Prince Albert of Monaco - What is His Problem?
Candide
squiring around any number of beauties, however years have passed an no
marriage, nothing. How is an a crown prince can get out of his duty so
easily?
Rumours are about Prince Albert is not the "marrying sort" of man, like
one of his maternal uncles from Philadelphia. It seems all but a
certainty he will not produce issue, is no one including the RF worried?
--
Candide
_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+__+_+__+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_
"Women have served all these centuries as looking-glasses possessing
the magic and delicious power of reflecting the figure of man at twice
its natural size. Without that power probably the earth would still be
swamp and jungle."
+++++++++++++++++
Virginia Woolf
Gillian White
news:c5a3ab$2qbonq$1...@ID-95798.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Rumours are about Prince Albert is not the "marrying sort" of man, like
> one of his maternal uncles from Philadelphia. It seems all but a
> certainty he will not produce issue, is no one including the RF worried?
Apparently not :-)
Before the inheritance law was revised, Albert's failure to marry and
produce an heir could have resulted in the principality reverting to French
control. However, it is now possible for Caroline to inherit the princely
title from her brother, and as she has four legitimate children, it would be
safe to say that the future of the dynasty is secure.
However, I would think that Albert would want to provide at least one heir,
if only to ensure the continuation of the Grimaldi name. If and when
Caroline's children assume control of the title, the Grimaldi dynasty will
end, and the Casiraghi dynasty will begin.
Gillian
Tee
news:c5a3ab$2qbonq$1...@ID-95798.news.uni-berlin.de...
> squiring around any number of beauties, however years have passed an no
> marriage, nothing. How is an a crown prince can get out of his duty so
> easily?
>
> Rumours are about Prince Albert is not the "marrying sort" of man, like
> one of his maternal uncles from Philadelphia. It seems all but a
> certainty he will not produce issue, is no one including the RF worried?
Maybe he's gay and has no wish to enter into a fake marriage for the sake of
producing an heir. I don't know much about him but having escorted, and
even slept with, beautiful women in the past doesn't necessarily mean he
isn't gay. Nor is being gay the only reason he wouldn't take a wife, just
the one that first jumps to mind.
--
Tara
Andy.III
>if only to ensure the continuation of the Grimaldi name. If and when
>Caroline's children assume control of the title, the Grimaldi dynasty will
>end, and the Casiraghi dynasty will begin.
>
>Gillian
In reality the Grimaldi name has already ended for the rulers on Monaco as it
has passed thry a female who's children used HER name and not the name of their
father.
I fully expect that when Carloine's children reign that they will use the
Grimaldi name and NOT the Casiraghi name... I thought at one time that was one
of the requirements that the Grimaldi name HAD to be used.
Andy.III
"Extremism in the destruction of intolerance is NOT a vice"
Lisa Davidson
family? I know many people like this - none of course are heirs to
principalities. The change in the treaty with France allow Albert to rule as
a single man or to marry and still have a family.
I wish him well.
Lisa Davidson
Candide
heirs to great estates/thrones that a duty is to provide for the next
generation weather or not they "felt" like it.
As for PA being gay or not, there have been quite a few monarchs gay or
not that did their duty.
Candide
"Lisa Davidson" <ldavi...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4078D1B0...@socal.rr.com...
Rick
"Andy.III" <agh...@aol.commander> wrote in message
news:20040411000021...@mb-m15.aol.com...
Maybe they'll (the three eldest, will hyponate 'Cassaragi-Grimaldi', or if
Alexandra succedes to the throne she could use HR&SH Princess Alexandra
Grimaldi Von Hannover, of Monaco as her name with titlage.
Lisa Davidson
Lisa
Tee
> It is not a panic, however it is a well understood fact that people are
> heirs to great estates/thrones that a duty is to provide for the next
> generation weather or not they "felt" like it.
It may be a nitpick but as long as he keeps the monarchy well then he's
provided for the next generation, which would be his sister's children.
Maybe you meant to say its his duty to produce the next generation in which
I'd disagree since Caroline is there, knows her duty, performs the duties of
her deceased mother, and can lead just as well as Albert. Its got to be
assumed that both are grooming Caroline's oldest for the position later on.
> As for PA being gay or not, there have been quite a few monarchs gay or
> not that did their duty.
Yes and we don't know how happy or miserable they were with such an
arrangement. I think its a step forward, and about time, for a gay
heir/monarch to refuse a fake marriage, or business joining, just for duty's
sake. If there's an heir somewhere, and generally there is, then the line
is secure enough.
--
Tara
Tammy
Hi, I am new here. However, I would like to comment about Prince
Albert. I read in a recent book about the Grimaldis that he fathered
an illegitemite
daughter whose name is Jasmine Grace. From what I read, she looks
like her grandmother, Princess Grace. Maybe Albert feels a little
guilty if this is true. He has no contact with the child. It may
bother him to marry and father more children. JMO. Also, I don't
think he is really interested in getting married; Caroline's children
conveniently relieved him of this responsibility.
Tammy
Gillian White
news:9ad8b187.0404...@posting.google.com...
> daughter whose name is Jasmine Grace. From what I read, she looks
> like her grandmother, Princess Grace. Maybe Albert feels a little
> guilty if this is true. He has no contact with the child.
I've read about this girl as well. If she is Albert's daughter, and was ever
acknowledged as such, she would effectively become his heir, because the
Monegasque inheritance laws allow the princely title to descend to an
illegitimate child.
I would assume this is why he has refused to acknowledge her, if indeed she
is his daughter.
Gillian
Gary Holtzman
> > one of his maternal uncles from Philadelphia. It seems all but a
> > certainty he will not produce issue, is no one including the RF
> > worried?
>
> Maybe he's gay and has no wish to enter into a fake marriage for the sake
> of producing an heir. I don't know much about him but having escorted,
> and even slept with, beautiful women in the past doesn't necessarily mean
> he isn't gay. Nor is being gay the only reason he wouldn't take a wife,
> just the one that first jumps to mind.
