alas, it is not to be, unless the regs are changed some more ...
Quote from: Malthus on October 28, 2011, 09:47:38 AM
He or she could have a great Biblical name, too. King David the First. That would set the ultra-religious off in an apocalyptic frenzy. :lol:
Alas, it is not to be, unless the regs are changed some more ...
I was thinking of Prince David of Wales. Now that is old school.
Quote from: Malthus on October 28, 2011, 09:47:38 AM
He or she could have a great Biblical name, too. King David the First. That would set the ultra-religious off in an apocalyptic frenzy. :lol:
Alas, it is not to be, unless the regs are changed some more ...
It'd be fair game, there has been a David, King of the Scots. And James/Jacob is, originally, a Hebrew name.
To hell with tradition, eh? Might as well scrap the whole monarchy thing while you're at it :angry:
If they end up with a Catholic on the throne, that's it-- I'm shopping around for another mother country. Yeah, I went there.
Quote from: derspiess on October 28, 2011, 09:55:12 AM
If they end up with a Catholic on the throne, that's it-- I'm shopping around for another mother country. Yeah, I went there.
Won't happen, Royals are still forbidden to be or convert to Catholicism.
Quote from: derspiess on October 28, 2011, 09:55:12 AM
To hell with tradition, eh? Might as well scrap the whole monarchy thing while you're at it :angry:
If they end up with a Catholic on the throne, that's it-- I'm shopping around for another mother country. Yeah, I went there.
Step away from the ledge Protty boy. The monarch can only marry a Catholic if he/she wants. The kids and the monarch must be Anglicans.
Quote from: derspiess on October 28, 2011, 09:55:12 AM
To hell with tradition, eh? Might as well scrap the whole monarchy thing while you're at it :angry:
If they end up with a Catholic on the throne, that's it-- I'm shopping around for another mother country. Yeah, I went there.
Reading comprehension FAIL!
Quote from: dps on October 28, 2011, 10:02:34 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 28, 2011, 09:55:12 AM
To hell with tradition, eh? Might as well scrap the whole monarchy thing while you're at it :angry:
If they end up with a Catholic on the throne, that's it-- I'm shopping around for another mother country. Yeah, I went there.
Reading comprehension FAIL!
I read it. What I'm saying is the new law could eventually lead to a Catholic on the throne.
The Act of Settlement was passed for a reason, people!! :angry:
Sensible move, really - overall the Queens have done better than the Kings. Why not reinforce success?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 28, 2011, 10:09:45 AM
Sensible move, really - overall the Queens have done better than the Kings. Why not reinforce success?
Well of the monarchs who actually had any power I guess it is whether you like Elizabeth vs. the field.
Quote from: Malthus on October 28, 2011, 09:47:38 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 28, 2011, 09:43:20 AM
Having a Jewish monarch would be great, it would annoy so many people who richly deserve to be annoyed :D
He or she could have a great Biblical name, too. King David the First. That would set the ultra-religious off in an apocalyptic frenzy. :lol:
Alas, it is not to be, unless the regs are changed some more ...
Its funny how eveyrone quickly agreed that in this modern age it is unthinkable to restrict the gender of the monarch and who they might marry but it is perfectly fine to ensure the monarch themselves have the proper religion.
I don't see why it should be limited to monarchs who had power, particularly since the argument is over what the rules should be for future monarchs without power. Just because the monarchs lack formal political power doesn't mean there still aren't good and bad ones. For example, QE2 has been pretty good; Edward VIII, not good. Victoria - good; George IV, not so good.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 28, 2011, 10:17:52 AM
I don't see why it should be limited to monarchs who had power, particularly since the argument is over what the rules should be for future monarchs without power. Just because the monarchs lack formal political power doesn't mean there still aren't good and bad ones. For example, QE2 has been pretty good; Edward VIII, not good. Victoria - good; George IV, not so good.
I thought George V and George VI really stepped up in their nation's biggest moments of peril. But you cannot really give them credit for it anymore than you can give QE2 or Victoria credit for how Britain has done under their ceremonial leadership.
Edward VII wasn't too shabby as a figure head either but I am naturally biased towards him because he put his limited influence behind the Entente.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2011, 09:31:32 AM
You may have missed the bit about Catholics being allowed back into the Royal Family.
