Royal succession debated

[pow wow]

What ever will be will be? When you have 52 separatists sitting in your house of commons, determined to bring about the destruction of the country, one doesn't take such a whatever attitude to the future.

[tranchiebabe]

Tradition is no good reason for keeping something if it blatantly discriminates against women, which the present system does does.

[Jan]

What ever will be will be? When you have 52 separatists sitting in your house of commons, determined to bring about the destruction of the country, one doesn't take such a whatever attitude to the future.

There is only so much a person can do pow wow and I did not vote for the current 'leadership' - so yeah I have to go with 'what will be will be'. There are many things in this life I don't agree with or can't help - but I am powerless to do anything about - apart from pray and hope. Its not so much a taking a 'whatever' attitude to the future. Certain changes/decisions are indeed out of our control.

I am curious though - what attitude should I be taking to the future?

[AndyHB]

What ever will be will be? When you have 52 separatists sitting in your house of commons, determined to bring about the destruction of the country, one doesn't take such a whatever attitude to the future.

pow-wow, you need to remember that we have had Welsh, Scottish and/or Irish nationalists in the mother of parliaments for many decades.

[pow wow]

OK Tangnefedd, let us not discriminate against the second, third or fourth child of a family anymore. How dare we discriminate based on when one was born into a family. This is just a case of stirring up the pot unnecessarily. I mean when was the last time a first born women was passed over for the first born son?
I predict that this is going to be trouble. What is, works. There is discrimination that should be fought because of the real harm it produces. I give you as an example on reservation wives over here. They have no property rights. A native husband on reservation can toss his wife out of the house and divorce her and leave her with absolutely nothing. She has no property rights at all. Our conservative government has been fighting to change this injustice but low and behold, guess who is fighting against this change? The socialists, liberals and separatists in our house of commons. Why? Because the male dominated leadership on the reservations does not want women to gain these rights. Something is so rotten with this picture. Normally it's the left who is seen as women's champions but not in this instance. The left does not want the government to force a correction on an injustice. Why? Because the left lives in a constant guilty haze on aboriginal issues.

[Jan]

BTW - barring a Royal who happens to follow the Roman Catholic faith (or any other faith for that matter), from the from succeeding to the throne, is obviously discriminatory and out of date too.

I agree that the changes would involve a lot of 'work' and will take time.

[pow wow]

Andy I do remember. Did you deal with them with a whatever attitude? Look Canada came within less than 1% of the break up of the Country in the last referendum held by French separatists. Did the UK face the disintegration of the nation by your separatists? No. And would the Queen approve of loosing her La belle province (Quebec) because we took a whatever attitude to the separatists? I don't think she would be amused with us.

[Jan]

Andy I do remember. Did you deal with them with a whatever attitude? Look Canada came within less than 1% of the break up of the Country in the last referendum held by French separatists. Did the UK face the disintegration of the nation by your separatists? No. And would the Queen approve of loosing her La belle province (Quebec) because we took a whatever attitude to the separatists? I don't think she would be amused with us.

Queen Victoria certainly would not have been 'amused' 

Still though - it is que Sera Sera - change comes - like it or not! I doubt that the thoughts shared by us on a forum will have any impact on what happens either way.

[AndyHB]

BTW - barring a Royal who happens to follow the Roman Catholic faith (or any other faith for that matter), from the from succeeding to the throne, is obviously discriminatory and out of date too.

Not totally, Jan.  If the monarch is to remain the head of the Church of England (and I'm not getting into that particular debate here), he or she could NOT be a practising Roman Catholic.  That particular rule was introduced for a very good reason; the ensuring that no future monarch could pull England (as it was at the time) back into the arms of the Papacy.

I'd agree that this was probably a heavy-handed approach, but that was the underlying reason.

[AndyHB]

Andy I do remember. Did you deal with them with a whatever attitude?

I'm not talking about taking a 'whatever' attitude.  Rather, I'm talking about taking a Christian attitude to the issue.

Incidentally, the move toward devolution since 1997 has actually seen a more divided UK than we've had for decades.  For instance, the differences in educational attainment between Scotland, England and Wales have all grown dramatically since the relevant 'assemblies' were given devolved power over the issue.  Look, again, at the massive difference between the costs of further/higher education in the 3 states of the Union.

[pow wow]

Hello Andy,
I don't see leaving the succession alone as being unchristian. I don't see challenging and fighting the separatist cause as being unchristian. I'm not too knowledgeable about how the power is devolved in the UK. In Canada the provinces own all natural resources. They are in charge of education, health etc. The provinces were set up with alot of power. That's probably the only way the nation could have come together. As each of the original provinces were separate colonies.

[AndyHB]

Hello Andy,
I don't see leaving the succession alone as being unchristian. I don't see challenging and fighting the separatist cause as being unchristian. I'm not too knowledgeable about how the power is devolved in the UK.

Pow-wow, I was trying to get to the fact that there is nothing intrinsically 'less monarchical' in women, along with the fact that one of the points about Christ's teaching is that it actually challenges the paternalistic norms of society.

As for the way our devolution works, it is different in different places.  Scotland, because it was a sovereign nation in its own right until the Act of Union in 1707, has always held onto its own legal system and education system (at least - Eli will be able to explain it better!), even though the Scottish Parliament as we now know it has only been in existence since 1997.  Wales, on the other hand, only had responsibility for 20 areas (including health, education, the environment, etc) devolved to it's Assembly Government when its Assembly was established in 1997.  Earlier this year, Wales voted to join Scotland in being able to create legislation covering these 20 devolved areas without having to take that legislation to Westminster for final agreement.

[Jan]

Not totally, Jan.  If the monarch is to remain the head of the Church of England (and I'm not getting into that particular debate here), he or she could NOT be a practising Roman Catholic.  That particular rule was introduced for a very good reason; the ensuring that no future monarch could pull England (as it was at the time) back into the arms of the Papacy.

I'd agree that this was probably a heavy-handed approach, but that was the underlying reason.

It is outdated now though for this day and age (IMO) as faith/belief should be a personal thing, (not something one is forced to believe) - with no discrimination, as there should not be discrimination over gender.

[Boudi]

Women make great monarchs. For example our present Queen, Victoria, Elizabeth the first. My people the Cree called Victoria the Great White Mother. I'm saying that that change won't stop there. Why discriminate against the second, third or fourth? Some of them have been our greatest monarchs. Being an aboriginal I admit to being biased about following tradition.

Our greatest monarchs have been women, but they didn't get there other than being second best option.  You omit Mary I, or bloody Mary, and while Victoria and Elizabeths have been excellent, they have had problems of their own, and probably get a kind view due to their 'golden age' status.

I think it would make more sense that the first born is next monarch.  Other methods, such as Tanistry have been used in the past, but it tends to be very time related.  People now would be happy with the Princess Royal as Queen, but would this have been the case when she was Princess Pushy?  Andrew was a Falklands hero, now he's seen differently.

[AndyHB]

It is outdated now though for this day and age (IMO) as faith/belief should be a personal thing, (not something one is forced to believe) - with no discrimination, as there should not be discrimination over gender.

What do you mean by a 'personal thing', Jan?  Are you suggesting that no-one should be allowed to indicate in any external way that they adhere to a particular belief system?