There seems to be strong circumstantial evidence that he is not gay -- a history
of heterosexual relationships, paternity suits, anecdotes by those who know him.
Furthermore, given the intense media interest in his private life, it's not likely
that evidence of homosexuality would not have emerged into the public domain by
this point.
The Prince has said that he feels that it would be very hard to find a woman who
could live up to the standard his late mother set as Princess of Monaco.
In any case, clearly the matter was of concern to Prince Rainier, thus the change
in the law of succession which Gillian mentioned upthread.
--
Gary Holtzman
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Gary Holtzman
> I fully expect that when Carloine's children reign that they will use the
> Grimaldi name and NOT the Casiraghi name... I thought at one time that
> was one of the requirements that the Grimaldi name HAD to be used.
>
It was understood to be a requirement in the past, but is not mentioned in the
current constitutional settlement.
Gary Holtzman
> It is not a panic, however it is a well understood fact that people are
> heirs to great estates/thrones that a duty is to provide for the next
> generation weather or not they "felt" like it.
I would have agreed that it was his duty under the previous system, but now that
the succession is secured through his sisters and their children, there is no need
for him to sire additional heirs if he is not so inclined.
Candide
"Gary Holtzman" <garyho...@macnospam.com> wrote in message
news:20040411164609.632$7...@newsreader.com...
> "Candide" <PityM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > It is not a panic, however it is a well understood fact that people
are
> > heirs to great estates/thrones that a duty is to provide for the
next
> > generation weather or not they "felt" like it.
>
> I would have agreed that it was his duty under the previous system,
but now that
> the succession is secured through his sisters and their children,
there is no need
> for him to sire additional heirs if he is not so inclined.
>
> --
> Gary Holtzman
IIRC the laws were changed mainly due to PA failing to do his duty and
provide heirs. If Prince Albert had married and produced issue, the
matter of altering succession likely never would have arisen.
Sad state of affairs these days is every one is intent on doing what
"they" want or "feel" like. Well I am sorry, one expects more from
royalty even those who are only serene.
Tee
>
>
> "Gary Holtzman" <garyho...@macnospam.com> wrote in message
> news:20040411164609.632$7...@newsreader.com...
> > "Candide" <PityM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > > It is not a panic, however it is a well understood fact that people
> are
> > > heirs to great estates/thrones that a duty is to provide for the
> next
> > > generation weather or not they "felt" like it.
> >
> > I would have agreed that it was his duty under the previous system,
> but now that
> > the succession is secured through his sisters and their children,
> there is no need
> > for him to sire additional heirs if he is not so inclined.
> >
> > --
> > Gary Holtzman
>
> IIRC the laws were changed mainly due to PA failing to do his duty and
> provide heirs. If Prince Albert had married and produced issue, the
> matter of altering succession likely never would have arisen.
>
> Sad state of affairs these days is every one is intent on doing what
> "they" want or "feel" like. Well I am sorry, one expects more from
> royalty even those who are only serene.
As opposed to what others want them to do? They didn't ask to be born
royal.
--
Tara
Gillian White
news:c5cs9r$8q6f$1...@ID-92443.news.uni-berlin.de...
> As opposed to what others want them to do? They didn't ask to be born
> royal.
But they don't have to stay royal if they don't like it. They could resign
their titles, and become a private citizen. They can't have their cake and
eat it!
Gillian
Tee
news:ZAmec.82941$Ig.20288@pd7tw2no...
I'm specifically speaking of the duty of begetting an heir. IMO there's no
reason a royal shouldn't be allowed to remain royal, with the priveledges,
if he/she is doing their intended job. To my knowledge, Albert does work,
he doesn't shirk his other duties, he's pretty good at his role. Not
wanting to marry & get an heir, when there are already a line of them behind
him, shouldn't cancel out all the other things he does to remain royal. If
he didn't work, didn't help his father, didn't participate in the social
events required, and didn't want to get an heir or marry, then I'd say yes,
let him resign his title.
--
Tara
Candide
"Tee" <crappol...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:c5curi$9rh0$1...@ID-92443.news.uni-berlin.de...
Excuse me, but producing issue to allow for direct succession instead of
lateral passes is one of the top "jobs" of a monarch and heir. Don't
care what else PA does nor how many Red Cross Balls he attends/sponsors,
his primary raison de etre so to speak is to inherit and provide the
next heir.
As for "not wanting to marry went their are already a line..... behind
him", please. It is not the same, or else why would any heir marry at
all? PA has the bag of tricks he does because he is a crown prince, if
he doesn't want to do all his duties then step down. Again the problem
with many in modern society, every one seems to want a "cafeteria" view
to life, picking and choosing the bits that appeal to them and chucking
out the rest.
PA won't marry because he cannot find a woman that would equal his
sainted mother. What sort of flannel is that? Most men royal or not
think their mothers are matchless, so the institution of marriage should
be abandoned?
RCLOVELY
>next heir.
Since he hasn't and it dosen't seem he will, Prince Renier has provided for
Caroline's succession. Since Monaco and the family agree to this, I don't see
the problem.
RC
Candide
> "Candide" <PityM...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:c5ao40$2qeha8$1...@ID-95798.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > It is not a panic, however it is a well understood fact that people
are
> > heirs to great estates/thrones that a duty is to provide for the
next
> > generation weather or not they "felt" like it.
>
> It may be a nitpick but as long as he keeps the monarchy well then
he's
> provided for the next generation, which would be his sister's
children.
> Maybe you meant to say its his duty to produce the next generation in
which
> I'd disagree since Caroline is there, knows her duty, performs the
duties of
> her deceased mother, and can lead just as well as Albert. Its got to
be
> assumed that both are grooming Caroline's oldest for the position
later on.
Would have thought my meaning was clear, but as you wish will insert
"provide issue for the next generation".
