Discussion:
Has there been any change to British Succession Laws ?
(too old to reply)
Bigbazza
2005-10-04 04:56:00 UTC
Permalink
I was told today that the British Law has now changed from male-preference
primogeniture......To allow the oldest Child (whether Male or Female) being
the next in the line of succession to the British Throne

Is that correct or not ?
--
Bigbazza (Barry)..Oz
m***@btinternet.com
2005-10-04 06:06:47 UTC
Permalink
Not correct. It's been discussed by the present Government at
Westminster but not actioned.
Bigbazza
2005-10-04 11:23:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Not correct. It's been discussed by the present Government at
Westminster but not actioned.
Isn't it a 'Private' Bill that was introduced ?....

Also if it was to pass ..I believe that all the other Countries of the
commonwealth that the Queen is Sovereign would also have to approve it as
well ??...Is that a fact ?
--
Bigbazza (Barry)..Oz
Alejandro
2005-10-04 06:19:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bigbazza
I was told today that the British Law has now changed from male-preference
primogeniture......To allow the oldest Child (whether Male or Female) being
the next in the line of succession to the British Throne
Is that correct or not ?
--
Bigbazza (Barry)..Oz
It would be, however, a very good way to point women rights in these
modern times.
Michael Rhodes
2005-10-04 08:15:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alejandro
Post by Bigbazza
I was told today that the British Law has now changed from male-preference
primogeniture......To allow the oldest Child (whether Male or Female) being
the next in the line of succession to the British Throne
Is that correct or not ?
--
Bigbazza (Barry)..Oz
It would be, however, a very good way to point women rights in these
modern times.
I don't suppose the qeustion will be taken up in earnest until Prince
William's wife is with child.
Gary Holtzman
2005-10-07 00:45:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alejandro
Post by Bigbazza
I was told today that the British Law has now changed from
male-preference primogeniture......To allow the oldest Child (whether
Male or Female) being the next in the line of succession to the British
Throne
Is that correct or not ?
--
Bigbazza (Barry)..Oz
It would be, however, a very good way to point women rights in these
modern times.
Because the rights of royal princesses to succeed ahead of their younger brothers
represents social equality? I think if one starts applying the logic of equal rights to
monarchy, one will soon find the internal contradictions untenable.
--
Gary Holtzman

Change "macnospam.com" to "mac.com" to email.

-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Stan Brown
2005-10-04 16:47:37 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 14:56:00 +1000 in alt.talk.royalty, Bigbazza
favored us with...
Post by Bigbazza
I was told today that the British Law has now changed from male-preference
primogeniture......To allow the oldest Child (whether Male or Female) being
the next in the line of succession to the British Throne
Is that correct or not ?
Not. There's been talk, but that's all.

My belief is that it won't be seriously considered until the King's
or Prince of Wales' eldest child is a girl.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech /faqget.htm
Matt Lavengood
2005-10-04 19:03:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 14:56:00 +1000 in alt.talk.royalty, Bigbazza
favored us with...
Post by Bigbazza
I was told today that the British Law has now changed from male-preference
primogeniture......To allow the oldest Child (whether Male or Female) being
the next in the line of succession to the British Throne
Is that correct or not ?
Not. There's been talk, but that's all.
My belief is that it won't be seriously considered until the King's
or Prince of Wales' eldest child is a girl.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech /faqget.htm
Right; if it's not gonna change anything, why bother? Note that all
countries who have switched to full primogeniture have had an eldest
child of the monarch or heir be a girl:

Sweden: King Carl XVI Gustaf's eldest child is a girl (Crown Princess
Victoria)
Norway: Crown Prince Haakon's eldest child is a girl (Princess Ingrid
Alexandra)
Netherlands: The Prince of Orange's eldest child is a girl (Princess
Catharina Amalia)
Belgium: The Duke of Brabant's eldest child is a girl (Princess
Elisabeth)

