This royal family thing is kinda cool as a vestige to history. Plus all the pomp and circumstance. Very cool that the princes don't shirk their military responsibilities and while I'm sure they have it a bit easier than regular enlisters, they serve and do their duty.
Question about the Royal Family
- Thread starter chainblu
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by chainblu
Within a week or so, I've seen two different headlines that inferred that Prince Charles was next in line for the throne. I was under the impression that once he got divorced, he was no longer 'in line'. Did I miss something? Has something changed or am I not understanding how it works?
Camilla won't be a queen but Charles will be a king.
Within a week or so, I've seen two different headlines that inferred that Prince Charles was next in line for the throne. I was under the impression that once he got divorced, he was no longer 'in line'. Did I miss something? Has something changed or am I not understanding how it works?
Camilla won't be a queen but Charles will be a king.
Her power is very real, but she acted very intelligently as the only person who can keep herself in check. She can declare a war without consulting with the Parliament, for example. She is above the law, cannot be prosecuted. She can prosecute any of her subjects, since they are not citizens in UK. if she needs to bring the army to your door, she could do that too, as she is The Commander in Chief with every soldier, sailor and pilot swearing their allegiance to The Crown. And so do Police officers. But she never exerted all that power. She needs no passport. She pays taxes even though she is not obligated to do so. She has a driver's license, even though she needs none. She got her first one, when she worked as an ambulance driver during the war. And on top of that she has the first dibs of any whale that was washed ashore in the Realm. Not counting all that Royal Swan nonsense and fish.
Originally Posted by Tikka
Originally Posted by Shannow
I don't get how the Gotha Habsbugs (spelling???) got to run the show anyway,
Remember, three Leaders of WW1 were all first Cousins. George V, Tsar Nicholas and Kaiser Wilhelm. Millions of ordinary people Slaughtered because of a Family Tiff.
We'll you lot weren't setting much of an example were you? Brothers slaughtering brothers in droves fifty years earlier? The Civil War was the world's first truly industrial war. You showed us all how it was done. Well done you!
Originally Posted by Shannow
I don't get how the Gotha Habsbugs (spelling???) got to run the show anyway,
Remember, three Leaders of WW1 were all first Cousins. George V, Tsar Nicholas and Kaiser Wilhelm. Millions of ordinary people Slaughtered because of a Family Tiff.
We'll you lot weren't setting much of an example were you? Brothers slaughtering brothers in droves fifty years earlier? The Civil War was the world's first truly industrial war. You showed us all how it was done. Well done you!
The Queen can also remove a Government. In New Zealand the Governor General can do that...he/she also appoints them. A handy thing to have for a back up...avoids the gun issue.
Originally Posted by SonofJoe
Originally Posted by Shannow
I don't get how the Gotha Habsbugs (spelling???) got to run the show anyway,
I'm similarly perplexed how someone called Chump (spelling???) got to run the show in The US?
Something called an election...
Originally Posted by Shannow
I don't get how the Gotha Habsbugs (spelling???) got to run the show anyway,
I'm similarly perplexed how someone called Chump (spelling???) got to run the show in The US?
Something called an election...
Originally Posted by Silk
The Queen can also remove a Government. In New Zealand the Governor General can do that...he/she also appoints them. A handy thing to have for a back up...avoids the gun issue.
Happened in Oz...also, when our reserve bank started bribing leaders in the pacific regions to print their plastic money for them, she imposed and signed off on a gag order that prevented Oz media from even mentioning the issue.
The Queen can also remove a Government. In New Zealand the Governor General can do that...he/she also appoints them. A handy thing to have for a back up...avoids the gun issue.
Happened in Oz...also, when our reserve bank started bribing leaders in the pacific regions to print their plastic money for them, she imposed and signed off on a gag order that prevented Oz media from even mentioning the issue.
Quote
Quote
I'm similarly perplexed how someone called Chump (spelling???) got to run the show in The US?
Something called an election...
But was it? Honestly??
Putin is notionally the 'elected' president of Russia but no one in their right mind would think this gives him true democratic legitimacy. You can say the same about no end of bloodthirsty African thugs who have been 'elected' president by the simple expedient of manipulating the vote.
I think what recent experience tells us is that in The West, where countries & issues are roughly split, you don't need to covertly subvert the entire electorate, you just need to focus on the 5% that swing things either way. I think most Brits are aware now that the Brexit vote was actively subverted by dodgy money from equally dodgy rich & powerful people, employing bang up-to-date computer AI to root out voters with a grievance, who could actively be manipulated.