Caroline has nothing to do with it as she is NOT heir apparent, not even
heir presumptive. Regardless of what she does for charity (which by the
way is her lot and duty also), her ability to lead does not even enter
into the equation unless you are saying her brother is such a week crown
prince, that she must step in to fill the void.
The people, did not expect Caroline nor her children to rein except
under some dire circumstance such as PA pegging out before marrying and
producing. It is the people who need, desire and have every right to a
stable transfer of "power" in line. Not lateral passes because someone
felt he didn't have enough bottle to marry and do his duty.
>
> > As for PA being gay or not, there have been quite a few monarchs gay
or
> > not that did their duty.
>
> Yes and we don't know how happy or miserable they were with such an
> arrangement. I think its a step forward, and about time, for a gay
> heir/monarch to refuse a fake marriage, or business joining, just for
duty's
> sake. If there's an heir somewhere, and generally there is, then the
line
> is secure enough.
Again, please. Being an heir to a great estate/crown is more than how
*YOU* feel, one has certain duties and responsibilities. You seem to
have this idea that as long as a heir can be found somewhere all is
right with the world. Well there are quite a few families that would
disagree strongly with that idea.
PA has let his family and country down in one of the most vital areas.
Your fixation on Caroline and her heirs misses the point that neither
she nor her children are technically Grimaldi. Caroline has added von
Hanover to her list of surnames and her children are Casiraghi, unless
Prince Ernst has adopted them and the children's names have been
changed.
There is still such a thing as tradition, and doing ones duty, it all
didn't go out with hooped petticoats the empire.
Candide
Candide
"RCLOVELY" <rclo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040412023333...@mb-m04.aol.com...
The "family" and Monaco pretty much don't have a choice do they?
> RC
Well the buzz on another forum seems to be something may happen after
the 2004 Olympics.
http://forums.rbhq.net/index.php?s=b15eb24f0a770df91f6d0a02ad4c22db&showtopic=1058&st=0
Candide
Holly W.
Actually, she is,in fact, heir presumptive, although she is not called
that. Monaco's system is very different from that of the UK, but
Caroline is the heir presuming Albert has no children.
Regardless of what she does for charity (which by the
> way is her lot and duty also), her ability to lead does not even enter
> into the equation unless you are saying her brother is such a week crown
> prince, that she must step in to fill the void.
Sorry, but her ability to lead does, in fact, "enter into the
equation" as said "equation" stands now. Caroline is next in line for
the Princely seat after Albert. Albert is not married and, by all
reports, is not likely to. He also does not have even an illegitimate
child which he could legitimize, as in the case of his paternal
great-grandfather and paternal grandmother. Caroline needs to show
that she is capable of being a strong leader and one who is worthy to
succeed her brother.
>
> The people, did not expect Caroline nor her children to rein except
> under some dire circumstance such as PA pegging out before marrying and
> producing.
"The people" of Monaco probably figured out awhile ago that there was
a very strong possibility that Caroline, and eventually her children,
would succeed to the Princely seat.
It is the people who need, desire and have every right to a
> stable transfer of "power" in line. Not lateral passes because someone
> felt he didn't have enough bottle to marry and do his duty.
Excuse me, but you don't speak for the people. Nor do you seem to
have a grasp on Monaco's history. And you seem to be claiming that a
lateral succession would be "bad" somehow for Monaco (it hasn't been
in the 700 years the Grimaldis have been Princes). That makes no
sense. Albert could get married, or not, produce a child, have said
child legitimated if necessary (as his great-grandfather did), and
that child succeed--and be the worst Prince or Princess Monaco has
ever had. Whereas Caroline could be the best Princess Monaco has ever
known. It's silly to make a claim that direct succession, rather than
lateral succession, is better or that Albert is somehow derelict in
his duty for not marrying and producing an heir. Monaco's succession
was secured from the moment Caroline was born, and she has in turn
secured the succession by bearing four children.
> >
> > > As for PA being gay or not, there have been quite a few monarchs gay
> or
> > > not that did their duty.
> >
> > Yes and we don't know how happy or miserable they were with such an
> > arrangement. I think its a step forward, and about time, for a gay
> > heir/monarch to refuse a fake marriage, or business joining, just for
> duty's
> > sake. If there's an heir somewhere, and generally there is, then the
> line
> > is secure enough.
>
> Again, please. Being an heir to a great estate/crown is more than how
> *YOU* feel, one has certain duties and responsibilities.
And Albert ahs fulfilled most of them admirably. And if he proves to
be just as productive as his father was regarding Monaco's financial
security, then he will have fulfilled all his duties admirably. The
succession is secure, so why all this fussing about whether Albert
marries and produces an heir? It would ahve been different had
Caroline not had children, or if Albert ahd been an only child, but
that's not the case, and I don't see that Albert has been guilty of
any failure to "do his duty."
You seem to
> have this idea that as long as a heir can be found somewhere all is
> right with the world.
No, I don't think she's claiming that at all. It's just that, in this
case, it's a non issue as the succession has been secured. Barring
Albert producing achild, legitimate or otherwise, Caroline will
succeed as Princess of Monaco in her own right, and her son Andrea
will succeed after her. I don't really see what problem you ahve with
all this as the Grimaldis have proved that they are experts in
remaining on the Princely seat time and time again.
Well there are quite a few families that would
> disagree strongly with that idea.
Well,since "quite a few families" are not under discussion, just the
Grimaldis in all their incarnations, I fail to see what your point is.
Rainier has changed the rules, just as his ancestors have done before
him, and no doubt just as his descendents will do after him.
>
> PA has let his family and country down in one of the most vital areas.
This is just your opinion.
>
> Your fixation on Caroline and her heirs misses the point that neither
> she nor her children are technically Grimaldi.
Umm, Caroline was born a Grimaldi. That makes her one, regardless of
who she's married. And I have no doubt her children would be willing
to accept Grimaldi as a House name--it's been done before in
Monagesque history, and it could easily be done again.
Caroline has added von
> Hanover to her list of surnames and her children are Casiraghi, unless
> Prince Ernst has adopted them and the children's names have been
> changed.
