View Single Post
  #14  
Old 07-26-2013, 05:33 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VCURamFan View Post
Yeah, except that it's never the woman's fault if a daughter's born. Stupid kings!

Seriously, though, Dave: Congrats!
Well a Daughter on their own is fine...but wasnt considered as good as a Son....Now it doesnt matter, the changes to the rules regarding the accession are changing...in two ways...Dangerously in one way, and favourably in the other.

Maybe its cooincidence that the House of Hanover (as Dynastically speaking we are still living under, Windsor and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha both being requested changes, NOT a difference of Blood in the family) as the most recent House, has spawned three of the longest living Monarchs...and that two of them, have been Females. The Longest King was George III who buggered things with the American Collonies, then Victoria, and now Elizabeth, all reigned for OVER half a century EACH. I think the feeling within the parliamentarians is that the Monarchy is here to stay, BUT its damn easy to work with a Woman...and not so easy to work with a Man on the Throne...so they have done everything to try and make it that the first born, REGARDLESS OF GENDER, sits on the Throne, from the offspring of William and Catherine...now, it just so happens, its a Male anyway...BUT had it been a Female, and their second born a Male...HE would have to WAIT, rather then shunting the woman out of the way. Thats favourable I suppose.

The Dangerous bit is that they are also reversing the tag in the Glorious Revolution.

Let me explain...Ever since the Reformation of King Henry Tudor, there has been an issue with what Denomination the Throne is under. The real issue was despite the fact that Elizabeth Tudor established the Church of England forever, the Monarchs still swayed dangerously towards Romanism. When Elizabeth died, she took the House of Tudor with her...and the closest relative for a new House was the Scot King...who happened to be a Roman Catholic...enter the gun powder plott. Several Kings later, and the Denominations are warring against each other again in the Civil War...With the Romans shut out its Church of England Vs Presbyterian....followed by Presbyterian Vs Puritan. Thankfully the restoration sorted out the return of The Church of England...but then by the late Stuarts...the Roman Catholics had regrouped under James...and the Parliamentarians got so desperate, they bought in a King from the House of Orange, who married the Queen of the House of Stuart, and they litterally both reigned as Co-Monarchs together. They are known as William and Mary.

They basically consigned the monarchy to powerlessness and the House of Stuart closed all together just one reign after them.

One of the things they signed up to was that No Monarch, nor Consort of anyone eligable for being Monarch could be Roman Catholic. They HAD to be Anglican, specifically Church of England as its Supreme Govenor.

The British Parliament have just undone that law. Whilst I dont now see Catholics and Protestants warring together again...I COULD see a time when we end up with a Secular Monarch, OR, a Roman Catholic Monarch who basically dis-establishes the Church of England. For Anglicanism in this country, that would be tantamount to distruction.
__________________
Reply With Quote