Sorry mate but this really isn't democracy...
Quote
I'm similarly perplexed how someone called Chump (spelling???) got to run the show in The US?
Something called an election...
But was it? Honestly??
Putin is notionally the 'elected' president of Russia but no one in their right mind would think this gives him true democratic legitimacy. You can say the same about no end of bloodthirsty African thugs who have been 'elected' president by the simple expedient of manipulating the vote.
I think what recent experience tells us is that in The West, where countries & issues are roughly split, you don't need to covertly subvert the entire electorate, you just need to focus on the 5% that swing things either way. I think most Brits are aware now that the Brexit vote was actively subverted by dodgy money from equally dodgy rich & powerful people, employing bang up-to-date computer AI to root out voters with a grievance, who could actively be manipulated.
Sorry mate but this really isn't democracy...
Originally Posted by Y_K
Her power is very real, but she acted very intelligently as the only person who can keep herself in check.
I'm a pretty big royal fan. Keeping my remarks non-political, the only time I saw the Queen's authority in Canada exercised after 1982 (and even before then, it was always on advice of Cabinet, as is the custom) was when the PM needed to appoint extra senators. Senators are appointed ordinarily by the Governor General, the Queen's representative, on advice of Cabinet. The senate was being temporarily expanded and the rules required the Queen herself to approve that.
Her power is very real, but she acted very intelligently as the only person who can keep herself in check.
I'm a pretty big royal fan. Keeping my remarks non-political, the only time I saw the Queen's authority in Canada exercised after 1982 (and even before then, it was always on advice of Cabinet, as is the custom) was when the PM needed to appoint extra senators. Senators are appointed ordinarily by the Governor General, the Queen's representative, on advice of Cabinet. The senate was being temporarily expanded and the rules required the Queen herself to approve that.
Originally Posted by Shannow
SoJ,
I've never met a Conspiracy Theory that I didn't like...my sig used to always be
Quote
Not Everything's a Conspiracy...
Only the important Stuff
Now I'm just resigned to the "fix being in" on everything...including Royalty.
In fairness you did have a referendum on putting Liz out to pasture in 1999 and Oz voted 55:45 to keep things the same. Interesting if you collectively decided to have another referendum in 2019, a couple of quick phone calls to Bad Uncle Vlad & Robert Mercer would almost certainly get that vote reversed.
If you like conspiracy theories, there's a very good recent BBC docudrama called 'The Uncivil War' which tells the story of how as very bright guy called Dominic Cummings (with the help of illegally harvested Facebook data & illegal overspends) helped the lunatic Right win the Brexit referendum. If you can't find it on BBC iPlayer, just watch DC tell the story in his own words in the video half way down this BBC article...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-46741907
BTW, I can feel another ban landing on my doorstep as soon as the US wakes up. So adiós amigos. Hope you enjoyed my posts while they lasted!
SoJ,
I've never met a Conspiracy Theory that I didn't like...my sig used to always be
Quote
Not Everything's a Conspiracy...
Only the important Stuff
Now I'm just resigned to the "fix being in" on everything...including Royalty.
In fairness you did have a referendum on putting Liz out to pasture in 1999 and Oz voted 55:45 to keep things the same. Interesting if you collectively decided to have another referendum in 2019, a couple of quick phone calls to Bad Uncle Vlad & Robert Mercer would almost certainly get that vote reversed.
If you like conspiracy theories, there's a very good recent BBC docudrama called 'The Uncivil War' which tells the story of how as very bright guy called Dominic Cummings (with the help of illegally harvested Facebook data & illegal overspends) helped the lunatic Right win the Brexit referendum. If you can't find it on BBC iPlayer, just watch DC tell the story in his own words in the video half way down this BBC article...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-46741907
BTW, I can feel another ban landing on my doorstep as soon as the US wakes up. So adiós amigos. Hope you enjoyed my posts while they lasted!
Originally Posted by SonofJoe
In fairness you did have a referendum on putting Liz out to pasture in 1999 and Oz voted 55:45 to keep things the same.
In fairness, the question was
Do you want a head of state, appointed by the parliament, or the status quo.
literally, that was the question
If they'd asked the "actual" question it would have been different...in all fairness...I was there...and voted donkey, as I wanted neither of the proffered statements.