>
> There is still such a thing as tradition, and doing ones duty, it all
> didn't go out with hooped petticoats the empire.
And what Monagesque empire are we talking about, exactly? Albert's
been out doing his duty for years. He's improved his country's
financial status, he's worked hard for his country's well-being, he's
out supporting things like the Red Cross and the Monaco Grand Prix,
he's by his father's side at many major functions throughout the year.
So he's not married, and so he's not managed to produce an heir,
legitimate or otherwise. He hasn't needed to, so how, again, is he a
"failure"?
RCLOVELY
>didn't go out with hooped petticoats the empire.
>
Oh sure, some people believe Prince Charles and Lady Diana married for just
that reason and look how that turned out.
RC
Candide
"RCLOVELY" <rclo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040412143554...@mb-m03.aol.com...
By all accounts it seems PC married for duty first and perhaps
love/passion second/third, maybe not necessarily in that order. Diana
married for love so at once the two were at cross purposes with each
other, hence the disaster which followed.
Now if Diana had only taken up gardening, polishing the silver,
arranging flowers or some other busy work to keep her mind occupied
things might have been different. *LOL*
jppurchase
> Sad state of affairs these days is every one is intent on doing what
> "they" want or "feel" like. Well I am sorry, one expects more from
> royalty even those who are only serene.
Sorry if this sounds rude, or out of place, but for goodness sakes woman,
get a grip. While I agree that some people take the "my way or the highway"
approach to life, and damn the consequences, this IS the 21st Century, not
the 19th.
If the chap doesn't wish to marry, who are you to decry his decision? All
your high tone "one expects more" routine only shows is that you are a snob.
The words "you" or "me" are much more democratic and acceptable to a modern
ear than "one". Climb down off your pedestal and join the rest of the world.
We promise not to get you dirty.
And as far as anyone's "duty" in Monaco, get real. Its a tiny speck of land
where the main industries are tourism and gambling. How much effort does it
take to roll around in a limo, waving at the tourists, while counting their
money? They are no more "royal" than you or I. Check your history books -
the origins of the Grimaldi's family's "Royal" status is laughable and based
more on who had the bigger private army than anyone else. They may have been
powerful and astute, but they were not (and still aren't) "royal". Sovereign
authority in Monaco HAS passed through the female line in the past and the
sun continued to shine. If it should do so again in the future, who is going
to worry? I suspect nobody, other than a few snobs who feel that "it is
one's duty" to do the "right thing" for "the people". Many monarchs have
lost their heads for less. I suspect that what "the people" want is control
over their own destinies, not blind obedience to a quasi-royal.
J.
yaffaDina
I think you're missing the point of this ng -- it is our opinions which
are important and as to the use of the word "one" well, sorry but
sometimes it *is* the correct word, as in the case above, for clarity
and understanding. Your use of the word "domocratic, however, in this
context is complete and utter nonsence. Grammar is grammar and the
point of grammar, as I'm sure you know, is understanding.
yD
Susan Cohen
"jppurchase" <jppur...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:IFffc.11730$2oI1...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Okay, then they should either
a) admit this & live like the rest of us & stop calling themselves royalty
b) act like royalty if they want to be called such.
There's no snobbery involved in asking people to live up to the expectations
of a position they refuse to relinquish.
If anything, Stephanie has a worse problem in this regard than Albert does.
Susan
Tee
news:0xhfc.31943$F9....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> Okay, then they should either
>
> a) admit this & live like the rest of us & stop calling themselves royalty
> b) act like royalty if they want to be called such.
>
> There's no snobbery involved in asking people to live up to the
expectations
> of a position they refuse to relinquish.
> If anything, Stephanie has a worse problem in this regard than Albert
does.
Outside of not wanting to marry, what expectations isn't Albert living up
to?
--
Tara
Susan Cohen
The not wanting to marry - and have an heir - is a biggie.
SusanC
Tee
I guess its all in how you look at it. I don't think its a biggie at all.
His sister & her children will inherit so there's no threat to the monarchy.
He performs all his other duties just fine, at least I haven't heard that he
doesn't, he doesn't shirk any of those other duties nor does he make himself
an embarrassment to his family like his youngest sister. Let's say he
marries but finds out he's sterile (or maybe he is & already knows it).
Would that mean that his failure in this one area equals total failure for
not providing an heir? Or would he get duty points just because he tried?
--
Tara
Morgana
> news:c5cqts$96tf$1...@ID-95798.news.uni-berlin.de...
> the origins of the Grimaldi's family's "Royal" status is laughable and based
> more on who had the bigger private army than anyone else. They may have been
> powerful and astute, but they were not (and still aren't) "royal".
Isn't that how all royals got to be royal? Their ancestors did away
with our ancestors and took what was theirs? In the case of the
Grimaldis it is just a little more recent, that's all.
Gillian White
news:b44373e5.04041...@posting.google.com...
> Isn't that how all royals got to be royal? Their ancestors did away
> with our ancestors and took what was theirs? In the case of the
> Grimaldis it is just a little more recent, that's all.
Not that recent! The first Grimaldi ruler of Monaco was Francois I, who took
control of the principality in 1297.
Gillian
JFlexer
IIRC, Monaco has the oldest reigning family in Europe... more than 700 years
http://www.monaco.mc/monaco/700ans/index.html
Interesting: On its website, Monaco refers to the Grimaldi's historic
government to be a monarchy... even though they are styled and titled as
Princes/Serene Highnesses...
http://www.monaco.mc/monaco/info/institutions.html
<quote>
" Until 1910, the Principality of Monaco lived under a regime of absolute
monarchy. In 1911, Prince Albert I promulgated the first Constitution ; this
was modified in 1917, confirmed in 1933 by Prince Louis II and reformed in a
liberal spirit by H.S.H. Prince Rainier III on 17th December 1962. "
</quote>
-J
Susan Cohen
> Let's say he
> marries but finds out he's sterile (or maybe he is & already knows it).