The issue on which the jacobites differed from their opponents wasn't whether the royalty could have catholic family members. It was over the succession to the throne, not whether some Catholic would be a Royal Highness as the Duchess of Windsor. In fact, Princess Michael of Kent is both catholic and titled Her Royal Highness, so she is a member of the royal family as a catholic. No Jacobin issue there.
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2011, 10:12:35 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 28, 2011, 10:09:45 AM
Sensible move, really - overall the Queens have done better than the Kings. Why not reinforce success?
Well of the monarchs who actually had any power I guess it is whether you like Elizabeth vs. the field.
There's also Mary.
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2011, 10:25:46 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 28, 2011, 10:17:52 AM
I don't see why it should be limited to monarchs who had power, particularly since the argument is over what the rules should be for future monarchs without power. Just because the monarchs lack formal political power doesn't mean there still aren't good and bad ones. For example, QE2 has been pretty good; Edward VIII, not good. Victoria - good; George IV, not so good.
I thought George V and George VI really stepped up in their nation's biggest moments of peril. But you cannot really give them credit for it anymore than you can give QE2 or Victoria credit for how Britain has done under their ceremonial leadership.
Edward VII wasn't too shabby as a figure head either but I am naturally biased towards him because he put his limited influence behind the Entente.
Well the Kings had subtle power, the ability to shift public opinion and spread goodwill. Ed 6 proved a master of this touring France. It's a shame he was not able to convince his morbidly suspicious nephew that Britain wasn't plating against Germany.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2011, 10:47:47 AM
Ed 6 proved a master of this touring France.
Did he ever even leave the British isles?
Well, it's about time! There have been some pretty impressive Queens of England, Elizabeth, Victoria, so I'm just surprised that this has taken so long!
Queen Victoria even has a computer game named after her! ;)
I'm still rooting for King Edmund III.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 28, 2011, 10:09:45 AM
Sensible move, really - overall the Queens have done better than the Kings. Why not reinforce success?
Of course. With such overwhelming historical successes as Mathilda, Anne, and Mary I Tudor, the sky is the limit!
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 28, 2011, 10:38:53 AM
There's also Mary.
You mean William III, of course.
Quote from: Solmyr on October 28, 2011, 12:48:20 PM
I'm still rooting for King Edmund III.
I'm still rooting for King John. He was just a misunderstood lamb of a lad.
Quote from: Drakken on October 28, 2011, 01:13:44 PM
You mean William III, of course.
No, I meant Lizzie's elder sister.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2011, 10:17:43 AM
Its funny how eveyrone quickly agreed that in this modern age it is unthinkable to restrict the gender of the monarch and who they might marry but it is perfectly fine to ensure the monarch themselves have the proper religion.
I don't know how ceremonial it is at this point, but isn't the monarch the head of the Church of England? It wouldn't make sense to have a catholic leader of the Church of Egland, would it?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 28, 2011, 01:19:09 PM
Quote from: Drakken on October 28, 2011, 01:13:44 PM
You mean William III, of course.
No, I meant Lizzie's elder sister.
You're joking, right? Lady Jane Grey in less then ten days was a better Queen than Mary's whole reign.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 28, 2011, 01:25:10 PM
I don't know how ceremonial it is at this point, but isn't the monarch the head of the Church of England? It wouldn't make sense to have a catholic leader of the Church of Egland, would it?
The Act of Settlement is still in place, the Monarch and blood members of the Royal Family are still required to be Anglican.
Quote from: Drakken on October 28, 2011, 09:45:29 AM
It would also have to be passed quickly in all 15 other Parliaments, Canada included. And I predict it will open a can of political worms here because Monarchy is quite unpopular, even in the ROC, even though we have quite a monarchist Prime Minister right now. :)
Are there polls that you can link to that prove this?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 28, 2011, 01:38:41 PM
Quote from: Drakken on October 28, 2011, 09:45:29 AM
It would also have to be passed quickly in all 15 other Parliaments, Canada included. And I predict it will open a can of political worms here because Monarchy is quite unpopular, even in the ROC, even though we have quite a monarchist Prime Minister right now. :)
Are there polls that you can link to that prove this?
I would be surprised if there were.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 28, 2011, 01:38:41 PM
Quote from: Drakken on October 28, 2011, 09:45:29 AM
It would also have to be passed quickly in all 15 other Parliaments, Canada included. And I predict it will open a can of political worms here because Monarchy is quite unpopular, even in the ROC, even though we have quite a monarchist Prime Minister right now. :)
Are there polls that you can link to that prove this?
