Moonlight Graham Posted July 23, 2013 Report Posted July 23, 2013 Well, might as well be the one to get this inevitable topic started. It's clogged up the news media pretty darned good. Media overkill? I mean, we don't even know what this kid's name is or what he looks like. How much do you care about this story? Disappointed it wasn't a girl? Does the baby have divine right to rule over the Commonwealth? What if the baby and future king has down syndrome?...that sure would be a news story! Talk about all things royal baby here. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
margrace Posted July 23, 2013 Report Posted July 23, 2013 Harper is happy to have a future sovereign of Canada or so he days Quote
PIK Posted July 23, 2013 Report Posted July 23, 2013 Great news, happy for them. A new king has been born. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Boges Posted July 23, 2013 Report Posted July 23, 2013 Who thinks it would be funny if they named him Joffery? Quote
Black Dog Posted July 23, 2013 Report Posted July 23, 2013 By the time this kid is on the throne, all of us here will be dead. Quote
Boges Posted July 23, 2013 Report Posted July 23, 2013 By the time this kid is on the throne, all of us here will be dead. That's assuming his dad lives a long life. George the 6th only lived to 56. Just sayin' Quote
Wilber Posted July 23, 2013 Report Posted July 23, 2013 That's assuming his dad lives a long life. George the 6th only lived to 56. Just sayin' Ya but he was a chain smoker who died of lung cancer. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
scribblet Posted July 23, 2013 Report Posted July 23, 2013 I'm happy for them, it's a joyous time, they will have to work on a spare next year. I agree it is media overkill. Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
Topaz Posted July 23, 2013 Report Posted July 23, 2013 I don't know, if one goes by examples of the past, Harper praises being Canadian and the British, but he's a closet American. Quote
August1991 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Posted July 23, 2013 (edited) I reckon that she was pregnant before but when they discovered that it was a girl, they chose to abort in order to try a second time for a boy. It is so much easier when the first born is a boy.[/sarcasm] Full Disclosure: On this forum (and in my personal life), I have long argued for an independent State, or a federal Canadian republic. Edited July 23, 2013 by August1991 Quote
Guest American Woman Posted July 23, 2013 Report Posted July 23, 2013 Well, might as well be the one to get this inevitable topic started. It's clogged up the news media pretty darned good. Media overkill? I mean, we don't even know what this kid's name is or what he looks like. How much do you care about this story? Disappointed it wasn't a girl? Does the baby have divine right to rule over the Commonwealth? What if the baby and future king has down syndrome?...that sure would be a news story! Talk about all things royal baby here. I thought his name was Cambridge because the media keeps talking about baby Cambridge, so that shows you how much I know about it. Since there has to be royalty, I hoped for a girl. A first born girl getting the throne would at least be some progress. As for media overkill - definitely. Personally, I have a real problem with all of the attention and privilege showered on this baby just because of who he was born to. How many other babies were born on the same day - and how many of them were born just to die in a life of poverty, struggle, and starvation? Each life is just as precious as Baby Cambridge's, so this birth just really highlights the injustices of the world to me. Quote
capricorn Posted July 23, 2013 Report Posted July 23, 2013 Harper praises being Canadian and the British, but he's a closet American. Yeah, he keeps us hopping doesn't he? Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Black Dog Posted July 23, 2013 Report Posted July 23, 2013 I thought his name was Cambridge because the media keeps talking about baby Cambridge, so that shows you how much I know about it. Since there has to be royalty, I hoped for a girl. A first born girl getting the throne would at least be some progress. You'd think after more than 60 years on the throne, Elizabeth II would get some respect. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted July 23, 2013 Report Posted July 23, 2013 You'd think after more than 60 years on the throne, Elizabeth II would get some respect.So she got the throne over a second born son? Who knew. Quote
Black Dog Posted July 23, 2013 Report Posted July 23, 2013 So she got the throne over a second born son? Who knew. The law placing second born sons ahead of first born daughters in the line of succession has, to my knowledge, never been applied in modern memory. Elizabeth was a first born female. If the Royal Sprog had been a girl, she would have been third in line (same as now). Your statement that "a first born girl getting the throne would at least be some progress" depends entirely on the birth of an as-yet hypothetical male sibling. At which point the law will be changed anyway. So the question in my mind is: what is it that you mean by progress? Quote