In fairness you did have a referendum on putting Liz out to pasture in 1999 and Oz voted 55:45 to keep things the same.
In fairness, the question was
Do you want a head of state, appointed by the parliament, or the status quo.
literally, that was the question
If they'd asked the "actual" question it would have been different...in all fairness...I was there...and voted donkey, as I wanted neither of the proffered statements.
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by SonofJoe
In fairness you did have a referendum on putting Liz out to pasture in 1999 and Oz voted 55:45 to keep things the same.
In fairness, the question was
Do you want a head of state, appointed by the parliament, or the status quo.
literally, that was the question
If they'd asked the "actual" question it would have been different...in all fairness...I was there...and voted donkey, as I wanted neither of the proffered statements.
Let's both be honest. The days of Empire are long since dead. That you have a British titular head of state is a meaningless, clinging anachronism. If you asked Liz if she would rather be head of state of umpteen far flung ex-Empire countries or sat comfy on her settee, watching afternoon Countdown, at 93, she might just say the latter!
If Oz got it's act together and had another vote specifically to dump the monarchy, no one here, other than the nutcase, gutter press would be overly bothered. I'm sure we would still get along.
However I'd offer one teensy weensy bit of advice. In 2015, Dave Cameron, our ex-PM, thought it would be a jolly good wheeze, after 43 years of settled EU membership, to offer the UK an 'in or out' vote to 'settle' the issue of Europe ONCE & FOR ALL. Those last few words are so ironic because four years on, the issue of 'in or out' has never been so UNsettled & it's set one half of the population vehemently against the other. God knows where this is going to end up but I suspect it's only a matter of time when we all get consumed in serious violence & disorder.
The moral if the story is that doing things 'on principle' is just plain dumb if the outcome is far worse than the original inconvenience.
Originally Posted by SonofJoe
In fairness you did have a referendum on putting Liz out to pasture in 1999 and Oz voted 55:45 to keep things the same.
In fairness, the question was
Do you want a head of state, appointed by the parliament, or the status quo.
literally, that was the question
If they'd asked the "actual" question it would have been different...in all fairness...I was there...and voted donkey, as I wanted neither of the proffered statements.
Let's both be honest. The days of Empire are long since dead. That you have a British titular head of state is a meaningless, clinging anachronism. If you asked Liz if she would rather be head of state of umpteen far flung ex-Empire countries or sat comfy on her settee, watching afternoon Countdown, at 93, she might just say the latter!
If Oz got it's act together and had another vote specifically to dump the monarchy, no one here, other than the nutcase, gutter press would be overly bothered. I'm sure we would still get along.
However I'd offer one teensy weensy bit of advice. In 2015, Dave Cameron, our ex-PM, thought it would be a jolly good wheeze, after 43 years of settled EU membership, to offer the UK an 'in or out' vote to 'settle' the issue of Europe ONCE & FOR ALL. Those last few words are so ironic because four years on, the issue of 'in or out' has never been so UNsettled & it's set one half of the population vehemently against the other. God knows where this is going to end up but I suspect it's only a matter of time when we all get consumed in serious violence & disorder.
The moral if the story is that doing things 'on principle' is just plain dumb if the outcome is far worse than the original inconvenience.
Last edited:
SonofJoe, I read that the main reason Brits wanted out of the EU was they did not want the forced immigration policy.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by cjcride
SonofJoe, I read that the main reason Brits wanted out of the EU was they did not want the forced immigration policy.
I'm absolutely sure we wouldn't want a forced immigration policy. However, given that after 45 years of being in The EU, we've never had one and that there's zero prospect of us ever agreeing to one, then it's a bit silly to leave the world's biggest & richest trading bloc on that basis!
Of course that didn't stop the loonies freely putting it about that 70 million rampaging Turks would be heading straight for The UK once the 'evil' EU let them join the club. And I'm sure it had the intended effect of frightened some people into voting Brexit. The only problem is that whilst Turkey has applied to join, there's no plan to let them in because of their troublesome record on human rights. Also 70 million is the ENTIRE population of Turkey!!! Sadly, it seems the more outrageous & unbelievable the claim, the more a particular section of society seems to want believe it's true.
SonofJoe, I read that the main reason Brits wanted out of the EU was they did not want the forced immigration policy.
I'm absolutely sure we wouldn't want a forced immigration policy. However, given that after 45 years of being in The EU, we've never had one and that there's zero prospect of us ever agreeing to one, then it's a bit silly to leave the world's biggest & richest trading bloc on that basis!
