|
Post by Moose on Sept 4, 2017 20:25:01 GMT
The Duchess of Cambridge is pregnant again.
I actually have nothing at all against them but then .. I just don't get the whole royal thing at all .
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Sept 4, 2017 20:33:53 GMT
Maybe the whole "royal thing" is just people who don't get the whole royal thing talking about them anyway.
Starting new threads, for example.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Sept 4, 2017 20:34:45 GMT
Well, it's been quiet around here
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Sept 4, 2017 20:43:14 GMT
Which, curiously, is just what the Duchess of C said when William said "pregnant again? really?"
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Sept 4, 2017 20:49:17 GMT
I always wonder, incidentally, what would happen if the heir had been disabled in some way - Down Syndrome for instance. Do they still get to be monarch?
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Sept 7, 2017 21:24:24 GMT
More likely to have a congenital defect from inbreeding!
|
|
|
Post by Kye on Sept 7, 2017 21:30:16 GMT
That's a good question though. There have been some crazy kings in Britain's past, no?
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Sept 7, 2017 21:37:37 GMT
Yeah ... most recently one of the George's was quite bananas.. I forget which.
Apparently Denmark's King has been diagnosed with dementia and his duties are being 'scaled back.' I am not sure who gets to make these decisions though.
|
|
|
Post by Kye on Sept 7, 2017 22:20:42 GMT
I guess it's easier now, since the monarchs don't have the kind of power they used to have.
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Sept 8, 2017 9:19:04 GMT
I'm quite certain that in Dutch law at least there's a provision on the ruler having to be sound of mind. Who judges it I don't know though.
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Sept 8, 2017 9:21:00 GMT
Actually, I think the question is more interesting if the child isn't mentally impaired, but physically. I wouldn't be bothered by a royal in a wheelchair, but if he or she had physically abled brothers and sisters, would there be a push for one of them to take over the throne over the handicapped firstborn?
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Sept 9, 2017 21:44:00 GMT
Hmm...I'm not sure about the impaired part. It seems to me that being morally impaired was, at least initially, part of the whole success of the royal thing.
Then, I guess, after all the bickering over centuries, it was determined that Richard III was actually 'impaired' by some kind of physical deformity. And he finagled his way to the top.
It was George III who was reputed to have suffered the 'mad king' interlude.
Then, there are the drooling idiots of the Spanish throne. Hapsburgs, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Sept 9, 2017 21:48:53 GMT
There's a lot of contention over Richard III ... I know some people say that the back thing was a myth. That said, they apparently found him in a carpark a few years ago - I've lost all track of that story - and the skeleton they found did have a deformity.
I can't see why being physically disabled would be a problem but mentally .. well yeah.
Lots of inbreeding in royal families, ultimately.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Sept 9, 2017 21:52:11 GMT
It seems to me I read and entire book on the subject....Yep: She painted it as a 'long-standing tradition', well-atested in the historical record. One which I presume arises from the inherent idiocy of inherited power.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Sept 10, 2017 19:36:48 GMT
Part inbreeding and part giving idiots absolute power
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Sept 10, 2017 21:37:13 GMT
I'm inclined to think neither of those is true.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Sept 11, 2017 0:36:46 GMT
I'm inclined to think neither of those is true. And what might be your explanation?
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Sept 11, 2017 0:42:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Sept 11, 2017 7:29:56 GMT
I believe the consensus is that Richard III had scoliosis, but it would not have been that obvious or a handicap and could have been hidden with well-made clothing. The later accounts of him are by Tudor-era writers in whose best interests it was to discredit and vilify members of the former ruling dynasty.
The thing about the rules back in the earliest days of known monarchs is that an unfit or weak ruler would not have stayed on the throne for long, and in later years if they did, it was because their handlers controlled them and ruled through them or overtly as regents. Of course, back then, if a child who was likely to be ruler had a clear handicap, it was easy enough to just let them die, child mortality was very high anyway, so no-one would bat an eye. The toughest situations would have been something like George III, who it seems gradually slipped into insanity or dementia but seemed fine earlier on and intermittently also later, but where do you draw the line? And these days, of course, it would be harder to hide the birth of a handicapped child, or even to institutionalise them as was done to the Queen's cousins.
I think there was a Prussian princess recently (as in 20th century recent) who had Down's and was not hidden away, as would be the norm in earlier ages and was still done elsewhere, but then as a girl and younger child she was not likely to be in the line of succession anyway.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Sept 11, 2017 10:07:25 GMT
I'm inclined to think neither of those is true. And what might be your explanation? An inclination is a feeling, not a statement of fact, so I don't think a reason is necessary to support my feeling. Nevertheless, I'm inclined to think there is insufficient evidence of the amount and consequences of inbreeding. Nor have I seen any scientific evidence that giving idiots absolute power causes madness. In essence, while it's a popular conjecture, there is no proof.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Sept 11, 2017 16:05:12 GMT
I'd say that the 'madness' is upon the part of those who extend power to drooling idiots, rather than the drooling idiots to whom that power is extended.
That's just a 'feeling', though.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Sept 12, 2017 21:16:48 GMT
Steve - I do not feel that giving anyone absolute power over another person's life (or death) is a good idea. Medieval monarchs could do pretty much what they liked, and if this included raping, murdering or mutilating other people then no-one was able to prevent that from happening. Raise a child from birth believing it has the divine right to behave just as it pleases and I think you have a problem.
*waves at Miisa*
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Sept 12, 2017 21:17:13 GMT
(um for the record I was waving at Miisa to acknowledge her post, which I concur with)
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Sept 12, 2017 21:44:48 GMT
Steve - I do not feel that giving anyone absolute power over another person's life (or death) is a good idea. Medieval monarchs could do pretty much what they liked, and if this included raping, murdering or mutilating other people then no-one was able to prevent that from happening. Raise a child from birth believing it has the divine right to behave just as it pleases and I think you have a problem. I entirely agree with every you say. But I'm just unconvinced that the inbreeding of monarchs and their absolute power cause madness. Absolute power is absolutely wrong but it doesn't cause madness. Nor have I been able to find any reference to the fact that George III's madness was caused by inbreeding.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Sept 14, 2017 21:15:12 GMT
I think they were both contributing factors, that is all
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Sept 17, 2017 9:04:19 GMT
I suppose it all comes down to your definition of madness though.
|
|
|
Post by jayme on Sept 17, 2017 12:57:48 GMT
The only issue I find interesting about this is that, just after they make it so you can only get tax credits for your first two children, the royals pop out a third.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Sept 17, 2017 16:49:31 GMT
To be fair, the gene pool IS constricted considerably, so the likelihood of mutations proliferating and persisting is hypothetically higher.
But, from what I have seen in my life, heredity is absolutely no argument for political, nor economic, power. Quite the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Sept 17, 2017 16:52:20 GMT
The only issue I find interesting about this is that, just after they make it so you can only get tax credits for your first two children, the royals pop out a third. Yeah? I always thought royals worked under exceptionalist rules. Because they're 'special'. So, the heirs apparently will have to pay regular taxes on number three? They'll get no credit for an heir and a spare?
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Sept 17, 2017 19:24:52 GMT
That's not how tax credits work The Royal family would not have been eligible for child tax credits anyway - they are only for families on low incomes.
|
|