Guest American Woman Posted July 23, 2013 Report Posted July 23, 2013 (edited) The law placing second born sons ahead of first born daughters in the line of succession has, to my knowledge, never been applied in modern memory. Elizabeth was a first born female. If the Royal Sprog had been a girl, she would have been third in line (same as now). Your statement that "a first born girl getting the throne would at least be some progress" depends entirely on the birth of an as-yet hypothetical male sibling. At which point the law will be changed anyway. So the question in my mind is: what is it that you mean by progress? If Wills and Kate have a girl first, she'll be queen! Commonwealth agrees historic change to give sex equality in Royal succession I'm quite sure that's what Moonlight Grahm's "Disappointed it wasn't a girl?" question was in reference to. So by progress, I was referring to a girl finally having the same right to the throne as a boy. Edited July 23, 2013 by American Woman Quote
guyser Posted July 23, 2013 Report Posted July 23, 2013 I suppose one may think of overkill via the media, but the fact is this birth is a huge boon to the economy for Britain. ....so why not have wall to wall coverage. His grand mother had a ton of coverage for everyday things and is one reason the Monarchy is so popular these days. Congrats to the new parents. Quote
g_bambino Posted July 23, 2013 Report Posted July 23, 2013 (edited) Media overkill? Yes. But, it's been that way since... well, forever. Disappointed it wasn't a girl? In a way, no. The Canadian government and parliament have botched up these changes to the rules of succession and now, with a legal challenge against the Succession to the Throne Act 2013, had a girl been born, things could've got even messier, all the way up to Canada having a different line of succession to all the other Commonwealth Realms. Does the baby have divine right to rule over the Commonwealth? No. The baby will not rule and will one day reign only over some countries in the Commonwealth, not all 54 member states. The concept of the divine right of kings also disappeared from our monarchical system 800 years ago or so, when the Magna Carta came into effect. What if the baby and future king has down syndrome? Either a regency or a change in the rules of succession. [ed.: c/e] Edited July 23, 2013 by g_bambino Quote
g_bambino Posted July 23, 2013 Report Posted July 23, 2013 I have long argued for an independent State... Which one is that you've argued for? Quote
g_bambino Posted July 23, 2013 Report Posted July 23, 2013 I was referring to a girl finally having the same right to the throne as a boy. The laws have not changed. The media is reporting false information. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted July 23, 2013 Report Posted July 23, 2013 The laws have not changed. The media is reporting false information. She would be Queen of England. Quote
g_bambino Posted July 23, 2013 Report Posted July 23, 2013 (edited) She would be Queen of England. No, for two reasons. One: England is not a state; it is a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is what British monarchs are monarchs of. Two: Britain's Succession to the Crown Act 2013 has not been put into force. They are waiting for other Commonwealth Realms like Australia and New Zealand to get their legislation ready, plus now there's no indication of what's going to happen with Canada's law being challenged in court as unconstitutional. All the acts should be enforced by proclamation on the same day, so there is no split in the common succession which would result in a split in the Crown which would all be in contradiction to the convention set out in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster 1931. [ed.: +] Edited July 23, 2013 by g_bambino Quote
Guest American Woman Posted July 23, 2013 Report Posted July 23, 2013 The Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which provides that a first-born daughter will become queen even if a younger brother is subsequently born, will not come into force until all 15 other Commonwealth countries of which the Queen is head of state have also made changes to their laws. Until they do, technically it would be possible for a daughter to become queen of England, but a younger brother to become, say, king of Canada. It happened in the Victorian era. "We borrowed the Hanoverian dynasty and they were, for a century, kings of Britain and electors of Hanover. But when the line of succession in Britain came down to Queen Victoria, that joint monarchy was broken because Hanover still observed Salic law and could not have a female monarch. I can't tell you who the elector of Hanover was, but it wasn't Queen Victoria," said Hazell. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/22/royal-baby-succession-commonwealth-primogeniture Quote
g_bambino Posted July 23, 2013 Report Posted July 23, 2013 (edited) The Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which provides that a first-born daughter will become queen even if a younger brother is subsequently born, will not come into force until all 15 other Commonwealth countries of which the Queen is head of state have also made changes to their laws. Until they do, technically it would be possible for a daughter to become queen of England, but a younger brother to become, say, king of Canada. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/22/royal-baby-succession-commonwealth-primogeniture The Guardian (ironically) has it right (except for the "queen of England" part). [ed.: +] Edited July 23, 2013 by g_bambino Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.