In Spain, it is almost certain that if the Princess of Asturias's child
is a girl, then the succession law will be changed. In contrast, it is
almost certain that it will not be changed should it be a boy.
Likewise, if Prince William's first child is a girl, then it is
possible the succession law for the UK will change as well.
p***@yepmail.net
2005-10-05 18:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Lavengood
Post by Stan Brown
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 14:56:00 +1000 in alt.talk.royalty, Bigbazza
favored us with...
Post by Bigbazza
I was told today that the British Law has now changed from male-preference
primogeniture......To allow the oldest Child (whether Male or Female) being
the next in the line of succession to the British Throne
Is that correct or not ?
Not. There's been talk, but that's all.
My belief is that it won't be seriously considered until the King's
or Prince of Wales' eldest child is a girl.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech /faqget.htm
Right; if it's not gonna change anything, why bother? Note that all
countries who have switched to full primogeniture have had an eldest
Sweden: King Carl XVI Gustaf's eldest child is a girl (Crown Princess
Victoria)
Norway: Crown Prince Haakon's eldest child is a girl (Princess Ingrid
Alexandra)
Netherlands: The Prince of Orange's eldest child is a girl (Princess
Catharina Amalia)
Belgium: The Duke of Brabant's eldest child is a girl (Princess
Elisabeth)
In Spain, it is almost certain that if the Princess of Asturias's child
is a girl, then the succession law will be changed. In contrast, it is
almost certain that it will not be changed should it be a boy.
Likewise, if Prince William's first child is a girl, then it is
possible the succession law for the UK will change as well.
I don't see the British laws changing to accomodate William's children
at all.
We shall see.
Matt Lavengood
2005-10-05 19:35:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@yepmail.net
Post by Matt Lavengood
Post by Stan Brown
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 14:56:00 +1000 in alt.talk.royalty, Bigbazza
favored us with...
Post by Bigbazza
I was told today that the British Law has now changed from male-preference
primogeniture......To allow the oldest Child (whether Male or Female) being
the next in the line of succession to the British Throne
Is that correct or not ?
Not. There's been talk, but that's all.
My belief is that it won't be seriously considered until the King's
or Prince of Wales' eldest child is a girl.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech /faqget.htm
Right; if it's not gonna change anything, why bother? Note that all
countries who have switched to full primogeniture have had an eldest
Sweden: King Carl XVI Gustaf's eldest child is a girl (Crown Princess
Victoria)
Norway: Crown Prince Haakon's eldest child is a girl (Princess Ingrid
Alexandra)
Netherlands: The Prince of Orange's eldest child is a girl (Princess
Catharina Amalia)
Belgium: The Duke of Brabant's eldest child is a girl (Princess
Elisabeth)
In Spain, it is almost certain that if the Princess of Asturias's child
is a girl, then the succession law will be changed. In contrast, it is
almost certain that it will not be changed should it be a boy.
Likewise, if Prince William's first child is a girl, then it is
possible the succession law for the UK will change as well.
I don't see the British laws changing to accomodate William's children
at all.
We shall see.
It looks to me that if Prince William's firstborn is a girl, then there
will likely be a large outcry in the public that she become Queen.
Louis Epstein
2005-10-07 00:24:28 UTC
Permalink
Matt Lavengood <***@gmail.com> wrote:
:
: ***@yepmail.net wrote:
:> Matt Lavengood wrote:
:> > Stan Brown wrote:
:> > > On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 14:56:00 +1000 in alt.talk.royalty, Bigbazza
:> > > favored us with...
:> > > > I was told today that the British Law has now changed from male-preference
:> > > > primogeniture......To allow the oldest Child (whether Male or Female) being
:> > > > the next in the line of succession to the British Throne
:> > > >
:> > > > Is that correct or not ?
:> > >
:> > > Not. There's been talk, but that's all.
:> > >
:> > > My belief is that it won't be seriously considered until the King's
:> > > or Prince of Wales' eldest child is a girl.
:> > >
:> >
:> > Right; if it's not gonna change anything, why bother? Note that all
:> > countries who have switched to full primogeniture have had an eldest
:> > child of the monarch or heir be a girl:
:> >
:> > Sweden: King Carl XVI Gustaf's eldest child is a girl (Crown Princess
:> > Victoria)
:> > Norway: Crown Prince Haakon's eldest child is a girl (Princess Ingrid
:> > Alexandra)
:> > Netherlands: The Prince of Orange's eldest child is a girl (Princess
:> > Catharina Amalia)
:> > Belgium: The Duke of Brabant's eldest child is a girl (Princess
:> > Elisabeth)
:> >
:> > In Spain, it is almost certain that if the Princess of Asturias's child
:> > is a girl, then the succession law will be changed. In contrast, it is
:> > almost certain that it will not be changed should it be a boy.
:> > Likewise, if Prince William's first child is a girl, then it is
:> > possible the succession law for the UK will change as well.
:>
:> I don't see the British laws changing to accomodate William's children
:> at all.
:> We shall see.
:
: It looks to me that if Prince William's firstborn is a girl, then there
: will likely be a large outcry in the public that she become Queen.

I expect that when the future Princess William is pregnant the
Queen will do what her father did before she gave birth to the
present Prince of Wales,and provide that any children of the
marriage will be born HRH Princes/ses regardless of sex,rather
than allow the firstborn to be a mere Lady while her first younger
brother would become a Prince (as is the current rule).

Succession law might be introduced in Parliament either before
or after a birth...the Succession to the Crown bill withdrawn
last year followed Lord Archer's of some years ago,and there
was another proposed by Michael English MP back around the birth
of Prince William.

But if it doesn't get Government time,it's unlikely to pass.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Graham Truesdale
2005-10-08 00:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Succession law might be introduced in Parliament either before
or after a birth...the Succession to the Crown bill withdrawn
last year followed Lord Archer's of some years ago,and there
was another proposed by Michael English MP back around the birth
of Prince William.
Last year's and Lord Archer's were I think partly withdrawn because there
was no immediate urgency. But during Diana's first pregnancy, there was
the very real possibility that the baby might be a girl who would be displaced
by a younger brother. Why exactly was it that nothing was done?
Michael Rhodes
2005-10-08 00:31:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Truesdale
Post by Louis Epstein
Succession law might be introduced in Parliament either before
or after a birth...the Succession to the Crown bill withdrawn
last year followed Lord Archer's of some years ago,and there
was another proposed by Michael English MP back around the birth
of Prince William.
Last year's and Lord Archer's were I think partly withdrawn because there
was no immediate urgency. But during Diana's first pregnancy, there was
the very real possibility that the baby might be a girl who would be displaced
by a younger brother. Why exactly was it that nothing was done?
Back in 1982 the momentum was lost when Diana gave birth to a son. The
subject just faded away.