A whole wiki-link of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_on_the_monarchy_in_Canada#2010
Quote
In May 2010, a poll by Angus Reid found that more than two-thirds of Canadians, a 69% majority, would like to see a Canadian serving as Canada's head of state, and a 52% majority of Canadians support reopening the constitutional debate to discuss replacing the monarchy with an elected head of state, while only 32% oppose doing so. Despite 69% of Canadians having a "mostly favourable" opinion of Queen Elizabeth II as a person, only one third, 33%, of Canadians preferred Canada to remain a monarchy - the plurality 36% of Canadians said they would prefer to have an elected head of state, another 21% were indifferent, and 11% were unsure. When asked who they would prefer as a monarch after Queen Elizabeth II, three-in-ten Canadians responded by saying there should be no monarch after her. 31% of Canadians also want members of the Royal Family to stop visiting Canada.[62]
Also in May 2010, an online poll by Leger Marketing for QMI Agency found that majority 59% of Canadians said that they had little or no interest in the Queen's visit to Canada, while 39% did. The poll found that only 32% of 18 to 34 year-olds had an attachment to the crown. In the 65-and-over group, 46% reported an attachment. One fifth of Canadians said the Queen should stay home, and that furthermore, "Canada should sever its ties with the British Crown".[3]
In June 2010, a national poll by the Association for Canadian Studies found decidedly lukewarm feelings about the concept of monarchy. The survey found that 49% of Canadians had a negative reaction to the word "monarchy", compared to just 41% with a positive reaction. In the Maritimes, where the Queen would begin her Canadian visit, the majority 60% registered a negative opinion of monarchy, compared to only 37% positive. (The poll did not refer to the Canadian monarchy or to the Queen specifically, but to the concept of monarchy.)[3]
A poll by Ipsos-Reid, also in June 2010, found that the majority two-in-three Canadians agree the royal family should not have any formal role in Canadian society, and reported growing sentiment that Elizabeth II should be Canada's last monarch. The majority 58% of Canadians want Canada to end ties to monarchy when Queen Elizabeth II's reign ends, and the majority 62% of Canadians believe that Canada's head of state should be the Governor General, not the Queen.[63][64]
A fifth poll, conducted by Harris-Decima for The Canadian Press a few days ahead of the Queen's nine-day visit to Canada in June, found that nearly half of Canadians, 48%, consider the monarchy to be "a relic of our colonial past that has no place in Canada today." The poll also found that 44% of Canadians want a national referendum to decide whether Canada should keep the monarchy.[65]
An Angus Reid poll just after the Queen's visit found that 36% of Canadians want Canada to remain a monarchy, 30% prefer having an elected head of state, and 21% felt it made no difference to them.[66]
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 28, 2011, 01:38:41 PM
Quote from: Drakken on October 28, 2011, 09:45:29 AM
It would also have to be passed quickly in all 15 other Parliaments, Canada included. And I predict it will open a can of political worms here because Monarchy is quite unpopular, even in the ROC, even though we have quite a monarchist Prime Minister right now. :)
Are there polls that you can link to that prove this?
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/38986/feelings_about_monarchy_split_canadians/
I would not say it is unpopular but it isn't a wash.
Quote from: Drakken on October 28, 2011, 01:28:25 PM
You're joking, right? Lady Jane Grey in less then ten days was a better Queen than Mary's whole reign.
I don't believe I said anything whatsoever regarding the
quality of her reign.
Quote from: Drakken on October 28, 2011, 09:35:27 AM
They aren't allowed back, they are allowed to be married into the Royal Family. If the member becomes Catholic he or she loses his/her succession rights.
Pretty much sure that if such a man/woman married to a Catholic would ascend to the throne they would simply be prince/princess consort. Plus, it's implied the children should still be raised Anglican.
seems like a breach of his/her human rights. Freedom of religion as well as no discrimination because of religion when doing you job. :p
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 28, 2011, 01:57:25 PM
seems like a breach of his/her human rights. Freedom of religion as well as no discrimination because of religion when doing you job. :p
It doesn't apply if your job needs to be of a certain religion, like Head of the Anglican Church or the Pope.
Quote from: Drakken on October 28, 2011, 09:45:29 AM
Thank God for the Crown that it takes unanimous consent of all provinces to get rid of Monarchy here in Canada.