Then he should just say so!
It would clear away a lot of brouhaha.
> Would that mean that his failure in this one area equals total failure for
> not providing an heir? Or would he get duty points just because he tried?
Yes, of course.
How could being sterile be his fault?
SusanC
Tee
But the point is that he'd still fail at this one duty. The way I've been
reading things, Albert is either expected to fulfill all his duties or step
down.
--
Tara
Gillian White
news:c5khb...@news2.newsguy.com...
> IIRC, Monaco has the oldest reigning family in Europe... more than 700
years
Which makes the Windsors nouveau riche by comparison, eh? :-)
> Interesting: On its website, Monaco refers to the Grimaldi's historic
> government to be a monarchy... even though they are styled and titled as
> Princes/Serene Highnesses...
According to my dictionary, the definition of monarchy is "undivided rule or
absolute sovereignty by one person" or "a government having a hereditary
chief of state with powers ranging from nominal to absolute". I guess this
means that a principality is just as much of a monarchy as a kingdom, maybe
even more so where Monaco is concerned, since Rainier is effectively an
absolute ruler, while the Queen is anything but :-).
Gillian
Candide
"Tee" <crappol...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:c5kmid$2ssva$1...@ID-92443.news.uni-berlin.de...
It is quite one thing to marry and for whatever reason fail to produce
issue with one's consort, that sort of thing has happened and will
continue so long as human biology remains subject to the laws of nature.
Of course in such instances other means may be employed to bring about
the deisred result depending upon which party is lacking.
On the other hand, not even trying for no other reason than "I'd rather
not, thank you very much", is quite the thin end of the wedge,IMHO.
Candide
Candide
And as for you, "jppurchase" <jppur...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:IFffc.11730$2oI1...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Sorry if this sounds rude, or out of place,
It did and was, highly uncalled for.
but for goodness sakes woman,
> get a grip. While I agree that some people take the "my way or the
highway"
> approach to life, and damn the consequences, this IS the 21st Century,
not
> the 19th.
Pardon, but the monarchy like the aristocracy are based upon traditions
which link the past to the present and then future. The idea of heirs
apparent producing the next generation is not an recent nor alien
concept. In fact a great amount of stability has been brought about by
such arrangements. It is when heirs start dilly dallying about what they
will and not do trouble usually comes about.
> If the chap doesn't wish to marry, who are you to decry his decision?
All
> your high tone "one expects more" routine only shows is that you are a
snob.
You really are too much. Your burst into a newsgroup about royalty
without knowing the slightest thing about such matters. You really ought
to leave these things to those of us who follow and study royalty either
out of passion or interest.
> The words "you" or "me" are much more democratic and acceptable to a
modern
> ear than "one". Climb down off your pedestal and join the rest of the
world.
> We promise not to get you dirty.
DEMOCRACY? In the same idea as royalty, oh my dear you really are out of
your league here. Show me one country, currently ruled/reigned over by
a monarch or formerly ruled by a monarchy or not that has a "true"
democracy. Oh many will talk a good game about it, but when you come
right down to it, it is those with the most money/access to power and
influence that "run" things.
English usage:
"You" expects more?
"Me" expects more?
Don't know what sort of grammar you attended, but neither is correct in
the context of my sentence.
Now sit down (it must be so uncomfortable standing with your knickers in
a twist), and read:
From - The American Heritage Book of English Usage.
"In formal usage, the pronoun one is sometimes used as a generic pronoun
meaning “anyone”: One would hope that train service could be improved.
The informal counterpart of one is you: You never know what to expect
from her. Trouble arises when you use one in a series of sentences. You
must choose a relative pronoun to refer back to one. You can of course
use one and one’s repeatedly, as in One tries to be careful about where
one invests one’s money. But in a sequence of sentences this may start
to become tedious. A traditional alternative has been to use he, him,
and his: One tries to be careful about his investments. This has the
drawback of raising the specter of gender bias. For a more detailed
discussion of this problem, see the entry for he under Gender. Because
of these problems, the temptation may arise to switch to you, but this
will undoubtedly be distracting to your readers. It’s better to use the
same generic pronoun throughout."
Simple isn't it?
> And as far as anyone's "duty" in Monaco, get real. Its a tiny speck of
land
> where the main industries are tourism and gambling.
And Japan is hardly the size of Italy, yet it is an Empire, so what is
your point?
Not going to go on with the rest, you obviously have not a clue and have
a very strong suspicion further conversation on this matter with you,
would be like speaking to brick.
Candide
Susan Cohen
> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:cfkfc.30773$hd3....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
> >
> > "Tee" <crappol...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > news:c5kb3c$2o5fu$1...@ID-92443.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > Let's say he
> > > marries but finds out he's sterile (or maybe he is & already knows
it).
> >
> > Then he should just say so!
> > It would clear away a lot of brouhaha.
> >
> > > Would that mean that his failure in this one area equals total failure
> for
> > > not providing an heir? Or would he get duty points just because he
> tried?
> >
> > Yes, of course.
> > How could being sterile be his fault?
>
> But the point is that he'd still fail at this one duty.
Well, depends on how you define "failure."
You can't fail at something you *can't* do.
The way I've been
> reading things, Albert is either expected to fulfill all his duties or
step
> down.
Living up to one's responsibilities and doing something that's
(theoretically) impossible are 2 different things.
SusanC
Susan Cohen
> "JFlexer" <jf0962...@fbuster.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c5khb...@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> > IIRC, Monaco has the oldest reigning family in Europe... more than 700
> years
>
> Which makes the Windsors nouveau riche by comparison, eh? :-)
I believe the more correct term is "parvenu"...?
>
> > Interesting: On its website, Monaco refers to the Grimaldi's historic
> > government to be a monarchy... even though they are styled and titled
as
> > Princes/Serene Highnesses...