The Government are loathed to tinker with the succession because it
will involve debates on the monarchy in ALL the Queen's realms.
Stan Brown
2005-10-08 14:31:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 00:19:45 +0000 (UTC) in alt.talk.royalty, Graham
Truesdale favored us with...
Post by Graham Truesdale
Post by Louis Epstein
Succession law might be introduced in Parliament either before
or after a birth...the Succession to the Crown bill withdrawn
last year followed Lord Archer's of some years ago,and there
was another proposed by Michael English MP back around the birth
of Prince William.
Last year's and Lord Archer's were I think partly withdrawn because there
was no immediate urgency. But during Diana's first pregnancy, there was
the very real possibility that the baby might be a girl who would be displaced
by a younger brother. Why exactly was it that nothing was done?
Because even if the baby had been a girl, she would still be only an
heir to the heir. As the precedent of Sweden shows, it would still
have been time enough to deal with it after her father's accession
and the birth of her younger brother.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech /faqget.htm
Louis Epstein
2005-11-02 02:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Stan Brown <***@fastmail.fm> wrote:
: On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 00:19:45 +0000 (UTC) in alt.talk.royalty, Graham
: Truesdale favored us with...
:> "Louis Epstein" <***@main.put.com> wrote in message
:> news:3_6dnRyAK7GhXdjeRVn-***@velocitywest.net...
:> > Succession law might be introduced in Parliament either before
:> > or after a birth...the Succession to the Crown bill withdrawn
:> > last year followed Lord Archer's of some years ago,and there
:> > was another proposed by Michael English MP back around the birth
:> > of Prince William.
:> >
:> Last year's and Lord Archer's were I think partly withdrawn because there
:> was no immediate urgency. But during Diana's first pregnancy, there was
:> the very real possibility that the baby might be a girl who would be
:> displaced by a younger brother. Why exactly was it that nothing was done?
:
: Because even if the baby had been a girl, she would still be only an
: heir to the heir. As the precedent of Sweden shows, it would still
: have been time enough to deal with it after her father's accession
: and the birth of her younger brother.

Crown Prince Carl Philip of Sweden was born after the passage of the bill
and was displaced in the succession as of its effective date at the start
of the following year.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Gary Holtzman
2005-10-07 00:48:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Lavengood
Post by Stan Brown
My belief is that it won't be seriously considered until the King's
or Prince of Wales' eldest child is a girl.
Right; if it's not gonna change anything, why bother?
Because if one believes that it is the right thing to do, it changes a great deal whether
there is an immediate practical result or not. I happen to be an agnostic on this subject,
but if one takes the position that succession rights are somehow related to "justice", the
principle is at least as important as the actual gender of the heir.
--
Gary Holtzman

Change "macnospam.com" to "mac.com" to email.

-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Stan Brown
2005-10-07 04:32:48 UTC
Permalink
On 07 Oct 2005 00:48:22 GMT in alt.talk.royalty, favored us with...
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by Matt Lavengood
Post by Stan Brown
My belief is that it won't be seriously considered until the King's
or Prince of Wales' eldest child is a girl.
Right; if it's not gonna change anything, why bother?
Because if one believes that it is the right thing to do, it changes a great deal whether
there is an immediate practical result or not. I happen to be an agnostic on this subject,
but if one takes the position that succession rights are somehow related to "justice", the
principle is at least as important as the actual gender of the heir.
As a matter of principle, I agree 100%.

But humans mostly don't think that way -- instead they tend to
postpone action until it becomes urgent.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech /faqget.htm
Louis Epstein
2005-11-02 02:41:42 UTC
Permalink
(Gary wrote:
: "Matt Lavengood" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
:> Stan Brown wrote:
:> > My belief is that it won't be seriously considered until the King's
:> > or Prince of Wales' eldest child is a girl.
:>
:> Right; if it's not gonna change anything, why bother?
:
: Because if one believes that it is the right thing to do, it changes a
: great deal whether there is an immediate practical result or not. I
: happen to be an agnostic on this subject, but if one takes the position
: that succession rights are somehow related to "justice", the principle
: is at least as important as the actual gender of the heir.

However,justice is an IMMUTABLE principle,
and it is only possible for succession laws
to need change as a matter of justice if they
have ALWAYS been unjust...therefore to demand
change for the future calls into question all
past successions that have gone against the
rule declared to be just.

Either the English throne passed into the wrong
hands in 1100 and has never been in the right
ones since,or there is no injustice in the eldest
child of Prince William of Wales,if a daughter,
yielding place to her eldest younger brother.

I certainly would want her given the royal title
that would be her due if male,if she is born in
the present reign,though!