I presume that was the condition the Newfies demanded to agree to join canada?
Quote from: Drakken on October 28, 2011, 01:30:16 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 28, 2011, 01:25:10 PM
I don't know how ceremonial it is at this point, but isn't the monarch the head of the Church of England? It wouldn't make sense to have a catholic leader of the Church of Egland, would it?
The Act of Settlement is still in place, the Monarch and blood members of the Royal Family are still required to be Anglican.
My point was that if it is a religious position as well as a state one, it makes sense to have religious requirements beyond simple religious bigotry.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 28, 2011, 02:43:38 PM
Quote from: Drakken on October 28, 2011, 01:30:16 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 28, 2011, 01:25:10 PM
I don't know how ceremonial it is at this point, but isn't the monarch the head of the Church of England? It wouldn't make sense to have a catholic leader of the Church of Egland, would it?
The Act of Settlement is still in place, the Monarch and blood members of the Royal Family are still required to be Anglican.
You are quite right, the monarch is the head of the Church of England, which is still the established church, it is not bigotry to expect him/her to be an Anglican. At some point the Church will be disestablished I suppose.......not at all sure of the ramifications of that :hmm:
My point was that if it is a religious position as well as a state one, it makes sense to have religious requirements beyond simple religious bigotry.
Protestants, failing at separation of church and state since 1517.
Quote from: Solmyr on October 28, 2011, 04:14:02 PM
Protestants, failing at separation of church and state since 1517.
When is the last time the Americans elected an openly atheist President. :hmm:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2011, 04:15:22 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on October 28, 2011, 04:14:02 PM
Protestants, failing at separation of church and state since 1517.
When is the last time the Americans elected an openly atheist President. :hmm:
QED
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 28, 2011, 02:53:11 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 28, 2011, 02:43:38 PM
Quote from: Drakken on October 28, 2011, 01:30:16 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 28, 2011, 01:25:10 PM
I don't know how ceremonial it is at this point, but isn't the monarch the head of the Church of England? It wouldn't make sense to have a catholic leader of the Church of Egland, would it?
The Act of Settlement is still in place, the Monarch and blood members of the Royal Family are still required to be Anglican.
You are quite right, the monarch is the head of the Church of England, which is still the established church, it is not bigotry to expect him/her to be an Anglican. At some point the Church will be disestablished I suppose.......not at all sure of the ramifications of that :hmm:
My point was that if it is a religious position as well as a state one, it makes sense to have religious requirements beyond simple religious bigotry.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2011, 04:15:22 PM
When is the last time the Americans elected an openly atheist President. :hmm:
The same time they elected a Martian president. :secret:
I can play the
non sequitur game, too!
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2011, 04:15:22 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on October 28, 2011, 04:14:02 PM
Protestants, failing at separation of church and state since 1517.
When is the last time the Americans elected an openly atheist President. :hmm:
America will have elected the first non-Christian president in its history if Romney wins.
Quote from: grumbler on October 28, 2011, 05:47:01 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 28, 2011, 02:53:11 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 28, 2011, 02:43:38 PM
Quote from: Drakken on October 28, 2011, 01:30:16 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 28, 2011, 01:25:10 PM
I don't know how ceremonial it is at this point, but isn't the monarch the head of the Church of England? It wouldn't make sense to have a catholic leader of the Church of Egland, would it?
The Act of Settlement is still in place, the Monarch and blood members of the Royal Family are still required to be Anglican.
You are quite right, the monarch is the head of the Church of England, which is still the established church, it is not bigotry to expect him/her to be an Anglican. At some point the Church will be disestablished I suppose.......not at all sure of the ramifications of that :hmm:
My point was that if it is a religious position as well as a state one, it makes sense to have religious requirements beyond simple religious bigotry.
Quote from: citizen k on October 28, 2011, 05:52:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2011, 04:15:22 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on October 28, 2011, 04:14:02 PM
Protestants, failing at separation of church and state since 1517.
When is the last time the Americans elected an openly atheist President. :hmm:
America will have elected the first non-Christian president in its history if Romney wins.
Obama is both an atheist and Muslim. Also he's part of a Christian cult. The man is versatile.
Quote from: citizen k on October 28, 2011, 05:52:14 PM
America will have elected the first non-Christian president in its history if Romney wins.
That would be Kennedy.
/derspiess
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 28, 2011, 06:02:17 PM
Quote from: citizen k on October 28, 2011, 05:52:14 PM
America will have elected the first non-Christian president in its history if Romney wins.
