royals: boys, girls - but why eldest?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • french frank
    Administrator/Moderator
    • Feb 2007
    • 29978

    #16
    Originally posted by Eine Alpensinfonie View Post
    As one who believes in the individual's responsibility in keeping down the population, I don't think there should ever be a third child anyway. So in a perverse sort of way, the first child idea is probably the best, and it prevents any arguments.

    In case you are wondering, I wrote "way," only once and can't edit it out.
    Can't edit what out?

    Interesting point to me because I've recently appointed an executor to my will*** (haven't actually made the will yet, but you lot are all witnesses of my intention :-) ). I am extremely fond of my eldest nephew, but for all sorts of reasons I am appointing the youngest nephew and penultimate sibling. And feel a bit uncomfortable about it. So the question of the primacy of the first-born is interesting in that we do tend to feel there is something right and proper about it. (And if the eldest had been one of the girls? Well, she wasn't - she was third-born.)

    *** I have no health problems but am always very much on the look-out for passing buses whenever I find myself walking down Oxford Street. I keep away from the edge of the pavement.
    It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

    Comment

    • Anna

      #17
      Originally posted by french frank View Post
      *** I have no health problems but am always very much on the look-out for passing buses whenever I find myself walking down Oxford Street. I keep away from the edge of the pavement.
      You'd be better advised to steer clear of cyclists if Caliban is about!!

      Comment

      • Serial_Apologist
        Full Member
        • Dec 2010
        • 37403

        #18
        Originally posted by Anna View Post
        You'd be better advised to steer clear of cyclists if Caliban is about!!
        Should be easily detectable at 100 metres from the classical music coming from his headphones!

        Comment

        • french frank
          Administrator/Moderator
          • Feb 2007
          • 29978

          #19
          Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View Post
          Should be easily detectable at 100 metres from the classical music coming from his headphones!
          My fear is not of the traffic but who is standing close to me on the pavement as it passes.

          But this is a diversion from vinteuil's initial question. With three nephews and two nieces, I have always felt that Number One Son should be the recipient of what was only available to one. Hence my long and hard thought about asking Number Three Son and Number Four Child.
          It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

          Comment

          • Anna

            #20
            To be serious, and to get back to ff's Will that she intends to make ....... well, I've always liked her, absolutely loads, mega, I think she's wonderful and if she wishes to leave me even the smallest memento ....

            No, I had to make a will when I went abroad for a while. Difficult choice re Executor but I settled on my sister (second born, my brothers are first and third born) The eldest brother would have been logical choice but he's such a pedant ..... other brother is astute business man but quite frankly, a waste of space when it comes to emotions and not to be trusted under any circumstances.

            My mother made a very detailed Will, I got the antique ginger jar collection but it was my inheritence of the diamond solitaire and the Victorian rose gold that caused ructions. It was felt, that as the last born, I was in fact favoured over the other earlier born. Now, see my dilemma, who do I, in turn, leave these to?

            Comment

            • ahinton
              Full Member
              • Nov 2010
              • 16122

              #21
              Originally posted by Curalach View Post
              It rather begs the question of why the position of Head of State should be hereditary in the first place. Come the revolution these changes might seem like re-arranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic
              As I've had cause to observe in a quite different context, revolutions = going around in circles, so quite what that might achieve remains open to question, methinks.

              Comment

              • Richard Tarleton

                #22
                One beneficial effect of the change will be that Andrew's children Beatrice and Eugenie move down the order of succession. Any system which holds out the possibility however remote of either of them inheriting has to be deeply flawed.

                Comment

                • Chris Newman
                  Late Member
                  • Nov 2010
                  • 2100

                  #23
                  Originally posted by Curalach View Post
                  It rather begs the question of why the position of Head of State should be hereditary in the first place. Come the revolution these changes might seem like re-arranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic
                  I am with Curalach on this one.

                  Comment

                  • vinteuil
                    Full Member
                    • Nov 2010
                    • 12701

                    #24
                    ... actually there was an interesting intervention on the radio this morning, where someone adduced the nice historical counterfactual that - if the proposed dispensation had obtained in 1901, the succession wd have gone to Princess Victoria - and then to Wilhelm - ie Kaiser 'Bill' Wilhelm... so no Great War??

                    Comment

                    • teamsaint
                      Full Member
                      • Nov 2010
                      • 25178

                      #25
                      Originally posted by vinteuil View Post
                      ... actually there was an interesting intervention on the radio this morning, where someone adduced the nice historical counterfactual that - if the proposed dispensation had obtained in 1901, the succession wd have gone to Princess Victoria - and then to Wilhelm - ie Kaiser 'Bill' Wilhelm... so no Great War??
                      pity all those powerful and related folks DIDNT do more to stop an utterly unnecessary war.

                      Well, unnecessary from the perspective of those at the bottom.

                      still, war keeps the money flowing for the arms, banking and industrial people. always did. Still does.
                      I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

                      I am not a number, I am a free man.

                      Comment

                      • handsomefortune

                        #26
                        [QUOTE=vinteuil;95125]the Royal Family to give first-born girls equal precedence to first-born boys when it comes to inheriting the throne is an obviously good idea? By which, I don't - of course - mean that girls shdn't have equal chances at everything. It's more - what seems to me glaring, but seems missed by most commentators - why on earth do we think that - if we are keen on equality - there shd be an absolute prejudice in favour of primogeniture?

                        accident of being born first / second / third arises?

                        ultimately absurd - as you suggest later 4 faults ...trot on.

                        though i do agree that anne is the least absurd, having kept a low profile.

                        Comment

                        • Eine Alpensinfonie
                          Host
                          • Nov 2010
                          • 20565

                          #27
                          Originally posted by Anna View Post
                          Oh, and EineA not believing there should be a third child - I am the fourth child!
                          So is Frau A., and my mother was the 3rd, my grandma the 8th, etc., but this is no longer sustainable on a planet that has 7,000,000,000 human mouths to feed worldwide.

                          Comment

                          • Ferretfancy
                            Full Member
                            • Nov 2010
                            • 3487

                            #28
                            This was such an important decision that David Cameron flew all the way to Oz to talk about it. Meanwhile the economy teeters on the brink.

                            Comment

                            • Chris Newman
                              Late Member
                              • Nov 2010
                              • 2100

                              #29
                              Originally posted by Ferretfancy View Post
                              This was such an important decision that David Cameron flew all the way to Oz to talk about it. Meanwhile the economy teeters on the brink.
                              You could not make it up!!

                              Comment

                              • Magnificat

                                #30
                                I think a much more difficult consideration than outdated primogeniture these days is what will happen if the first born male turns out to be gay. I mean who decides on which IVF embryo takes precedence for transplantation into the womb of the surrogate mother and will all the Realms agree?

                                VCC

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X