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
c***@virgin.net
2005-11-02 07:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
:> > My belief is that it won't be seriously considered until the King's
:> > or Prince of Wales' eldest child is a girl.
:>
:> Right; if it's not gonna change anything, why bother?
: Because if one believes that it is the right thing to do, it changes a
: great deal whether there is an immediate practical result or not. I
: happen to be an agnostic on this subject, but if one takes the position
: that succession rights are somehow related to "justice", the principle
: is at least as important as the actual gender of the heir.
However,justice is an IMMUTABLE principle,
and it is only possible for succession laws
to need change as a matter of justice if they
have ALWAYS been unjust...therefore to demand
change for the future calls into question all
past successions that have gone against the
rule declared to be just.
Either the English throne passed into the wrong
hands in 1100 and has never been in the right
ones since,or there is no injustice in the eldest
child of Prince William of Wales,if a daughter,
yielding place to her eldest younger brother.
I certainly would want her given the royal title
that would be her due if male,if she is born in
the present reign,though!
You seem to make a good argument as to why slavery, the death penalty,
crucifiction or child prostitution, should never have been abolished.
The concept of what is just or unjust changes over time and it is
correct that laws are changed to reflect this.
Louis Epstein
2005-11-03 03:48:37 UTC
Permalink
***@virgin.net wrote:
:
: Louis Epstein wrote:
:> (Gary wrote:
:> : "Matt Lavengood" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
:> :> Stan Brown wrote:
:> :> > My belief is that it won't be seriously considered until the King's
:> :> > or Prince of Wales' eldest child is a girl.
:> :>
:> :> Right; if it's not gonna change anything, why bother?
:> :
:> : Because if one believes that it is the right thing to do, it changes a
:> : great deal whether there is an immediate practical result or not. I
:> : happen to be an agnostic on this subject, but if one takes the position
:> : that succession rights are somehow related to "justice", the principle
:> : is at least as important as the actual gender of the heir.
:>
:> However,justice is an IMMUTABLE principle,
:> and it is only possible for succession laws
:> to need change as a matter of justice if they
:> have ALWAYS been unjust...therefore to demand
:> change for the future calls into question all
:> past successions that have gone against the
:> rule declared to be just.
:>
:> Either the English throne passed into the wrong
:> hands in 1100 and has never been in the right
:> ones since,or there is no injustice in the eldest
:> child of Prince William of Wales,if a daughter,
:> yielding place to her eldest younger brother.
:>
:> I certainly would want her given the royal title
:> that would be her due if male,if she is born in
:> the present reign,though!
:>
: You seem to make a good argument as to why slavery, the death penalty,
: crucifiction or child prostitution, should never have been abolished.

No...they have always been wrong,
that is what justified their abolition.

: The concept of what is just or unjust changes over time and it is
: correct that laws are changed to reflect this.

What is legal or illegal changes over time as people attempt
to better approximate the fact of what is eternally just or
unjust.

Morals derive their validity from their absolute inability
to "change with the times"!

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
c***@virgin.net
2005-11-03 06:09:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
:> :> > My belief is that it won't be seriously considered until the King's
:> :> > or Prince of Wales' eldest child is a girl.
:> :>
:> :> Right; if it's not gonna change anything, why bother?
:> : Because if one believes that it is the right thing to do, it changes a
:> : great deal whether there is an immediate practical result or not. I
:> : happen to be an agnostic on this subject, but if one takes the position
:> : that succession rights are somehow related to "justice", the principle
:> : is at least as important as the actual gender of the heir.
:>
:> However,justice is an IMMUTABLE principle,
:> and it is only possible for succession laws
:> to need change as a matter of justice if they
:> have ALWAYS been unjust...therefore to demand
:> change for the future calls into question all
:> past successions that have gone against the
:> rule declared to be just.
:>
:> Either the English throne passed into the wrong
:> hands in 1100 and has never been in the right
:> ones since,or there is no injustice in the eldest
:> child of Prince William of Wales,if a daughter,
:> yielding place to her eldest younger brother.
:>
:> I certainly would want her given the royal title
:> that would be her due if male,if she is born in
:> the present reign,though!
:>
: You seem to make a good argument as to why slavery, the death penalty,
: crucifiction or child prostitution, should never have been abolished.
No...they have always been wrong,
that is what justified their abolition.
Nope. They were only though immoral at a particular point in time. From
then on they may well have been thought to have been wrong along, but
that is a different argument.
Post by Louis Epstein
: The concept of what is just or unjust changes over time and it is
: correct that laws are changed to reflect this.
What is legal or illegal changes over time as people attempt
to better approximate the fact of what is eternally just or
unjust.
Morals derive their validity from their absolute inability
to "change with the times"!
Nope. They largely derive from religious teachings. If you were right,
no new religions would ever have come into being and different
religions, sects and denominations would never exist. They clearly do
and they offer different moral teachings, often quite opposed to each
other.
Louis Epstein
2005-11-04 00:35:07 UTC
Permalink
***@virgin.net wrote:
:
: Louis Epstein wrote:
:> ***@virgin.net wrote:
:> :
:> : Louis Epstein wrote:
:> :> (Gary wrote:
:> :> : "Matt Lavengood" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
:> :> :> Stan Brown wrote:
:> :> :> > My belief is that it won't be seriously considered until the King's
:> :> :> > or Prince of Wales' eldest child is a girl.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Right; if it's not gonna change anything, why bother?
:> :> :
:> :> : Because if one believes that it is the right thing to do, it changes a
:> :> : great deal whether there is an immediate practical result or not. I
:> :> : happen to be an agnostic on this subject, but if one takes the position
:> :> : that succession rights are somehow related to "justice", the principle
:> :> : is at least as important as the actual gender of the heir.
:> :>
:> :> However,justice is an IMMUTABLE principle,
:> :> and it is only possible for succession laws
:> :> to need change as a matter of justice if they
:> :> have ALWAYS been unjust...therefore to demand
:> :> change for the future calls into question all
:> :> past successions that have gone against the
:> :> rule declared to be just.
:> :>
:> :> Either the English throne passed into the wrong
:> :> hands in 1100 and has never been in the right
:> :> ones since,or there is no injustice in the eldest
:> :> child of Prince William of Wales,if a daughter,
:> :> yielding place to her eldest younger brother.
:> :>
:> :> I certainly would want her given the royal title
:> :> that would be her due if male,if she is born in
:> :> the present reign,though!
:> :>
:> : You seem to make a good argument as to why slavery, the death penalty,
:> : crucifiction or child prostitution, should never have been abolished.
:>
:> No...they have always been wrong,
:> that is what justified their abolition.
:
: Nope. They were only though immoral at a particular point in time. From
: then on they may well have been thought to have been wrong along, but
: that is a different argument.