Of course that didn't stop the loonies freely putting it about that 70 million rampaging Turks would be heading straight for The UK once the 'evil' EU let them join the club. And I'm sure it had the intended effect of frightened some people into voting Brexit. The only problem is that whilst Turkey has applied to join, there's no plan to let them in because of their troublesome record on human rights. Also 70 million is the ENTIRE population of Turkey!!! Sadly, it seems the more outrageous & unbelievable the claim, the more a particular section of society seems to want believe it's true.
Last edited:
1. There are over 6 billion people living in poverty out there, and not all of them are in Turkey.
2. There were 95k illegals discovered on voter rolls in TX alone. So, you still declaring Trump's win illegitimate?
Why are you so bitter and still alive?
2. There were 95k illegals discovered on voter rolls in TX alone. So, you still declaring Trump's win illegitimate?
Why are you so bitter and still alive?
Originally Posted by Y_K
2. There were 95k illegals discovered on voter rolls in TX alone. So, you still declaring Trump's win illegitimate?
Why are you so bitter and still alive?
Meh, touché
why are you quoting "state investages 60,000 votes cast divided over a 30+ year period" out of 182 million votes cast during that period as having some sort of significance ?
If anything your quoted stat proves fraud has decreased massively over the years.
The number of votes investigated by states 1900-1960 averaged .02% meaning this years voter fraud investigation rate is exceedingly small compared to past years
2. There were 95k illegals discovered on voter rolls in TX alone. So, you still declaring Trump's win illegitimate?
Why are you so bitter and still alive?
Meh, touché
why are you quoting "state investages 60,000 votes cast divided over a 30+ year period" out of 182 million votes cast during that period as having some sort of significance ?
If anything your quoted stat proves fraud has decreased massively over the years.
The number of votes investigated by states 1900-1960 averaged .02% meaning this years voter fraud investigation rate is exceedingly small compared to past years
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Y_K
Her power is very real, but she acted very intelligently as the only person who can keep herself in check. She can declare a war without consulting with the Parliament, for example. She is above the law, cannot be prosecuted. She can prosecute any of her subjects, since they are not citizens in UK. if she needs to bring the army to your door, she could do that too, as she is The Commander in Chief with every soldier, sailor and pilot swearing their allegiance to The Crown. And so do Police officers. But she never exerted all that power. She needs no passport. She pays taxes even though she is not obligated to do so. She has a driver's license, even though she needs none. She got her first one, when she worked as an ambulance driver during the war. And on top of that she has the first dibs of any whale that was washed ashore in the Realm. Not counting all that Royal Swan nonsense and fish.
You have educated some people today. Yes-so who cares they say.
Exactly. To anyone who says she has no power is totally understanding of England. And even if she did not have those "powers" you correctly enumerated to, she is the "Head" of the Roysl lines..which is more significant than any of us Non-Brits understand.
People in almost any activity no matter how trivial see themselves (not always) as someone who commands respect (has power). Its human nature.
https://medium.com/dose/does-the-queen-of-england-have-any-real-power-57e5750d68b1
Her power is very real, but she acted very intelligently as the only person who can keep herself in check. She can declare a war without consulting with the Parliament, for example. She is above the law, cannot be prosecuted. She can prosecute any of her subjects, since they are not citizens in UK. if she needs to bring the army to your door, she could do that too, as she is The Commander in Chief with every soldier, sailor and pilot swearing their allegiance to The Crown. And so do Police officers. But she never exerted all that power. She needs no passport. She pays taxes even though she is not obligated to do so. She has a driver's license, even though she needs none. She got her first one, when she worked as an ambulance driver during the war. And on top of that she has the first dibs of any whale that was washed ashore in the Realm. Not counting all that Royal Swan nonsense and fish.
You have educated some people today. Yes-so who cares they say.
Exactly. To anyone who says she has no power is totally understanding of England. And even if she did not have those "powers" you correctly enumerated to, she is the "Head" of the Roysl lines..which is more significant than any of us Non-Brits understand.
People in almost any activity no matter how trivial see themselves (not always) as someone who commands respect (has power). Its human nature.
https://medium.com/dose/does-the-queen-of-england-have-any-real-power-57e5750d68b1
Last edited:
JHZR2
Staff member
Politics. Lock time.
- Status
