Arnie May Run For Oval Office In 08

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-09-20 02:30pm

Elfdart wrote:That might be how girlie-men like you pull tough chicks, but my method works better and is less painful.

No, Jennifer Granholm is just an emasculating bitch, that's all. If she was any more the bitch she'd lead her husband around on a leash, in public.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-09-20 03:24pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Elfdart wrote:That might be how girlie-men like you pull tough chicks, but my method works better and is less painful.
No, Jennifer Granholm is just an emasculating bitch, that's all. If she was any more the bitch she'd lead her husband around on a leash, in public.

How can she be "emasculating"? She very feminine, if you ask me, but then I love strong women.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-09-21 08:48am

TheDarkling wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote: By what statute can parliment, or rather Commons and Lords, appoint whom they please? nor has parliment ever done that in modern history.
The Act of Settlement 1701.
snip

That act is the regulation of the succession, Due to uncertainty over a protestant succession because of William 3 being childless and Anne having just lost a child. That act does not presume to reserve to Parliment the say who shall be on the throne.

Parliament has done this in modern times with Edward VIII since it isn't technically possible for the Monarch to abdicate of their own will (because they have no say in who is or isn't the monarch as per the Act of Settlement) parliament must actually choose a new monarch (although this has the same effect and the act was titled "His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act").

Wrong. Edward VIII was forced to abdicate because of the religion of Wallis Simpson clashed with the Act of Settlement, not to mention the social mores of the day, and issue's with the Kings position as head of the Church of England and divorce. The Crown is not above the law, nor is Parliment.
As Edward had no children the next in line was his brother, the Duke of York, and he became King the moment Edward abdicated, according to the Act of Sucession 1701. There was never any doubt or disscussion over the point iirc.

In each instance when there has been doubt over the succession the nearest reletive, male or female and Protestant, has been asked to the throne.
Since when?

This is true post Act of Settlement but before that things were far more complicated.

Since at least 1066, as a preferred rule..allthough I admit to being hasty, things could be vey uncertain and there were a number of dynasties for some interesting reasons

.

However my point being that in a monarchy the head of state is by definition herditary
No they aren't, hereditary determinations of the line of succession aren't the only method, methods such as the out going monarchs wishes, who holds the physical crown (as in who has troops on the ground) and so on have all been used as a legitimate method of determining the new monarch.

Conceeded.

Currently the British monarchy is hereditary (with the stipulation about Catholics) however that is due to parliament wanting it to be that way and having legislation to that effect. Should they choose to alter the decision making process they are well within their rights to do so.

That is the case now, in the democratic era, but that has not always been the case. I find it highly improbable that anyone but Victoria, for example would have acended the throne because, the Act of Settlement does not reserve to Parliment that power to choose, barring the establishment of the protestant succession, only that the next monarch be protestant and be next in line by herditary {and some other issuesnot related tot he succession}.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-09-21 11:45am

Stuart Mackey wrote: That act is the regulation of the succession, Due to uncertainty over a protestant succession because of William 3 being childless and Anne having just lost a child. That act does not presume to reserve to Parliment the say who shall be on the throne.

Inde3d it does, it is a piece of legislation which determines the line of succession and under parliamentary sovereignty parliament can alter the legislation of any past parliament.

Parliament could alter the act of succession tomorrow to make Blair king as long as they got the votes.

Wrong. Edward VIII was forced to abdicate because of the religion of Wallis Simpson clashed with the Act of Settlement, not to mention the social mores of the day, and issue's with the Kings position as head of the Church of England and divorce. The Crown is not above the law, nor is Parliment.

That has what relevance?
How does it make me wrong?

As Edward had no children the next in line was his brother, the Duke of York, and he became King the moment Edward abdicated, according to the Act of Sucession 1701. There was never any doubt or disscussion over the point iirc.

He hadn’t married her yet so he had not made himself invalid under the Act of Settlement, parliament had to pass a Bill which allowed him to abdicate.

Read here

"On 10 December 1936, Edward VIII executed an Instrument of Abdication which was given legal effect the following day, when Edward gave Royal Assent to His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act, by which Edward VIII and any children he might have were excluded from succession to the throne."

His statement of abdication wasn't valid until parliament passed it and then he gave royal assent (as happens with all laws).

If Parliament had refused to pass it then he would have remained King without him having a say in it, until he married her at least.

Since at least 1066, as a preferred rule..allthough I admit to being hasty, things could be vey uncertain and there were a number of dynasties for some interesting reasons .

William the Conqueror’s third (and favourite son) took the throne of England so eldest male heir goes straight out of the window with the first passing of the crown.

It does multiple times thereafter as well, the line of succession wasn’t hard and fast for quite some time after 1066.

That is the case now, in the democratic era, but that has not always been the case. I find it highly improbable that anyone but Victoria, for example would have acended the throne because, the Act of Settlement does not reserve to Parliment that power to choose, barring the establishment of the protestant succession, only that the next monarch be protestant and be next in line by herditary {and some other issuesnot related tot he succession}.

Since the act of Settlement is parliamentary legislation it automatically confers upon parliament the right to choose the Monarch.

Check Wikipedia or google if you like

"In addition, it specifies that it is for Parliament to determine who should succeed to the throne, not the monarch."

From Wikipedia on the act.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-09-21 12:52pm

Elfdart wrote:How can she be "emasculating"? She very feminine, if you ask me, but then I love strong women.

Do you actually no anything about her or is this just more of your moronic wanking to anything and everything liberal?

And yes, she looks very feminine. But her personality would suit a Harpy. I like strong women as well but I don't care for bitchy women. And Jennifer Granholm definitely is the latter.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-09-21 03:02pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Elfdart wrote:How can she be "emasculating"? She very feminine, if you ask me, but then I love strong women.
Do you actually no anything about her or is this just more of your moronic wanking to anything and everything liberal?

And yes, she looks very feminine. But her personality would suit a Harpy. I like strong women as well but I don't care for bitchy women. And Jennifer Granholm definitely is the latter.

Sounds like my kinda gal!