It is the entire point.
Morals are morals ONLY because they are INDEPENDENT
of whether or not they are believed.A moral argument
is based on its being irrelevant if one thinks something
is right.

:> : The concept of what is just or unjust changes over time and it is
:> : correct that laws are changed to reflect this.
:>
:> What is legal or illegal changes over time as people attempt
:> to better approximate the fact of what is eternally just or
:> unjust.
:> Morals derive their validity from their absolute inability
:> to "change with the times"!
:
: Nope. They largely derive from religious teachings. If you were right,
: no new religions would ever have come into being and different
: religions, sects and denominations would never exist. They clearly do
: and they offer different moral teachings, often quite opposed to each
: other.

On the contrary...religions come into being based on different
perceptions on what the sole possible set of valid morals is.
To the extent that any religion errs it is incumbent on those
who sense its error to start another.

Just as there is a path to God for every person born,
but only one God at the end of all the paths,morality
is an inalterable unity that men perceive like the blind
men and the elephant.When we ascertain something about it
that we did not know,it doesn't mean any part of it has changed.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
c***@virgin.net
2005-11-04 07:01:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
:> :> :> > My belief is that it won't be seriously considered until the King's
:> :> :> > or Prince of Wales' eldest child is a girl.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Right; if it's not gonna change anything, why bother?
:> :> : Because if one believes that it is the right thing to do, it changes a
:> :> : great deal whether there is an immediate practical result or not. I
:> :> : happen to be an agnostic on this subject, but if one takes the position
:> :> : that succession rights are somehow related to "justice", the principle
:> :> : is at least as important as the actual gender of the heir.
:> :>
:> :> However,justice is an IMMUTABLE principle,
:> :> and it is only possible for succession laws
:> :> to need change as a matter of justice if they
:> :> have ALWAYS been unjust...therefore to demand
:> :> change for the future calls into question all
:> :> past successions that have gone against the
:> :> rule declared to be just.
:> :>
:> :> Either the English throne passed into the wrong
:> :> hands in 1100 and has never been in the right
:> :> ones since,or there is no injustice in the eldest
:> :> child of Prince William of Wales,if a daughter,
:> :> yielding place to her eldest younger brother.
:> :>
:> :> I certainly would want her given the royal title
:> :> that would be her due if male,if she is born in
:> :> the present reign,though!
:> :>
:> : You seem to make a good argument as to why slavery, the death penalty,
:> : crucifiction or child prostitution, should never have been abolished.
:>
:> No...they have always been wrong,
:> that is what justified their abolition.
: Nope. They were only though immoral at a particular point in time. From
: then on they may well have been thought to have been wrong along, but
: that is a different argument.
It is the entire point.
I know it is *your* point, but it cannot be the entire point.
Post by Louis Epstein
Morals are morals ONLY because they are INDEPENDENT
of whether or not they are believed.
Morals cannot be independent from belief. If the whole human race died
out tomorrow, morals are not going to be found sitting down to
breakfast the next morning. Morals can only exist if there is someone
to believe in them and consequently new ones can be created and old
ones dispatched at human whim.
Post by Louis Epstein
A moral argument
is based on its being irrelevant if one thinks something
is right.
:> : The concept of what is just or unjust changes over time and it is
:> : correct that laws are changed to reflect this.
:>
:> What is legal or illegal changes over time as people attempt
:> to better approximate the fact of what is eternally just or
:> unjust.
:> Morals derive their validity from their absolute inability
:> to "change with the times"!
: Nope. They largely derive from religious teachings. If you were right,
: no new religions would ever have come into being and different
: religions, sects and denominations would never exist. They clearly do
: and they offer different moral teachings, often quite opposed to each
: other.
On the contrary...religions come into being based on different
perceptions on what the sole possible set of valid morals is.
To the extent that any religion errs it is incumbent on those
who sense its error to start another.
A particular group may start another sect, religion or denomination,
but that doen't necessarily mean that the existing religion dissappears
or that its morals are replaced either. The morality of both often
exist, side by side, and compete with each other. Roman Catholicism may
have been deemed morally bankrupt by founding Protestants, but its
teachings nor its set of morals haven't dissapeared. Indeed, RC has
grown.
Post by Louis Epstein
Just as there is a path to God for every person born,
but only one God at the end of all the paths,morality
is an inalterable unity that men perceive like the blind
men and the elephant.When we ascertain something about it
that we did not know,it doesn't mean any part of it has changed.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Louis Epstein
2005-11-05 00:28:52 UTC
Permalink
***@virgin.net wrote:
:
: Louis Epstein wrote:
:> ***@virgin.net wrote:
:> :
:> : Louis Epstein wrote:
:> :> ***@virgin.net wrote:
:> :> :
:> :> : Louis Epstein wrote:
:> :> :> (Gary wrote:
:> :> :> : "Matt Lavengood" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
:> :> :> :> Stan Brown wrote:
:> :> :> :> > My belief is that it won't be seriously considered until the King's
:> :> :> :> > or Prince of Wales' eldest child is a girl.
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> Right; if it's not gonna change anything, why bother?
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> : Because if one believes that it is the right thing to do, it changes a
:> :> :> : great deal whether there is an immediate practical result or not. I
:> :> :> : happen to be an agnostic on this subject, but if one takes the position
:> :> :> : that succession rights are somehow related to "justice", the principle
:> :> :> : is at least as important as the actual gender of the heir.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> However,justice is an IMMUTABLE principle,
:> :> :> and it is only possible for succession laws
:> :> :> to need change as a matter of justice if they
:> :> :> have ALWAYS been unjust...therefore to demand
:> :> :> change for the future calls into question all
:> :> :> past successions that have gone against the
:> :> :> rule declared to be just.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Either the English throne passed into the wrong
:> :> :> hands in 1100 and has never been in the right
:> :> :> ones since,or there is no injustice in the eldest
:> :> :> child of Prince William of Wales,if a daughter,
:> :> :> yielding place to her eldest younger brother.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> I certainly would want her given the royal title
:> :> :> that would be her due if male,if she is born in
:> :> :> the present reign,though!
:> :> :>
:> :> : You seem to make a good argument as to why slavery, the death penalty,
:> :> : crucifiction or child prostitution, should never have been abolished.
:> :>
:> :> No...they have always been wrong,
:> :> that is what justified their abolition.
:> :
:> : Nope. They were only though immoral at a particular point in time. From
:> : then on they may well have been thought to have been wrong along, but
:> : that is a different argument.
:>
:> It is the entire point.
:
:
: I know it is *your* point, but it cannot be the entire point.
:
:> Morals are morals ONLY because they are INDEPENDENT
:> of whether or not they are believed.
:
: Morals cannot be independent from belief. If the whole human race died
: out tomorrow, morals are not going to be found sitting down to
: breakfast the next morning.

They will sit down for breakfast every morning until another
species arises to seek them out where they will always be...

: Morals can only exist if there is someone to believe in them and
: consequently new ones can be created and old ones dispatched at human
: whim.

No...Newton did not create physics and theologians
did not create God.

:> A moral argument is based on its being irrelevant if one thinks
:> something is right.
:>
:> :> : The concept of what is just or unjust changes over time and it is
:> :> : correct that laws are changed to reflect this.
:> :>
:> :> What is legal or illegal changes over time as people attempt
:> :> to better approximate the fact of what is eternally just or
:> :> unjust.
:> :> Morals derive their validity from their absolute inability
:> :> to "change with the times"!
:> :
:> : Nope. They largely derive from religious teachings. If you were right,
:> : no new religions would ever have come into being and different
:> : religions, sects and denominations would never exist. They clearly do
:> : and they offer different moral teachings, often quite opposed to each
:> : other.
:>
:> On the contrary...religions come into being based on different
:> perceptions on what the sole possible set of valid morals is.
:> To the extent that any religion errs it is incumbent on those
:> who sense its error to start another.
:
: A particular group may start another sect, religion or denomination,
: but that doen't necessarily mean that the existing religion dissappears
: or that its morals are replaced either. The morality of both often
: exist, side by side, and compete with each other. Roman Catholicism may
: have been deemed morally bankrupt by founding Protestants, but its
: teachings nor its set of morals haven't dissapeared. Indeed, RC has
: grown.

There is only one set of morals and various people approximate
them with differing degrees of accuracy.