>
> According to my dictionary, the definition of monarchy is "undivided rule
or
> absolute sovereignty by one person" or "a government having a hereditary
> chief of state with powers ranging from nominal to absolute". I guess this
> means that a principality is just as much of a monarchy as a kingdom,
maybe
> even more so where Monaco is concerned, since Rainier is effectively an
> absolute ruler, while the Queen is anything but :-).
It is interesting to note that in a Western country, rather than the more
expected Arabian emirate monarchies.
SusanC
> Gillian
>
>
RCLOVELY
>> Let's say he
>> marries but finds out he's sterile (or maybe he is & already knows it).
>
>Then he should just say so!
>It would clear away a lot of brouhaha.
Heavens no! What would the tabloids write about and what would we talk about
in a slow Royalty season?
RC
Sacha
amcrappo...@netscape.netc5kmid$2ssva$1...@ID-92443.news.uni-berlin.de
I didn't think there was any question of him stepping down but rather that
his sister of nephew will succeed him if he dies without issue.
I don't see how anyone at agr can query the Grimaldis for taking reasonable
and sensible steps to ensure their inheritance, while at the same time
arguing that the Chrysanthemum throne is NOT doing the same! In both cases
it is a question of producing - or not - an heir! ;-)
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds to email me)
Sacha
amPity...@bigfoot.comc5kp6k$2tals$1...@ID-95798.news.uni-berlin.de
I disagree. I think the idea that Albert or anyone should marry *solely* to
produce an heir is absolutely repellent. The wife is a brood mare and the
child unwanted for its own self.
And in this case, the principality is in no danger.
Canetoad
> married for love so at once the two were at cross purposes with each
> other, hence the disaster which followed.
Don't be absurd. Diana married with youthful infatuation sprung from
childish fantasies and narcissism. Diana's dream for herself far
exceeded the public's expectations and perhaps led to her unhappiness.
But thats nothing to do with love. Diana and Charles married because it
was mutually advantageous to their families.
Tee
news:BCA40127.19607%sac...@gardenweeds506.fsnet.co.uk...
No, there's no question and thankfully so. By "reading things" I was
referring to Candide's viewpoint. She's been the only one voicing that POV
until Susan agreed with her. You may want to go back to April 11th in this
thread which is about where this portion of the debate started.
--
Tara
Sacha
amPity...@bigfoot.comc5kqqf$2ps4o$1...@ID-95798.news.uni-berlin.de
>
>
<snip>
> DEMOCRACY? In the same idea as royalty, oh my dear you really are out of
> your league here. Show me one country, currently ruled/reigned over by
> a monarch or formerly ruled by a monarchy or not that has a "true"
> democracy. Oh many will talk a good game about it, but when you come
> right down to it, it is those with the most money/access to power and
> influence that "run" things.
I must take issue with this. Britain is a democracy with a monarchy and the
monarchy is there by the will of the people. And going by your last
sentence, USA is not a democracy! Please don't tell us that anyone without
money or power or influence could become President of the USA!
<snip>
Sacha
pmcrappo...@netscape.netc5luk1$35mre$1...@ID-92443.news.uni-berlin.de
I've read the thread on and off though time has been a bit tighter lately!
But I did misinterpret your 'reading things' phrase as meaning in newspapers
etc., not on here. All is clear now.
Throughout the centuries, royalty, aristocracy and the landed gentry have
wished to produce direct heirs, ideally speaking. But that has not always
been possible and in many cases that simply means that things 'move
sideways', as would be the case with the Grimaldis.
Susan Cohen
"Canetoad" <canedelet...@hotmail.invalid> wrote in message
news:407E655E...@hotmail.invalid...
> Diana
> > married for love so at once the two were at cross purposes with each
> > other, hence the disaster which followed.
>
>
> Don't be absurd. Diana married with youthful infatuation sprung from
> childish fantasies and narcissism. Diana's dream for herself far
> exceeded the public's expectations and perhaps led to her unhappiness.
>
> But thats nothing to do with love.
I disagree.
While the reasons each thought s/he was in love might not have been strong
enough, the two did love each other. Just not well enough to last long
enough.
SusanC
Susan Cohen
> And going by your last
> sentence, USA is not a democracy! Please don't tell us that anyone
without
> money or power or influence could become President of the USA!
Hey, as long as his brother is governor of a key state, *anyone* can become
President....
SusanC
Holly W.
I disagree. Albert has an heir--Caroline. The succession is secured
and, as Monaco's history has shown, the Grimaldis always seem to find
a way to keep their little Principality--even to the extent of
legitimizing an illegitimate child, declaring her the heir, and then
having her step aside in favor of her legitimately-born son (as was
the case with Princess Charlotte and Prince Rainier). We've all seen
what happens when folks who are not suited get married, so why foist
this on Albert when it's not necessary right now? I agree that if
Caroline--or Stephanie, since her elder two children have been
legitimated--had not had children and gotten married--in that order
with Stephanie-- then there would have been a huge problem. But
that's not the case. Albert has performed his job well in all other
areas, so why all the fuss and bother about this one thing that is not
now necessary? Let Albert be a bachelor Prince, let Caroline succeed
him, and let Andrea succeed her. If the Monagesques are satisfied
with this arrangement, and there's been no protests so far, then we
should be as well.
Candide
"Sacha" <sac...@gardenweeds506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BCA44ED1.19664%sac...@gardenweeds506.fsnet.co.uk...
In a true democracy the will of the majority would carry, which often is
not the case (current events in Iraq for instance), for GB.
As I stated if you look at the model of democracy which the United
States was founded upon versus what it has morphed into, then no the
United States is not a true democracy.
To get on in politics in any branch of the United States these days
requires an enormous amount of money, the higher one goes the more
required. Raising vast sums usually comes from those that can afford to
give generously in various ways. While some may give out of ideals or
principals, others most always want something in return.
--
Candide
_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+__+_+__+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_
"Women have served all these centuries as looking-glasses possessing
the magic and delicious power of reflecting the figure of man at twice
its natural size. Without that power probably the earth would still be
swamp and jungle."