That would be Kennedy.
/derspiess
Catholics are Christians, you Calvinist nutjob.
Quote from: grumbler on October 28, 2011, 05:49:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2011, 04:15:22 PM
When is the last time the Americans elected an openly atheist President. :hmm:
The same time they elected a Martian president. :secret:
Actually the chances of Americans voting for a Martian are greater.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2011, 06:11:23 PM
Actually the chances of Americans voting for a Martian are greater.
Sure. You and Marti should write a book about everything you know about America. At least it would be cheap to print, having just the front and back covers. :rolleyes:
I'm openly atheist. It's worked out great.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 28, 2011, 09:22:28 PM
I'm openly atheist. It's worked out great.
You can forget about being King of Great Britain then.
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2011, 09:54:12 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 28, 2011, 09:22:28 PM
I'm openly atheist. It's worked out great.
You can forget about being King of Great Britain then.
How about Bishop of Canterbury?
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 28, 2011, 10:28:11 PM
How about Bishop of Canterbury?
I think that is a requirement actually.
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2011, 09:54:12 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 28, 2011, 09:22:28 PM
I'm openly atheist. It's worked out great.
You can forget about being King of Great Britain then.
My King Ralph fantasies are punctured. :(
It is a logical move however I can't help but be slightly annoyed by it. It is just the conservatives trying to score easy political points.
The moment such a thing became a concern we could have enacted the changes then.
Quote from: Tyr on October 28, 2011, 11:04:23 PM
It is a logical move however I can't help but be slightly annoyed by it. It is just the conservatives trying to score easy political points.
The moment such a thing became a concern we could have enacted the changes then.
:rolleyes:
Either something is a good idea or not.
Quote from: citizen k on October 28, 2011, 05:52:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2011, 04:15:22 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on October 28, 2011, 04:14:02 PM
Protestants, failing at separation of church and state since 1517.
When is the last time the Americans elected an openly atheist President. :hmm:
America will have elected the first non-Christian president in its history if Romney wins.
Jefferson and Madison were Deists, that's not Christian either.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2011, 12:04:09 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 28, 2011, 11:04:23 PM
It is a logical move however I can't help but be slightly annoyed by it. It is just the conservatives trying to score easy political points.
The moment such a thing became a concern we could have enacted the changes then.
:rolleyes:
Either something is a good idea or not.
Well, he's the type that's going to be annoyed by people doing the logical thing.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2011, 12:04:09 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 28, 2011, 11:04:23 PM
It is a logical move however I can't help but be slightly annoyed by it. It is just the conservatives trying to score easy political points.
The moment such a thing became a concern we could have enacted the changes then.
:rolleyes:
Either something is a good idea or not.
Not really.
It was already pretty much taken for granted that this would be the case should William's first kid be a girl. Would have been so for decades (assuming a high ranked heir could have been born in the last few decades). The Tories have jumped the gun here to score points though. Cheaply trying to show their nice side.
I don't think that's it Tyr. British governments have been thinking about this since the 50s and I think the talks with the Commonwealth and Palace have been going on for 5 years as to what sort of things should be in the law. This isn't the sort of thing the Tories could just do because they wanted to look good, it's been in the works under three PMs and was first discussed when Eden was around.
Garden or Anthony?
Quote from: Tyr on October 29, 2011, 05:38:01 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2011, 12:04:09 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 28, 2011, 11:04:23 PM
It is a logical move however I can't help but be slightly annoyed by it. It is just the conservatives trying to score easy political points.
The moment such a thing became a concern we could have enacted the changes then.
:rolleyes:
Either something is a good idea or not.
Not really.
It was already pretty much taken for granted that this would be the case should William's first kid be a girl. Would have been so for decades (assuming a high ranked heir could have been born in the last few decades). The Tories have jumped the gun here to score points though. Cheaply trying to show their nice side.
:wacko: If a Labour government had made this change without a pressing need for it, can you honestly state that you would disapprove because they're trying to score cheap points?
Quote from: Habbaku on October 29, 2011, 10:34:57 AM:wacko: If a Labour government had made this change without a pressing need for it, can you honestly state that you would disapprove because they're trying to score cheap points?
Labour government wouldn't need to score cheap points on constitutional modernisation or gender equality - they're part of the brand anyway. Apparently the polling suggests the Tories have a problem with women votes. So they could benefit from scoring cheap points.