:> Just as there is a path to God for every person born,
:> but only one God at the end of all the paths,morality
:> is an inalterable unity that men perceive like the blind
:> men and the elephant.When we ascertain something about it
:> that we did not know,it doesn't mean any part of it has changed.
:>
:> -=-=-
:> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
:> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
:
c***@virgin.net
2005-11-05 07:11:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
:> :> :> :> > My belief is that it won't be seriously considered until the King's
:> :> :> :> > or Prince of Wales' eldest child is a girl.
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> Right; if it's not gonna change anything, why bother?
:> :> :> : Because if one believes that it is the right thing to do, it changes a
:> :> :> : great deal whether there is an immediate practical result or not. I
:> :> :> : happen to be an agnostic on this subject, but if one takes the position
:> :> :> : that succession rights are somehow related to "justice", the principle
:> :> :> : is at least as important as the actual gender of the heir.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> However,justice is an IMMUTABLE principle,
:> :> :> and it is only possible for succession laws
:> :> :> to need change as a matter of justice if they
:> :> :> have ALWAYS been unjust...therefore to demand
:> :> :> change for the future calls into question all
:> :> :> past successions that have gone against the
:> :> :> rule declared to be just.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Either the English throne passed into the wrong
:> :> :> hands in 1100 and has never been in the right
:> :> :> ones since,or there is no injustice in the eldest
:> :> :> child of Prince William of Wales,if a daughter,
:> :> :> yielding place to her eldest younger brother.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> I certainly would want her given the royal title
:> :> :> that would be her due if male,if she is born in
:> :> :> the present reign,though!
:> :> :>
:> :> : You seem to make a good argument as to why slavery, the death penalty,
:> :> : crucifiction or child prostitution, should never have been abolished.
:> :>
:> :> No...they have always been wrong,
:> :> that is what justified their abolition.
:> : Nope. They were only though immoral at a particular point in time. From
:> : then on they may well have been thought to have been wrong along, but
:> : that is a different argument.
:>
:> It is the entire point.
: I know it is *your* point, but it cannot be the entire point.
:> Morals are morals ONLY because they are INDEPENDENT
:> of whether or not they are believed.
: Morals cannot be independent from belief. If the whole human race died
: out tomorrow, morals are not going to be found sitting down to
: breakfast the next morning.
They will sit down for breakfast every morning until another
species arises to seek them out where they will always be...
I am afraid not. The new species is likely to have a God in its on
image and his usual breakfast plans, such as eating his own young, will
decide what morality will be.
Post by Louis Epstein
: Morals can only exist if there is someone to believe in them and
: consequently new ones can be created and old ones dispatched at human
: whim.
No...Newton did not create physics and theologians
did not create God.
There are many Gods, created by theologians, mystics, sages,
carpenters, princes, and a whole variety of folk.

Newton was merely an observer and recorder of phenomena, and a
theorist.
Post by Louis Epstein
:> A moral argument is based on its being irrelevant if one thinks
:> something is right.
:>
:> :> : The concept of what is just or unjust changes over time and it is
:> :> : correct that laws are changed to reflect this.
:> :>
:> :> What is legal or illegal changes over time as people attempt
:> :> to better approximate the fact of what is eternally just or
:> :> unjust.
:> :> Morals derive their validity from their absolute inability
:> :> to "change with the times"!
:> : Nope. They largely derive from religious teachings. If you were right,
:> : no new religions would ever have come into being and different
:> : religions, sects and denominations would never exist. They clearly do
:> : and they offer different moral teachings, often quite opposed to each
:> : other.
:>
:> On the contrary...religions come into being based on different
:> perceptions on what the sole possible set of valid morals is.
:> To the extent that any religion errs it is incumbent on those
:> who sense its error to start another.
: A particular group may start another sect, religion or denomination,
: but that doen't necessarily mean that the existing religion dissappears
: or that its morals are replaced either. The morality of both often
: exist, side by side, and compete with each other. Roman Catholicism may
: have been deemed morally bankrupt by founding Protestants, but its
: teachings nor its set of morals haven't dissapeared. Indeed, RC has
: grown.
There is only one set of morals and various people approximate
them with differing degrees of accuracy.
Interesting that the "level of accuracy" can be life in one or death in
