|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: How the Monarchy Remains Sexist
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm sure it can be sorted out for the royals just fine in a century or two if we've sorted out the rules for ordinary people in the meantime.
It is (more or less) sorted out for ordinary people. All the statutes that talk about the status of children conceived by surrogacy, donor sperm and the like say "these are all children of the marriage, however they were acquired. But this doesn't affect the inheritance of titles of nobility etc."
There are still some corner cases involving artificial insemination and unmarried parents that are going through the courts.
Well it isn't sorted out everywhere. And that's only dealing with married couples - which of course means in many places that it's only dealing with heterosexual couples.
[ 27. July 2014, 01:54: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And why would any true Englishman want to do that leo?
If you mean my post two days ago, there is no such thing as 'a true Englishman'. We are a diverse, plural society and privilege should have no place.
(And, to counter that, a 'true Englishman' might ask why our monarchy is German.)
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
(And, to counter that, a 'true Englishman' might ask why our monarchy is German.)
Your queen is about as German as I am Scottish and Swiss (which is to say, hardly at all).
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
quote:
(And, to counter that, a 'true Englishman' might ask why our monarchy is German.)
Your queen is about as German as I am Scottish and Swiss (which is to say, hardly at all).
The old ethnicity-as-identity or ethnicity-as-ancestry debate. Days of my life passed in meetings with the Dominion Bureau of Statistics on this. We could always refer to Our Sovereign's Maghrebin ancestry, of course, through the Black Prince and the Emir of Cadiz.
I am always surprised why monarchists do not campaign for the return of succession-by-challenge-and-combat. Given the filmic achievements of Angelina Jodie and Uma Thurman, I would suggest that woman candidates could easily take their place.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Ok, so the next time that we wind up with a monarch and opposite sex spouse who are for some biological reason or other infertile but could conceive a child through artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, a sperm donor, an egg donor, surrogacy, or more complicated means (someone else donates the sperm or egg, but the genetic material of the monarch or his/her spouse is inserted into it to replace the genetic material of the donor (although the mitochondrial DNA of the donor will remain, which would be the same if the donor has the same mother as the person whose genetic material is being injected into the sperm or egg cell) - assume also (don't ask why) that one of the spouses in the royal couple is the woman carrying the pregnancy in all cases other than surrogacy. This is a thought experiment so lets pretend that it's a really weird kind of infertility (or perhaps a high chance of inheriting a certain genetic disease) that might require these seemingly unnecessary measures.
So it seems surrogacy would not produce a legitimate heir under current law. Would any of these other methods be able to produce a legitimate heir? In the modern world, are we to assume that it is preferable for the monarchy to pass to the monarch's niece, nephew, sibling, or more distant relative rather than to their own biological children, planned and conceived openly within the couple's marriage (as the modern world would understand it)? Why am I tempted to write R + L = J at this point?
Interesting about noble titles. Since there is no issue of the stability and peace of the country, why should it matter nowadays how a noble couple conceive and bear their children in terms of inheritance? The only beneficiaries of not changing the laws to accommodate reproductive technology are more distant relatives trying to snatch titles and estates from otherwise childless couples.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Would the quickest solution not be to allow the succession to pass to an adopted child, provided they are adopted before reaching their majority ?
(No adult adoptees for the avoidance of political shenanigans.)
Any child produced by whatever tech available now, or in the future, would then be covered.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
I'm not sure we fully understand the mystical significance of the succession*
* As explicated here...
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
In the modern world, are we to assume that it is preferable for the monarchy to pass to the monarch's niece, nephew, sibling, or more distant relative rather than to their own biological children, planned and conceived openly within the couple's marriage (as the modern world would understand it)?
I suspect much of the modern world wouldn't care one way or the other, because it would question the entire notion that a job can be passed on in this way at all. You have to buy into the notion that genetic inheritance of a job is important before you can become involved in a debate as to what the precise rules of genetic inheritance of a job should be.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bernard Mahler
Shipmate
# 10852
|
Posted
Would the eldest child of the monarch succeed to the Duchy of Cornwall and Principality of Wales, and by what titles if that eldest child were female?
--------------------
"What does it matter? All is grace" Georges Bernanos
Posts: 622 | From: Auckland New Zealand | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
womanspeak
Shipmate
# 15394
|
Posted
Our incredibly backward - looking and fore-lock tugging Australian Government have re-introduced Damehoods and Knighthoods to much laughter and many great jokes.
The biggest joke being the Prime Minister Tony Abbott ( ex-trainee Catholic Priest). Abbott, his wife and three hot daughters were the subject of a great painting entered in the Bald Archies ( a satirical portrait prize). It depicted a uniformed Prince Harry running away from our first family's attempts at offering him a spare daughter.
--------------------
from the bush
Posts: 62 | From: rural australia | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by womanspeak:
Our...Australian Government have re-introduced Damehoods and Knighthoods.
Excellent news. Evelyn Waugh complained that the problem with the Conservative Party is that it never put the clock back by one minute. I'm glad to see that our brethren overseas are bolder.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
quote:
(And, to counter that, a 'true Englishman' might ask why our monarchy is German.)
Your queen is about as German as I am Scottish and Swiss (which is to say, hardly at all).
Not to mention why this 'true Englishman' appears to be confusing the Scots with the Germans.
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
For female same sex royal couples, as long as either the monarch or her wife bear the child, what is required for the child's legitimacy?
For the parent who does not bear the child to have a Y chromosome and a penis. So your scenario is, I think, technically possible if one of the couple was a trans woman who hadn't had surgery.
For a child to be legitimate from the point of view of the royal succession, the child must be the genetic offspring of both his parents, who must have been married at the time of his birth.
I have to ask, is this really the case? Wasn't the law that, if the couple was married and a child was born, the husband was legally assumed to be the child's father unless some sort of protest was filed.
I can see (in a future time) succession issues being clear for children born of a female dynast in a same-sex marriage, because it's easy to tell who the baby's mother is and determine inheritance accordingly.
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
I have to ask, is this really the case? Wasn't the law that, if the couple was married and a child was born, the husband was legally assumed to be the child's father unless some sort of protest was filed.
There was an "assumption of" in some previous version of that comment that seems to have vanished. You're right - with sufficient discretion (and possibly with the connivance of the male party), a Queen could conceive a child with another man, and pass that child off as a legitimate heir.
Accusations that one Queen or another had placed horns on the head of a reigning King have been thrown around on several occasions in order to claim that the occupant of the throne was a bastard, and so the rightful heir was the guy over there with the big army.
It hasn't happened with British ruling Queens, but the only ruling Queen to be succeeded by her children was Victoria...
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The only beneficiaries of not changing the laws to accommodate reproductive technology are more distant relatives trying to snatch titles and estates from otherwise childless couples.
You're viewing the noble title as the personal property of the current incumbent. That's a terribly French viewpoint.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
One possible example was Alfonso XII of Spain, who succeeded his mother Isabella II but who was widely believed not to have been fathered by Francis, King Consort, but by an officer of the guards.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