+++++++++++++++++
Virginia Woolf
Sacha
pmPity...@bigfoot.comc5mnsg$3547j$1...@ID-95798.news.uni-berlin.de
Are you comparing Iraq with GB? And how do you know what is the majority
will in Iraq? Are you saying that General Elections in GB do not exhibit
the will of the majority? If not, what is your point? That our elections
are corrupted?
Here, in GB, we hold elections on a regular basis; wealth is not a guarantee
of becoming an MP or PM.
In this democracy, the will of the majority DOES carry which is why we now
have a Labour government which even its most staunch supporters are
beginning to question BUT which is still our government because it was
elected democratically.
>
> As I stated if you look at the model of democracy which the United
> States was founded upon versus what it has morphed into, then no the
> United States is not a true democracy.
No. And therefore you are in NO position to suggest that a monarchy is not
a democracy, because, arguably, *your* country is run by moneyed interests,
not 'the people' nor even and especially, 'the little people'.
>
> To get on in politics in any branch of the United States these days
> requires an enormous amount of money, the higher one goes the more
> required. Raising vast sums usually comes from those that can afford to
> give generously in various ways. While some may give out of ideals or
> principals, others most always want something in return.
So - tell me why you would knock a monarchy as being undemocratic? Our
monarchy governs by the *will of the people* while you admit that *your*
country is run by pure financial influence? Our Head of State is above
"whose Daddy is richest" or "whose brother governs which State".
Our Head of State is already secure - they don't have to seek powerful
financial backing from commercial interests involved with GM crops, the gun
lobby or tobacco growing, the oil industry or indeed their 'pappy's last
fight with Eerak'.
Please reconsider before you bash our country on the grounds that it has a
monarchy when your country might just as well have - but with the addition
of personal interests and personal aggrandisement that last a few years and
might supercede that of the nation, perhaps.
You think about that next time you think you are in a position to lecture
anyone on democracy and monarchical states. Get your head out of the Wars
of the Roses and into the present day.
JFlexer
> "JFlexer" <jf0962...@fbuster.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c5khb...@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> > IIRC, Monaco has the oldest reigning family in Europe... more than 700
> years
>
> Which makes the Windsors nouveau riche by comparison, eh? :-)
One might even suggest interlopers... (any Jacobean's around? G!)
>
> > Interesting: On its website, Monaco refers to the Grimaldi's historic
> > government to be a monarchy... even though they are styled and titled
as
> > Princes/Serene Highnesses...
>
> According to my dictionary, the definition of monarchy is "undivided rule
or
> absolute sovereignty by one person" or "a government having a hereditary
> chief of state with powers ranging from nominal to absolute". I guess this
> means that a principality is just as much of a monarchy as a kingdom,
maybe
> even more so where Monaco is concerned, since Rainier is effectively an
> absolute ruler, while the Queen is anything but :-).
>
> Gillian
Actually, Monaco is *technically* no longer an 'absolute' monarchy - they've
had a constitution for nearly a century...
Until 1910, the Principality of Monaco lived under a regime of absolute
monarchy. In 1911, Prince Albert I promulgated the first Constitution ; this
was modified in 1917, confirmed in 1933 by Prince Louis II and reformed in a
liberal spirit by H.S.H. Prince Rainier III on 17th December 1962. (
http://www.monaco.mc/monaco/info/institutions.html )
having said that, I *would* agree that the Monégasque constitution grants
it's sovereign far greater power than the British constitution...
-J
Candide
"Sacha" <sac...@gardenweeds506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BCA4BFCC.196F1%sac...@gardenweeds506.fsnet.co.uk...
No, that if a true democracy existed where a majority of public
supported a position then they would carry. IIRC Mr. Blair took his
country to war without major support from "the public".
"Democracy" means rule of the people and in a "true" pure democracy
(remember that is what started this conversation, how you got onto
elections and Iraq I do not know), it is one person one vote majority
rule. However governments have discovered over the ages that in such
arrangements the minority is probably always going to loose, hence
various methods to not only everyone has a say, but an equal say in how
things are run.
in GB, we hold elections on a regular basis; wealth is not a guarantee
> of becoming an MP or PM.
>
> In this democracy, the will of the majority DOES carry which is why we
now
> have a Labour government which even its most staunch supporters are
> beginning to question BUT which is still our government because it was
> elected democratically.
> >
> > As I stated if you look at the model of democracy which the United
> > States was founded upon versus what it has morphed into, then no the
> > United States is not a true democracy.
>
> No. And therefore you are in NO position to suggest that a monarchy
is not
> a democracy, because, arguably, *your* country is run by moneyed
interests,
> not 'the people' nor even and especially, 'the little people'.
What are you going on about? Do you know the definition of monarchy and
democracy? Again in a TRUE democracy (what started this whole thing)
there cannot be a monarch as democracies are governed by the people
through their elected representatives.
What GB has (and no one was mocking it by the way), is a monarchy that
has gradually seen most if its powers exercised by a governing body of
elected representatives. However for all intensive purposes the source
and true home of said powers does not lie with said governing body, but
with the monarch. Laws and acts are not "by the people" but in the
monarch's name. There is no written constitution, and last time I
checked "Her Majesty's Government" is still on many government offices
(although Mr. Blair seems intent on changing some of this, IIRC).
Democracy is not just about "voting", but a system of government
determined by those votes.
Candide
Sacha
amPity...@bigfoot.comc5ne7m$3mepu$1...@ID-95798.news.uni-berlin.de
You don't know that. Although those against were vociferous in their
protests, no vote or referendum was held, so you are simply making an
assumption based on hindsight.
>
> "Democracy" means rule of the people and in a "true" pure democracy
> (remember that is what started this conversation, how you got onto
> elections and Iraq I do not know), it is one person one vote majority
> rule. However governments have discovered over the ages that in such
> arrangements the minority is probably always going to loose, hence
> various methods to not only everyone has a say, but an equal say in how
> things are run.