another. It think that stretches the term a mite longer than language
allows.
Michael A. Hutera
2005-11-06 03:28:26 UTC
Permalink
All I know that is King Edward VIII asked of his young son to name his first
born son Henri after his father.
Post by Louis Epstein
:> :> :> :> > My belief is that it won't be seriously considered until the King's
:> :> :> :> > or Prince of Wales' eldest child is a girl.
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> Right; if it's not gonna change anything, why bother?
:> :> :> : Because if one believes that it is the right thing to do, it changes a
:> :> :> : great deal whether there is an immediate practical result or not. I
:> :> :> : happen to be an agnostic on this subject, but if one takes the position
:> :> :> : that succession rights are somehow related to "justice", the principle
:> :> :> : is at least as important as the actual gender of the heir.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> However,justice is an IMMUTABLE principle,
:> :> :> and it is only possible for succession laws
:> :> :> to need change as a matter of justice if they
:> :> :> have ALWAYS been unjust...therefore to demand
:> :> :> change for the future calls into question all
:> :> :> past successions that have gone against the
:> :> :> rule declared to be just.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Either the English throne passed into the wrong
:> :> :> hands in 1100 and has never been in the right
:> :> :> ones since,or there is no injustice in the eldest
:> :> :> child of Prince William of Wales,if a daughter,
:> :> :> yielding place to her eldest younger brother.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> I certainly would want her given the royal title
:> :> :> that would be her due if male,if she is born in
:> :> :> the present reign,though!
:> :> :>
:> :> : You seem to make a good argument as to why slavery, the death penalty,
:> :> : crucifiction or child prostitution, should never have been abolished.
:> :>
:> :> No...they have always been wrong,
:> :> that is what justified their abolition.
:> : Nope. They were only though immoral at a particular point in time. From
:> : then on they may well have been thought to have been wrong along, but
:> : that is a different argument.
:>
:> It is the entire point.
: I know it is *your* point, but it cannot be the entire point.
:> Morals are morals ONLY because they are INDEPENDENT
:> of whether or not they are believed.
: Morals cannot be independent from belief. If the whole human race died
: out tomorrow, morals are not going to be found sitting down to
: breakfast the next morning.
They will sit down for breakfast every morning until another
species arises to seek them out where they will always be...
: Morals can only exist if there is someone to believe in them and
: consequently new ones can be created and old ones dispatched at human
: whim.
No...Newton did not create physics and theologians
did not create God.
:> A moral argument is based on its being irrelevant if one thinks
:> something is right.
:>
:> :> : The concept of what is just or unjust changes over time and it is
:> :> : correct that laws are changed to reflect this.
:> :>
:> :> What is legal or illegal changes over time as people attempt
:> :> to better approximate the fact of what is eternally just or
:> :> unjust.
:> :> Morals derive their validity from their absolute inability
:> :> to "change with the times"!
:> : Nope. They largely derive from religious teachings. If you were right,
:> : no new religions would ever have come into being and different
:> : religions, sects and denominations would never exist. They clearly do
:> : and they offer different moral teachings, often quite opposed to each
:> : other.
:>
:> On the contrary...religions come into being based on different
:> perceptions on what the sole possible set of valid morals is.
:> To the extent that any religion errs it is incumbent on those
:> who sense its error to start another.
: A particular group may start another sect, religion or denomination,
: but that doen't necessarily mean that the existing religion dissappears
: or that its morals are replaced either. The morality of both often
: exist, side by side, and compete with each other. Roman Catholicism may
: have been deemed morally bankrupt by founding Protestants, but its
: teachings nor its set of morals haven't dissapeared. Indeed, RC has
: grown.
There is only one set of morals and various people approximate
them with differing degrees of accuracy.
:> Just as there is a path to God for every person born,
:> but only one God at the end of all the paths,morality
:> is an inalterable unity that men perceive like the blind
:> men and the elephant.When we ascertain something about it
:> that we did not know,it doesn't mean any part of it has changed.
:>
:> -=-=-
:> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
:> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
m***@btinternet.com
2005-11-06 08:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael A. Hutera
All I know that is King Edward VIII asked of his young son to name his first
born son Henri after his father.
Would that be King Henry IX or King Henry X?

