Moderator: Edi
If only the All Blacks were as slow as you...Stuart Mackey wrote:I see a joke in there somewhere....Stuart Mackey wrote:I think you will find it is a lot less than that, I dont recall exactly however.BoredShirtless wrote: The Queen has around 20 billion if you include her family jewels. Bill has about 31 billion.
The Crown jewls however are the property of the state not the personal property of the Queen, the same is true of some of the palaces.
Ahem:Colonel Olrik wrote: If nothing else, I would want to have the chance to elect the king, damnit! Or else I could end up with some retard who did nothing but be born of a King and that I would have to endure for decades.
Monty Python wrote: Arthur: I am your king!
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you!
Arthur: You don't vote for kings!
Woman: Well 'ow'd you become king then?
(holy music up)
Arthur: The Lady of the Lake -- her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king!
Man: (laughingly) Listen: Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some... farcical aquatic ceremony!
Arthur: (yelling) BE QUIET!
Man: You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!!
Arthur: (coming forward and grabbing the man) Shut *UP*!
Man: I mean, if I went 'round, saying I was an emperor, just because some moistened bink had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
Arthur: (throwing the man around) Shut up, will you, SHUT UP!
Man: Aha! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Arthur: SHUT UP!
Man: (yelling to all the other workers) Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP, HELP, I'M BEING REPRESSED!
Arthur: (letting go and walking away) Bloody PEASANT!
Man: Oh, what a giveaway! Did'j'hear that, did'j'hear that, eh? That's what I'm all about! Did you see 'im repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?!
InnerBrat wrote:If Charles ascends, he will likely take his grandfather's name become King George VII.Stuart Mackey wrote: I would prefer William to be king..the thought of King Charles 3 does not have good connotations history wise.
Actually, it did not work at all for France. The condemnation and execution of Queen Marie Antoinette and King Louis XVI in AD 1793 utterly failed to put an end to the House of Bourbon; his younger brothers the Comte de Provence and the Comte d'Artois successively became King Louis XVIII and King Charles X, respectively; Charles X was succeeded by his first cousin distantly removed the Duc d'Orléans, who was crowned King Louis-Philippe. The House of Bourbon still exists in France today, not to mention the junior line presently on the Spanish throne in the person of King Juan Carlos I.Robert Treder wrote:That's why, traditionally, when you do such things, you go ahead and kill the royalist bastards. Saves a lot of trouble down the road. I mean, it worked great for France, right?
King Charles II was fairly successful as a monarch. Ill fortunes appear to be attached to odd-numbered kings named Charles and even-numbered kings named James, although to be fair, both King Charles I and King James II were Stuarts, not Windsors. In any event, the Prince of Wales could be prevented from acceding by simply rendering him ineligible to receive sacraments in the Church of England; he could marry a divorcée, apostatise to Islam, &c.Stuart Mackey wrote:I would prefer William to be king..the thought of King Charles 3 does not have good connotations history wise.
*sigh* the reference was to Crown Jewls and casting doubt on the gender of the Monarch... get it?InnerBrat wrote:The Queen's Crown Jewels?Stuart Mackey wrote:No, that the Queens crown jewls are the property of the sta..bahh.. stupid Australain...Charlie has no jewels?
That joke would only really work if she was a king, which she isn't.
Nice to see an Aussie admits his nations Rugby inferiorityBoredShirtless wrote:If only the All Blacks were as slow as you...Stuart Mackey wrote:I see a joke in there somewhere....Stuart Mackey wrote: I think you will find it is a lot less than that, I dont recall exactly however.
The Crown jewls however are the property of the state not the personal property of the Queen, the same is true of some of the palaces.
I do of course refer to Charles 1 as to silly superstitionsPublius wrote: King Charles II was fairly successful as a monarch. Ill fortunes appear to be attached to odd-numbered kings named Charles and even-numbered kings named James, although to be fair, both King Charles I and King James II were Stuarts, not Windsors. In any event, the Prince of Wales could be prevented from acceding by simply rendering him ineligible to receive sacraments in the Church of England; he could marry a divorcée, apostatise to Islam, &c.
PUBLIUS
King Charles II was a fairly successful monarch in two respects: (1.) he maintained his crown on his head in a country which had quite happily separated his predecessor from both; and (2.) when he died he left his heir a kingdom more or less intact, which in a hereditary monarchy is the very definition of "success" (to successfully add a great deal to it would qualify as a "spectacular success").Stuart Mackey wrote:Charles was hardly a successfull monarch..average on a good day perhaps
Ah, but the laws regarding religion cannot be waived under the existing constitutions because the Sovereign is ex officio the "Supreme Governor" of the Church of England, and eligibility to receive sacraments within the Church is a conditio sine qua non. To waive the religious restrictions would require the disestablishment of the Church of England. While this would not necessarily apply to marrying a Catholic (which ipso facto disqualifies a dynast from succession, courtesy of the traditional English anti-Catholic bias), it would definitely apply to the Prince's conversion.Stuart Mackey wrote:As to the Prince of wales and what could debar him from the throne, I think you will find that any existing law regarding devorcee's, or the intendee's religeon would be set aside in this day and age and would not form a barrier to Charles becoming King.
False. A monarch at this time was and is regarded as succesfull by the success or failure of policy and the stae of the nation at the end of the reign. Charles 11 was not successfull in this regards and his policy towards France with the proposed treaty of Dover was most definatly against the national interest and its success could arguably resulted in his removal.Publius wrote: King Charles II was a fairly successful monarch in two respects: (1.) he maintained his crown on his head in a country which had quite happily separated his predecessor from both; and (2.) when he died he left his heir a kingdom more or less intact, which in a hereditary monarchy is the very definition of "success" (to successfully add a great deal to it would qualify as a "spectacular success").
*snort* What was established can be disestablihed, precident in the establishment of the Anglican church alone.Ah, but the laws regarding religion cannot be waived under the existing constitutions because the Sovereign is ex officio the "Supreme Governor" of the Church of England, and eligibility to receive sacraments within the Church is a conditio sine qua non. To waive the religious restrictions would require the disestablishment of the Church of England. While this would not necessarily apply to marrying a Catholic (which ipso facto disqualifies a dynast from succession, courtesy of the traditional English anti-Catholic bias), it would definitely apply to the Prince's conversion.
PUBLIUS
Actually, I was joking. But good on ye' for keeping on your toes.Publius wrote:Actually, it did not work at all for France. The condemnation and execution of Queen Marie Antoinette and King Louis XVI in AD 1793 utterly failed to put an end to the House of Bourbon; his younger brothers the Comte de Provence and the Comte d'Artois successively became King Louis XVIII and King Charles X, respectively; Charles X was succeeded by his first cousin distantly removed the Duc d'Orléans, who was crowned King Louis-Philippe. The House of Bourbon still exists in France today, not to mention the junior line presently on the Spanish throne in the person of King Juan Carlos I.Robert Treder wrote:That's why, traditionally, when you do such things, you go ahead and kill the royalist bastards. Saves a lot of trouble down the road. I mean, it worked great for France, right?
The Russians had somewhat more success, but that also is limited. The House of Romanov still exists today, also. So does the House of Habsburg and the House of Hohenzollern.
PUBLIUS
