It’s “fount”: Fount of honour - Wikipedia
There actually was some minor controversy about that at the time, but because he’d been doing such important humanitarian work, nobody really made a stink about it.
It’s well known that she was naturalized when her father became a US citizen. Couldn’t have Israeli citizenship until 1948. Easy to get Israeli citizenship due to the Law of Return (1950/1952). I just haven’t found a cite online yet saying she gave up US citizenship. Found a reference to an Israeli cabinet minister in 1960 with dual French-Israeli citizenship.
Members of Knesset were only forbidden from holding dual citizenship in 1996 (Basic Law: The Knesset, Section 16a). Until then, plenty of MK were also foreign citizens. I don’t know about Golda.
I believe that’s not correct. I can’t quickly find a cite but I have read that future monarchs will use the greater regnal number. So should Charles choose Robert as a regnal name, he would be Robert IV.
Wikipedia has this to say:
I think many Scots would be enthused by a monarch with a Scottish regnal name, though probably not MacBeth :D.
Interesting. You can be a dual citizen and in legislature or the cabinet, it’s only president or maybe VP too where this would end up being an issue. If in the line of succession and not eligible, you are skipped (Elaine Chao, for example).
I agree that’s what’s been proposed by some, starting with Churchill, who was PM when HM ascended the throne and the issue of her number was raised by Scots nationalists.
But my point is that that proposal tends to favour English numbering, because they tend to use the names of English monarchs. Unless they start branching out and using names of former Scottish monarchs, the numbering will be de facto based on English numbering.
Long live King Dub, second of that name!
Well, this can be confusing. So, there are only a handful of Peers. If you aint a Royal or a Peer then you are a “commoner” (i.e. you can sit in the Commons), even if you have a title. So, yes, they are nobles or gentility, but not a “Peer”.
Well, they dont consider him to have even been the King. They also dont consider Lady Jane Grey to ever have been Queen, even tho she was officially proclaimed Queen. The do consider Edward V to have been King, even tho he never was crowned, never reigned and was declared bastard by Parliament- but this is due to Tudor propaganda. Oddly they list Harold II, even tho William’s claim was that Harold wasnt rightful King he was. The 'official list" has several issues.
I dont know what the kerfuffle is about Charles being named GVII or not, anyone want to fill me in? (Not on the fact that he said he wasnt, but why it is such a big deal being G7)
As noted above, some people think the regnal name Charles III would be unfortunate, due, I guess, to Charles I having been deposed and beheaded, and Charles II being a rake. Taking the name George VII would be a nice way for the current Prince of Wales to honor his grandfather, but rumors that he has already decided to take the name have been circulating for awhile now but officially denied.
No, in the British system only peers are nobility.
We’ll know if there’s ever another King James. Will he be James III or James VIII?
But no longer are all Peers members of the House of Peers.
It’s the House of Lords, but it’s a bit more subtle than that. All members of the House of Lords are peers of the realm. The number of hereditary peers in the Lords is restricted currently to 92 in number - 90 of whom are actually elected, in some fashion - but the rest of the hereditary peers who don’t sit in the Lords remain as peers of the realm.
The large majority of the House of Lords consists of people who have been made non-inheritable Life Peers. All of them are initially eligible to sit in the Lords, but it is now possible to retire, or to be kicked out for eg non-attendance. The Life Peers who don’t take their seat in the Lords are still peers of the realm though.
(NB I gave up on getting the capitalisation consistent here)
Because it fucks up the chord progression.
I’d go with Alphonso, just to mix things up. One was on track to reach the throne already, so it’s not like there is no precedent.
A minor misstep: the Duchess of Sussex expressed an opinion on an Irish political question: MSN
Oops. And, to boot, an opinion on the politics of another country, not just on an awkward issue in the UK (since the primary opposition to reform in Northern Ireland comes from the party the UK government depends on for its survival). Moral: be very careful what you say to people you cannot absolutely rely on for discretion (especially if you aren’t in a position to have any influence over them).
PS: Interesting (and heartening) that the first overseas trip arranged for them as a couple is to Ireland, rather than (as might once have been the case) France or one of the Scandinavian countries the royals are related to. How times have changed.