[QUOTE=Struan]
To paraphrase my mum, she wasn’t even supposed to be our Queen, but if anyone says a word against her I’ll have their eyes out with a spoon.
[/QUOTE]
Pardon… What does this mean, exactly? Why would she not be Queen?
[QUOTE=Struan]
I’m guessing I’ll have to be a post-whore to be noticed. You could probably check the link in my post above to listen to the actual fucking broadcast you are drivelling on about.
[/QUOTE]
I am confused, I know who you are from the Family Feud thread and some Tolkien threads. What did I miss in your link, and why am I “driveling on”?
Okay, I just read your link, :smack: Thank you for providing a better link than wiki for what I meant.
Could you now clarify the driveling part?
Jim
[QUOTE=twhitt]
Pardon… What does this mean, exactly? Why would she not be Queen?
[/QUOTE]
Her dad was not born to be King (he took over from his brother after Parliament exerted its authority (Edward and Mrs. Simpson)). It fell for him to become George VI as King at possibly the worst time ever, and his eldest daughter Elizabeth became the heiress. George died far too young and the young Elizabeth became Queen.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Could you now clarify the driveling part?
Jim
[/QUOTE]
I have absolutely no idea what I meant there. I must apologise for being a right arsehole Jim.
[QUOTE=Struan]
I have absolutely no idea what I meant there. I must apologise for being a right arsehole Jim.
[/QUOTE]
No Prob, thanks for clarifying.
I believe the new monarch is actually the monarch before any formal coronation .
Though individuals who hold the position die,the position its self doesnt .
The saying is “The King is dead (ie the one who was the immediate predecessor )Long live the King”(or Queen) .
[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
I believe the new monarch is actually the monarch before any formal coronation .
Though individuals who hold the position die,the position its self doesnt .
The saying is “The King is dead (ie the one who was the immediate predecessor )Long live the King”(or Queen) .
[/QUOTE]
I read once that it is a maxim of British law that “The Throne is never vacant.” (Terry Pratchett did something with that once in a Discworld novel – since transmission of sovereignty is instantaneous, in theory it could be used for faster-than-light communication; one wizard postulated the existence of superluminal particles called “kingons” and had the idea of torturing a king to modulate the signal.)
[QUOTE=Struan]
I believe that you are completely wrong!
[/QUOTE]
Well, Wikipedia sez:
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Why? That is, why him so particularly?
[/QUOTE]
It’s probably better for a British person to answer, but since none has stepped up as of yet, I’ll take a stab. It seems to me that there are several popular notions about Charles –
- He’s not sweet and matronly like his mother or daffy like his father, so we hate him.
- He’s an effete intellectual who thinks he knows something and he often expresses his opinion, so we hate him.
- He was born into privilege and acts like a regular person instead of being grateful and humble for his good fortune, so we hate him.
- He’s a sheltered, bigoted, supercilious twit, so we hate him.
- He’s not very good looking and he talks funny, so we hate him.
- He made our pretty princess cry, so we hate him.
From the limited information I have about Charles, it seems to me that he is moderately more intelligent and thoughtful than anyone else in his family, and had he not be born a royal, he probably would have done well for himself, either in a profession or in politics.
[QUOTE=acsenray]
It’s probably better for a British person to answer, but since none has stepped up as of yet, I’ll take a stab. It seems to me that there are several popular notions about Charles –
- He’s not sweet and matronly like his mother or daffy like his father, so we hate him.
- He’s an effete intellectual who thinks he knows something and he often expresses his opinion, so we hate him.
- He was born into privilege and acts like a regular person instead of being grateful and humble for his good fortune, so we hate him.
- He’s a sheltered, bigoted, supercilious twit, so we hate him.
- He’s not very good looking and he talks funny, so we hate him.
- He made our pretty princess cry, so we hate him.
From the limited information I have about Charles, it seems to me that he is moderately more intelligent and thoughtful than anyone else in his family, and had he not be born a royal, he probably would have done well for himself, either in a profession or in politics.
[/QUOTE]
Fair summation, but mostly point 6. Di could have been a cokehead and shagged a different man every week, but being pretty and female would still have pulled the tabloid sympathy vote ahead of Charles. And those monks over in Hanoi will have finished the job before the next time a whole week goes by without Diana’s picture in the paper.
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
And those monks over in Hanoi will have finished the job . . .
[/QUOTE]
What job?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Terry Pratchett did something with that once in a Discworld novel – since transmission of sovereignty is instantaneous, in theory it could be used for faster-than-light communication; one wizard postulated the existence of superluminal particles called “kingons” and had the idea of torturing a king to modulate the signal.
[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, before the philosopher could continue his string of thought, the bar closed.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
[And those monks over in Hanoi will have finished the job . . .]
What job?
[/QUOTE]
Moving the disks. See Tower of Hanoi - Wikipedia
If he is granted, or inherits, a title qualifying him to sit in the Lords, then such a person is ineligible for election to the Commons. While it is constitutionally possible to lead the Government from the Lords, it hasn’t happened since Lord Salisbury’s administration over a century ago. (technically the Earl of Home did so for a short while but only while he disclaimed his peerage and was found a seat in the Commons)