Quote from: Tyr on October 28, 2011, 11:04:23 PM
The moment such a thing became a concern we could have enacted the changes then.
That's the worst time to make changes; when everyone is concerned with an issue, they start to take sides and even excellent ideas stand or fall based on who benefits, rather than on their intrinsic excellence. Right now is the perfect time to enact this reform, because no one cares and no one benefits.
If it irritates you, that is just a side bonus. :P
Interesting that Cameron got all the other interested countries to back him in this cheap bid for popularity :hmm:
Nah, it's going to go through on the nod, in 16 countries IIRC, because the next three in line to the throne all happen to be male anyway, so it is going to be a hell of a long time before it makes a difference.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 29, 2011, 11:12:02 AM... it is going to be a hell of a long time before it makes a difference.
Unless William and Kate have a daughter that has no problem poisoning her way to the top. Like a little English Nero.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 29, 2011, 11:12:02 AM
Interesting that Cameron got all the other interested countries to back him in this cheap bid for popularity :hmm:
It was going to be done anyway, better do it now when no one is giving a fuck than when a daughter's born.
Frankly I don't see any reason for any nation of the Commonwealth to look like a bunch of sexist yahoos in front of the whole world by refusing cognatic primogeniture.
Quote from: Tyr on October 29, 2011, 05:38:01 AM
Not really.
It was already pretty much taken for granted that this would be the case should William's first kid be a girl. Would have been so for decades (assuming a high ranked heir could have been born in the last few decades). The Tories have jumped the gun here to score points though. Cheaply trying to show their nice side.
Ah partisan idiocy at its best. Even when the other side does something you approve of you still find some insane reason to rip them for it.
QuoteAh partisan idiocy at its best. Even when the other side does something you approve of you still find some insane reason to rip them for it.
Only mildly. I still approve of the move but nonetheless it stands out to me as a tory attempt to make themselves look nice. Given that the conservative angle on this issue would probally be supported by a single figures percentage of the population at most they might as well take this one, particularly given the Kate and William are in vogue lately.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 29, 2011, 08:55:04 AM
I don't think that's it Tyr. British governments have been thinking about this since the 50s and I think the talks with the Commonwealth and Palace have been going on for 5 years as to what sort of things should be in the law. This isn't the sort of thing the Tories could just do because they wanted to look good, it's been in the works under three PMs and was first discussed when Eden was around.
The issue has never really been there. Charles was born a boy, which is lucky as I'm very doubtful indeed that such a move would have passed before the 70s. And even in the 70s iit could well have been controversial until the end of the decade.
William was born a boy too. In the 80s...well I could certainly see the conservative side putting up a bit of a moan but the change would probally still be made.
In the 90s and 00s....if a highly ranked girl heir had been born in those years (William gets married stupidly early or somesuch) I don't think that there would have been any doubt that this change would have been made.
Equally too with the marrying a catholic thing. If Kate had been Catholic I don't think there would have been any issue with doing a bit of constitutional jiggery pokery to let it be so.
Its just the way with so much of the British system, even a lot of what is written isn't held to as absolute law.
Actually, I kind of like the Tories.
Quote from: Tyr on October 30, 2011, 05:06:38 AM
QuoteAh partisan idiocy at its best. Even when the other side does something you approve of you still find some insane reason to rip them for it.
Only mildly. I still approve of the move but nonetheless it stands out to me as a tory attempt to make themselves look nice. Given that the conservative angle on this issue would probally be supported by a single figures percentage of the population at most they might as well take this one, particularly given the Kate and William are in vogue lately.
:bleeding: You have no evidence to believe that the Conservatives secretly believe in Salic law and are gnashing their teeth over having to make this change as a sop to the masses.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 30, 2011, 12:04:30 PM:bleeding: You have no evidence to believe that the Conservatives secretly believe in Salic law and are gnashing their teeth over having to make this change as a sop to the masses.
I think 'conservative angle' meant just that, the conservative not-changing-shit angle. Not party politics, that's why it's not capitalised.
QuoteActually, I kind of like the Tories.
Why? :blink:
Your Tories are closer to our Democrats.
The only thing I know about the Tories is that they are the right in the United Kingdom. This seems like a good enough reason to dislike them, even though they're probably normal, responsible citizens by American standards.
