Discussion:
Prince Harry's Children
Add Reply
c***@yahoo.com
2018-11-26 23:15:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Has the Queen said that Prince Harry's children will have the title of prince/princess with the style of Royal Highness?
Maltagenealogy.com
2018-11-27 02:11:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Has the Queen said that Prince Harry's children will have the title of prince/princess with the style of Royal Highness?
Not yet, at this stage, if its a boy, it will be the Earl of .... and if its a lady, it will be Lady X. Mountbatten Windsor. Just like the Earl of Wessex's children.

When the Prince of Wales becomes King, Harry's children would automatically become Princes.. of Sussex.
Graham
2018-11-28 23:05:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Maltagenealogy.com
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Has the Queen said that Prince Harry's children will have the title of prince/princess with the style of Royal Highness?
Not yet, at this stage, if its a boy, it will be the Earl of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_of_Dumbarton?
.... and if its a lady, it will be Lady X. Mountbatten Windsor. Just like the Earl of Wessex's children.
Or Lady X Windsor - I think that the Earl of Wessex's daughter is more often known by that surname?
Post by Maltagenealogy.com
When the Prince of Wales becomes King, Harry's children would automatically become Princes.. of Sussex.
Louis Epstein
2018-11-30 02:26:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Has the Queen said that Prince Harry's children will have the title of
prince/princess with the style of Royal Highness?
No declaration regarding them has been made.
As it stands,it defaults to the "styled as children of a Duke"
provided in 1917 for male-line great-grandchildren of a Sovereign.

Not sure if George V was giving any thought to such great-grandchildren
as would be in direct line to become male-line grandchildren of a
Sovereign.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Graham
2018-11-30 23:40:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Has the Queen said that Prince Harry's children will have the title of
prince/princess with the style of Royal Highness?
No declaration regarding them has been made.
As it stands,it defaults to the "styled as children of a Duke"
provided in 1917 for male-line great-grandchildren of a Sovereign.
Not sure if George V was giving any thought to such great-grandchildren
as would be in direct line to become male-line grandchildren of a
Sovereign.
He specifically referred to only "the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales" being HRH. So he gave thought to the other children of [the eldest son of the Prince of Wales] not being HRH - they would "be in direct line to become male-line grandchildren of a Sovereign", and indeed would "be in direct line to become children of a Sovereign".

IOW he knew when he issued the LP that his children Albert, Mary and Henry had been born great-grandchildren of a Sovereign (Victoria), had then become male-line grandchildren of a Sovereign (Edward VII) and had then become children of a Sovereign (himself).
Al
2018-12-01 12:18:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Given the timeframe the rushed change was made I don't think they really thought it through nor could they have been aware of the changes in longevity and the likelihood of this becoming much more common.

That said I expect them not to be made HRH.
Post by Louis Epstein
Not sure if George V was giving any thought to such great-grandchildren
as would be in direct line to become male-line grandchildren of a
Sovereign.
Louis Epstein
2018-12-04 05:14:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Al
Given the timeframe the rushed change was made I don't think they really thought it through nor could they have been aware of the changes in longevity and the likelihood of this becoming much more common.
That said I expect them not to be made HRH.
As in not from birth,or prevented from ever becoming HRH after
the present reign?
Post by Al
Post by Louis Epstein
Not sure if George V was giving any thought to such great-grandchildren
as would be in direct line to become male-line grandchildren of a
Sovereign.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
hihgdm
2018-12-01 14:34:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Has the Queen said that Prince Harry's children will have the title of prince/princess with the style of Royal Highness?
On a different but related historical note, the Duke of Windsor and his next two siblings in line were not born “royal” but were born with the style Highness, presumably as great-grandchildren of the sovereign. Said sovereign changed this in 1898 by stipulating that “…THE Queen has been pleased, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal, to declare that the Children of the Eldest Son of any Prince of Wales shall have, and at all times hold and enjoy, the style, title, or attribute of Royal Highness...". Then it seems it got changed again in 1917, and again in 2012. As far as one can tell, under the old rules the grandsons of the previous Dukes of Kent and Gloucester would be Princes and Highnesses, which may give Princess Michael sleepless nights.