Gary Holtzman
2005-11-03 13:05:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
:>
: You seem to make a good argument as to why slavery, the death penalty,
: crucifiction or child prostitution, should never have been abolished.
No...they have always been wrong,
that is what justified their abolition.
So couldn't it be that male-preference primogeniture has always been wrong, thus
justifying its abolition?
--
Gary Holtzman

Change "macnospam.com" to "mac.com" to email.

-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Stan Brown
2005-11-03 14:00:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by Louis Epstein
:>
: You seem to make a good argument as to why slavery, the death penalty,
: crucifiction or child prostitution, should never have been abolished.
No...they have always been wrong,
that is what justified their abolition.
So couldn't it be that male-preference primogeniture has always been wrong, thus
justifying its abolition?
If Louis were susceptible to logic, I could point out that in his
Universe they _weren't_ always wrong, since monarchs profited from or
participated in the slave trade and held slaves -- not to mention the
death penalty.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech /faqget.htm
Louis Epstein
2005-11-04 00:36:29 UTC
Permalink
(Gary wrote:
: Louis Epstein <***@main.put.com> wrote:
:> ***@virgin.net wrote:
:> :>
:> : You seem to make a good argument as to why slavery, the death penalty,
:> : crucifiction or child prostitution, should never have been abolished.
:>
:> No...they have always been wrong,
:> that is what justified their abolition.
:
: So couldn't it be that male-preference primogeniture has always been wrong,
: thus justifying its abolition?

If it HAS always been wrong,then all English monarchs
after 1100 AD have been usurpers whose title can not
be defended by anyone who considers male-preference
primogeniture to be in error.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Bigbazza
2005-10-08 03:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bigbazza
I was told today that the British Law has now changed from male-preference
primogeniture......To allow the oldest Child (whether Male or Female) being
the next in the line of succession to the British Throne
Is that correct or not ?
--
Bigbazza (Barry)..Oz
Thanks for all the discussion on it ..I didn't think that the law had been
changed...But I wasn't sure !..... The 'Ozzie' telegraph is sometimes slow
in delivery of news sometimes ...<BG>..
--
Bigbazza (Barry)..Oz
Michael Rhodes
2005-11-03 11:14:51 UTC
Permalink
If the law changes in the UK to allow the oldest child to succeed what
will become of the Dukedom of Cornwall?
Hovite
2005-11-03 14:02:10 UTC
Permalink
You might as well ask "If the law changes in the UK to allow the
youngest child to succeed what will become of the Dukedom of Cornwall?"

It is just as unlikely.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...