As for other British political parties, I would like the SNP, if they were taken out to Culloden Moor and shot. They'd have instructive value.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2011, 12:16:31 PM
QuoteActually, I kind of like the Tories.
Why? :blink:
Because they are the party of Churchill, of Disraeli, of Pitt the Younger, of Edmund Burke, and yes of Maggie Thatcher. :cool:
I find it rather disturbing that people can get so excited about the difference between the Tories and Labour, one would need a microscope to detect it nowadays :hmm:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 30, 2011, 03:21:49 PM
I find it rather disturbing that people can get so excited about the difference between the Tories and Labour, one would need a microscope to detect it nowadays :hmm:
Tribal loyalties are an amazing thing.
Whoever pledges to toss Josq and his dog into an abandoned coal mine earns my internet loyalty.
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2011, 01:23:20 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2011, 12:16:31 PM
QuoteActually, I kind of like the Tories.
Why? :blink:
Because they are the party of Maggie Thatcher. :cool:
What's so cool about Thatcher?
Quote from: Zoupa on October 30, 2011, 05:10:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2011, 01:23:20 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2011, 12:16:31 PM
QuoteActually, I kind of like the Tories.
Why? :blink:
Because they are the party of Maggie Thatcher. :cool:
What's so cool about Thatcher?
Closed Josq's beloved coal mines.
She didn't back down to crypto-fascist aggression. That's a point in her favor, I suppose.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 30, 2011, 05:25:29 PM
She didn't back down to crypto-fascist aggression. That's a point in her favor, I suppose.
Any British PM would have. Big woop.
Quote from: grumbler on October 28, 2011, 08:34:53 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2011, 06:11:23 PM
Actually the chances of Americans voting for a Martian are greater.
Sure. You and Marti should write a book about everything you know about America. At least it would be cheap to print, having just the front and back covers. :rolleyes:
Were you going to say when the last time an openly athiest President was elected...
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2011, 07:20:07 PM
Were you going to say when the last time an openly athiest President was elected...
Another
non sequitur contest! :w00t:
Okay, my entry: Mohammed Ali was born Cassius Clay.
If I had been named Cassius, I sure as hell wouldn't have changed it. That's a pretty cool name.
You might change your mind after growing up with all the kids in the playground calling you "Cassie."
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 31, 2011, 06:54:18 AM
You might change your mind after growing up with all the kids in the playground calling you "Cassie."
I'm named after a town in Britain. I can take it.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2011, 07:56:31 AM
I'm named after a town in Britain. I can take it.
Good for you, Scunthorpe.
None of us will live to see the day Wills and Kate's first-born ascends the throne anyhow. If the Queen lives as long as her mother, she's got a good 15 years left in her before Charles gets a bash.
Quote from: Brazen on October 31, 2011, 08:05:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2011, 07:56:31 AM
I'm named after a town in Britain. I can take it.
Good for you, Scunthorpe.
None of us will live to see the day Wills and Kate's first-born ascends the throne anyhow. If the Queen lives as long as her mother, she's got a good 15 years left in her before Charles gets a bash.
Actually, there is a elementary school near by named, "Thorpe J. Gordon", so presumably there was someone who lived here named "Thorpe".
this annoys me for some reason. if we're keeping the insitiution around for traditions sake (which i have no problem with) changing the tradition seems... off.
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2011, 01:23:20 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2011, 12:16:31 PM
QuoteActually, I kind of like the Tories.
Why? :blink:
Because they are the party of Churchill, of Disraeli, of Pitt the Younger, of Edmund Burke, and yes of Maggie Thatcher. :cool:
So were Redmond O'Hanlon and the Papist Partisans of James II :contract:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 31, 2011, 06:54:18 AM
You might change your mind after growing up with all the kids in the playground calling you "Cassie."
Somehow I have to believe there weren't that many kids willing to tease Cassius Clay.
Didn't one steal his bike or something? Which made him pick up boxing?
Quote from: HVC on October 31, 2011, 08:20:15 AM
this annoys me for some reason. if we're keeping the insitiution around for traditions sake (which i have no problem with) changing the tradition seems... off.
I don't think that male-preference primogeniture was kept around for traditions' sake, I think it was kept because it was the law. Updating laws to fit modern sensibilities seems to me a worthwhile exercise.
Quote from: The Brain on October 31, 2011, 12:06:25 PM
Didn't one steal his bike or something? Which made him pick up boxing?
I saw what you did there