..or Cerebral Palsey. When the time came would they be able to rule?
2007-11-11 10:00:24 · 25 answers · asked by Darlingthatsfabulous 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
probably not, because they would never have any real understanding of the role. but possibly in the future if there is better education for children and adults with so called "special needs"
and also for more awareness made about these dissabillities. there would be less discrimination.
all in all, its not likely is it!
2007-11-11 10:09:33 · answer #1 · answered by ♥♥Cat Lady♥♥ 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The British Monarchy do not rule as it has quite rightly been pointed out, they reign.
If somebody had a disability that they could not do their job right(as in every day work as well) no they could not take the throne, it would possibly go to the next in line with the agreement of the government.
Some of the answers I have seen on this particular subject are insulting to the severely disabled and some of you should be thouroughly ashamed of yourselves
2007-11-12 09:30:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, they would not be able to ascend the throne in this day and age even though we are much more accepting of any type of disability. The only way the heir would be allowed to do so would be to have someone of age become Regent. Even though the British throne is the world's most famous, they do not rule, per se. It is the Prime Minister and Parliament who make decisions, through her majesty's grace and with her acceptance of such!
2007-11-11 11:21:26 · answer #3 · answered by Chris B 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there's no such element contained in the united kingdom as similar sex marriage. no longer something. If any monarch is unable, for in spite of reason, to provide an heir, they flow again to his/her next sibling, (assuming absolute primogeniture, which has no longer been reformed, yet), or brother, in accordance to present day regulations, and then down their line. a million. no longer something ought to change. you would probable hear all kinds of rumors about their enthusiasts, yet that occurs besides. they could probable have a real marriage, and all kinds of affairs, yet, again, it really is been the way of royalty always. 2. convinced. There hasn't ever been any regulation or ban hostile to marrying diverse skin shades. 3. convinced. the purely regulation states that the Monarch would no longer be married to all and sundry ROMAN CATHOLIC. all and sundry who marries a Roman Catholic is immediately removed from the line of succession, so...an heir ought to marry a Roman Catholic, they basically ought to now no longer be in line for the throne. 4. convinced, notwithstanding many times, one doesn't opt for now to not marry...through the time one is on the throne, one is really oftentimes married. it really is no longer a regulation. there has been some communicate (i'm no longer particular how valid) of eliminating the ban on Catholics, too. that is a touch previous regulation. No, your unique presumption that the British royals ought to keep up as a lot as now must be vastly incorrect.
2016-10-24 01:31:12 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would just like to point out that the British monarchy reign but do not rule. The government do that. I think it would be fine to have a head of state with a disability. It would prove we really are an inclusive society. PLUS I feel we've had a hereditary head of state with a screw loose in the past and we might get one again if Charlie gets on the throne.
2007-11-12 07:41:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Downs Syndrome, probably not. Cerebral palsy - depends on the severity. Most people with cerebral palsy have normal intelligence. A person with Downs Syndrome would not understand the significance of the role and although they may officially reign, it would probably be through a Regent for the entirety of their reign.
2007-11-12 00:31:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It would be up to Parliament to decide.
The main decision would be whether or not to appoint a "Regency Council" which would either carry out all the duties of the monarch, or carry out most of them and decide which ones to let the monarch do for himself or herself.
It would be a much more serious decision to disinherit the heir and pass the crown to the next heir in line. They would be more likely instead to just give the next heir in line a leading place on the Regency Council.
2007-11-13 01:51:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think perhaps they would, otherwise it wouldn't send out a very good message. But they might have a lot of helpers on hand. However, they might be advised to pass up the role to the next in line.
If they were very severely disabled - i.e. could barely do anything for themselves - then they would probably not be allowed to rule, because it would be too stressful for them and not really very useful.
2007-11-11 10:07:42 · answer #8 · answered by .єmιlч. .ωєmιlч. ~♥~ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would depend on the disability. If it were one that left their cognitive functions unaffected, like cerebral palsy, he would rule as normal. If it were something, such as profound mental retardation, that would make it difficult or impossible for them to function, he would probably officially be monarch while actual power (such as it is, these days) would be exercised by a regent.
2007-11-11 11:50:08 · answer #9 · answered by JerH1 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Centuries ago, you couldn't find a royal who wasn't disabled but times had changed and they probably would prefer for their future king to be really intelligent and almost perfect. However, they would probably look at the indivisual case and decide if he or she is competent. Say he or she has a very mild LD, CP, or whatever.
2007-11-11 15:43:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