We have a say - everyone has a say - it's called general elections.
>
>
>
> in GB, we hold elections on a regular basis; wealth is not a guarantee
>> of becoming an MP or PM.
>>
>> In this democracy, the will of the majority DOES carry which is why we
> now
>> have a Labour government which even its most staunch supporters are
>> beginning to question BUT which is still our government because it was
>> elected democratically.
>>>
>>> As I stated if you look at the model of democracy which the United
>>> States was founded upon versus what it has morphed into, then no the
>>> United States is not a true democracy.
>>
>> No. And therefore you are in NO position to suggest that a monarchy
> is not
>> a democracy, because, arguably, *your* country is run by moneyed
> interests,
>> not 'the people' nor even and especially, 'the little people'.
>
> What are you going on about? Do you know the definition of monarchy and
> democracy? Again in a TRUE democracy (what started this whole thing)
> there cannot be a monarch as democracies are governed by the people
> through their elected representatives.
And what do you think happens here? That we hold general elections to
appoint political representatives and then the Queen tears the whole thing
up?
>
> What GB has (and no one was mocking it by the way), is a monarchy that
> has gradually seen most if its powers exercised by a governing body of
> elected representatives. However for all intensive purposes the source
> and true home of said powers does not lie with said governing body, but
> with the monarch. Laws and acts are not "by the people" but in the
> monarch's name. There is no written constitution, and last time I
> checked "Her Majesty's Government" is still on many government offices
> (although Mr. Blair seems intent on changing some of this, IIRC).
>
> Democracy is not just about "voting", but a system of government
> determined by those votes.
>
>
>
> Candide
>
>
Yes, and here it's a democratic monarchy.
grumblebug
I don't know, I go away for a week and you manage between you to turn
another perfectly on-topic discussion about the Grimaldis into a spat
on my favourite subject! May I intervene?
Democracy USA - election turnouts typically around 50%, and that of
registered voters - substantially less of the whole population.
Millions of potential voters apathetic or disengaged. Only the very
rich can afford to stand. However, you'd think that with only two
serious parties that the winner would get 50% of the actual vote. Not
so - last time the winner got less votes than the guy who came 2nd.
OK, there's the electoral college. It's in the constitution, it
provides the sort of "between presidents" role that the monarch
provides in the UK - but it was designed in and for times of poor
communications and might have deterred frauds that would not now be
possible. Anyway, why don't the states allocate their members in
proportion to the votes cast, as I believe two states do already? It's
ludicrous that a few hanging chads can make the difference between all
of Florida's votes going one way or t'other.
(BTW, do the college still meet or is that now an anachronism?)
Democracy UK - election turnouts typically in the 70-80% band (in the
50's they topped 80%) until the 2001 mass stay-at-home (59%). Nearly
all citizens are registered - checks are done. Nevertheless the
multiplicity of parties means that no PM has ruled with the votes of
more than a third of the electorate since 1966. Occasionally, as in
1951 and for a few months in 1974 between elections, the party with
fewer votes wins. However, Blair in 2001 trumped this and despite his
landslide gained the votes of less than a quarter of the electorate,
much like his mate across the water.
Is it better elsewhere? Probably, but I bet it's nowhere perfect.
Turnouts are apparently down everywhere in the West.
Constitutional monarchs - this isn't bipolar but a continuum. There's
everything from the pure figureheads in Japan to absolute despots like
the Sultan of Brunei and probably the Fon of Bafut! Near that is the
house of Saud where they seem to agree amongst themselves as to how
the despotism shares out. In the middle are cases like Morocco where
they have all the paraphenalia of democratic government but experts
say the monarchy is still the real power - it's illegal to voice the
slightest criticism of the king. Near the Japanese end - and despite
their being figureheads there seems to be an awful lot of angst about
the succesion - are the European constitutional monarchs.
They vary. The Belgian King's Catholic conscience caused him to
abdicate for a day rather than sign a bill legalising abortion. Our
Queen has never felt the need to do this, despite surely disagreeing
with loads of the legislation she's obliged to sign. But then, the
last monarch to refuse assent to a Parliamentary bill was Queen Anne,
so that's a lot of precedent! Monaco's monarchy has been
constitutional for a much shorter time, IIRC, so it wouldn't surprise
me if Rainier, or maybe Albert, refused to assent to something
sometime.
Other constitutional roles - Presidents can be heads of state, but
they vary from the seemingly absolute power wielded by the US ones
(specially if they have both Houses on board) to ones like the Irish
one who have a role very similar to our monarch. It works well there
because it's a relatively small country and they can agree to unite
behind a popular recent politician. It's hard to think of who could
fill such a role here.
However, if you decide to stick with the monarchy, IMHO you can't
tinker with the Laws of Succession. You can't decide to, say, choose
William heir by popular acclaim or referendum because you don't like
Charles - you're either a monarchist or you're not, and if not you
should campaign for its abolition (with due thought for what to put in
its place, of course.) I know of only two cases in the constitutional
period (broadly, since George I) where a monarch has been put aside:
where he has become incapable of his duties (George III, temporarily
at first, was replaced by a Regent) or where some other untenable
situation has arisen (Edward VIII). And that only became a problem
*when he became king.* No one ever tried to depose him as Prince of
Wales despite all the carryings-on. Besides, values are very different
nowadays from 1936, and whatever CPB has been accused of, sleeping
with fascists isn't among them. There has been no official mention yet
of her marrying the heir, or intending to.
I know that if a Regency occurred again it would be only temporary in
theory, as was the last one. Mad King Ludwig II of Bavaria was
succeeded by his even madder brother (Otto?) who lived his entire life
in a padded room. A cousin was appointed Regent and remained so for
the entire reign, but no attempt was made to depose the King and he
was incapable of abdicating. You see, you either have a monarchy or
you don't. No halfway house.
Oliver - good to be back??
Jean Sue
Can we cut the threads down to a manageable size??
js