Common Kate, where's the baby?

annis · Post by **annis** » Mon May 2nd, 2011, 8:09 pm

Not too sure if electing a leader means that you necessarily get one any more capable than one randomly selected by the laws of succession, given that money, power, and in some countries downright coercion play such a significant part in election processes. That's not to say that quite a few people in Britain wouldn't be just as happy with a republic - funnily enough it's people outside of Britain who are keenest on the idea of the British monarchy

Divia · Post by **Divia** » Mon May 2nd, 2011, 9:48 pm

[quote=""MLE""]Well good grief, a born-first ruling wouldn't make any more logical sense than the existing male-first law. Why not toss the whole thing out and change it to that the most capable child becomes the next monarch?

You could elect the ruler, for instance. Now there's an idea.

If the monarchy is mostly about tradition, and not logic, why not keep it traditional?[/quote]

When I was in Louisiana and went on one of the Creole plantations they said its the child who is the smartest who takes control of the plantation. So there could be 5 boys but if they are dumb as dirt then the 6th girl takes over.

Mythica · Post by **Mythica** » Tue May 3rd, 2011, 9:34 am

[quote=""SonjaMarie""]That's what happened in Sweden. The heir to the throne for a many years was a boy, but they changed the laws, and the first born, Victoria, became Crown Princess and will become Queen on her father's death.

SM[/quote]

I was going to mention that - didn't her father make it clear he's not happy with the change in the laws, that he still wants his son to be king instead?

[quote=""MLE""]Well good grief, a born-first ruling wouldn't make any more logical sense than the existing male-first law. Why not toss the whole thing out and change it to that the most capable child becomes the next monarch?

You could elect the ruler, for instance. Now there's an idea.

If the monarchy is mostly about tradition, and not logic, why not keep it traditional?[/quote]

Wasn't there a point in English history (before the Norman invasion) when it was not necessarily the eldest son who automatically inherited the throne? I thought the nobles could basically elect the heir they felt would make the best king.

annis · Post by **annis** » Tue May 3rd, 2011, 5:38 pm

The Saxon kingship pre-William the Conqueror had to be confirmed by a body called the Witenagemot, usually known as the Witan. The actual function of the witan is open to interpretation, but "it was noted by contemporary sources as having the singular power to ceosan to cyninge, 'to choose the king' from amongst the (extended) royal family. Nevertheless, at least until the 11th century, royal succession generally followed the "ordinary system of primogeniture."

The king and the witan had it seems a symbiotic relationship. The influence of the king, or at least of kingship, on the constitution of the assembly seems, therefore, to have been immense. But on the other hand he (the king) was elected by the witan .. He could not depose the prelates or ealdormen, who held their office for life, nor indeed the hereditary thanes. .. At any rate, the king had to get on with the highest statesmen appointed by his predecessor, though possibly disliked by him, until death made a post vacant that he could fill with a relation or a favourite, not, however, without having a certain regard to the wishes of the aristocracy.

Interestingly, the witan did confirm Harold Godwinsson as King Harold II after the death of Edward the Confessor, which legitimized his kingship in English law. So in this case they chose the best man for the job, but only in the knowledge that there was no viable heir of the royal Wessex bloodline.

SonjaMarie · Post by **SonjaMarie** » Tue May 3rd, 2011, 5:44 pm

[quote=""Mythica""]I was going to mention that - didn't her father make it clear he's not happy with the change in the laws, that he still wants his son to be king instead?
[/quote]

Yes, he made his feelings known that he didn't want the laws changed.

SM

LoveHistory · Post by **LoveHistory** » Tue May 3rd, 2011, 11:29 pm

Given that a vote of no confidence can wipe out parliament, and one would think the throne would be equally susceptible to such a thing, I don't think electing one's monarch is a good idea. I don't think it makes sense either.

I do see the point about keeping tradition traditional though. One of Kate's children will most likely be king or queen, regardless.

Veronica · Post by **Veronica** » Thu May 19th, 2011, 4:29 am

[QUOTE=Divia;84632]While I don't think they need to do it NOW, it does need to be done. She's nearly 30 she doesn't have the luxury of waiting another 10 years.QUOTE]

Oh that's harsh! I'm 30 with no kids and neither am I in a hurry either. Too many things in life has been given a time limit by society, this is one of them.

Mythica · Post by **Mythica** » Thu May 19th, 2011, 9:20 am

[quote=""Veronica""]
Oh that's harsh! I'm 30 with no kids and neither am I in a hurry either. Too many things in life has been given a time limit by society, this is one of them.[/quote]

You're not being relied upon to produce the next heir to the throne though, lol.

Plus, I don't think it's so much society which puts time limits on this as it is biology. While plenty of women are perfectly capable of having children well into their 30s or even 40s, studies have shown that female fertility can begin to drop as early as your late 20s. I'm Kate's age (literally born the same year) and while I'm not ready to have kids yet, I am starting to worry about whether I'll have problems getting pregnant by the time I am ready.

It depends on the individual of course - my cousin started having kids at 32 and she was pregnant within the first month of getting off the pill. She wound up have 4 kids and the same thing happened with each - pregnant within the first month of trying.

So maybe I'll be like my cousin - but then again, for all I know, my fertility could be plummeting as we speak and I'm only 28 (and it's just hit me that I turn 29 in less than a month... ugh...)

Divia · Post by **Divia** » Thu May 19th, 2011, 10:05 am

[quote=""Veronica""]Oh that's harsh! I'm 30 with no kids and neither am I in a hurry either. Too many things in life has been given a time limit by society, this is one of them.[/quote]

Not really. Like Mythica said complications rise with age. There are some 40 year old women who can have find healthy babies, but they are 40. By the time the kid is 18 they will be 58. While not old, its no spring chicken.

I'm in my 30s and don't want kids. I'm fine with it. Never wanted any.