In his zeal to, very sensibly, streamline the monarchy, the POW could, as king, restrict the number and timing of the application of “royal highness” in some way. He could stipulate that only the current heir apparent and his or her spouse are titled and styled as prince(ss) and royal highness. This would mean that when the heir apparent became the sovereign, the only people to become royal highnesses would be the new sovereign’s eldest child and thus heir apparent, and his or her spouse. The net effect would be that there are never more than two royal highnesses under the British system. The rest of the family would follow the rules of the peerage somehow, unless that very antiquated system was either abolished or at least streamlined. The Norwegian system could provide a good start as it has much more streamlined rules.

There are other changes afoot that may speed up the rate of change of monarchical streamlining. Brexit may lead to another Scottish independence referendum which, if successful, will have the effect of abolishing the political union known as the United Kingdom. This may provide the POW with even more ammunition in his reformist bent, notwithstanding that he would become King of Scotland. On another front, there is a federal election in Oz next year and by all accounts, and considering the disarray in the current liberal party government, the labour party will be elected as the next government. The leader of that party has, as far as I’m aware, promised to resurrect the republican issue to the extent of holding a plebiscite to determine the state of play. If the end result is that Oz becomes a republic, NZ will follow suit and Canada will take note, although the zeal in Canada to become a republic seems less pronounced. With fewer kingdoms under his belt, Prince Charles might again use the new world to further reform the monarchy. And finally…I’m sorry but I have to say it…the imminent political demise of Fake President Spanky Drumpf and his Fake Bone Spurs and his Disgusting Family may influence Prince Charles in some way. I’m not sure now but at the very least I’m sure he’ll be as pleased as most of the rest the world, but it may also influence him in other very positive ways. I just had to get that in.

And even more finally Comrade, you have a choice. Life will be so much easier and less stressful for you if you get with the program and adopt the New World Order and stop pining for that which is gone, or almost gone, and will never return.
n***@gmail.com
2018-12-02 08:18:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by hihgdm
There are other changes afoot that may speed up the rate of change of monarchical streamlining. Brexit
may lead to another Scottish independence referendum which, if successful, will have the effect of
abolishing the political union known as the United Kingdom.
The Irish are always so sure that everyone else will decide that they were right the whole time.

For the record, it would abolish the UK of GB, but not abolish the UK of E, W, and NI. And I strongly suspect that if the English people realize that Brexit means losing Scotland their political leadership will be told to un-do Brexit.
Post by hihgdm
This may provide the POW with even more ammunition in his reformist bent, notwithstanding that he
would become King of Scotland. On another front, there is a federal election in Oz next year and by all
accounts, and considering the disarray in the current liberal party government, the labour party will be
elected as the next government. The leader of that party has, as far as I’m aware, promised to resurrect
the republican issue to the extent of holding a plebiscite to determine the state of play.
And how well did that work out the last time a Labour PM tried it?

Nothing has changed in Aussie polling since then to indicate you would get a different result this time. In fact the only pollster who has been doing this since before the last referendum, using the same question, has found an extremely significant decline in the support for a Republic since then.

Now if our potential Labour PM was incredibly charismatic, and could avoid dying on Carbon-Tax-Hill long enough to accomplish something, he could convince the US-style-President people and the Just-call-the-Governor-General-Mr.-President-people to vote the same way, etc...

But that is a non-trivial amount of ifs.
Post by hihgdm
If the end result is that Oz becomes a republic, NZ will follow suit and Canada will take note, although
the zeal in Canada to become a republic seems less pronounced.
Republican polling in NZ is even worse then the Aussies.

As for the Canadians...

From the start, Canada has been a union between French speakers (who desperately want to avoid Protestant, American, Anglo-Saxon-style Capitalism being imposed upon them), and English-speakers (who literally fled the United States in terror at George Washington's Republic). In these more enlightened times numerous immigrants have joined the country, and the natives ("Aboriginals" is the Canadian term) are considered citizens. The immigrant groups almost to a person specifically chose to come to Canada over the US. The Aboriginals have their issues with the Federal government, but have noted their issues with their Federal government are less serious then the issues native Americans have with the US Federal Government.

In short, you know how the thing that holds the Irish together is a shared struggle against the English? The thing that holds Canada together is that they are not-America. Since adopting a President would be the American thing to do, it is not an exaggeration to say most Canadians would see a President as step 1 on the road to becoming part of the US.

Now if some Canadian thinks of a way to fire the Royals in a very very not-American way, we could talk about whether that constituted a Canadian Republic. But as is if you ask Canadians about this they tend to get very polite, and they will be somewhat passive-aggressive about their defense of their Queen. For example, if a Canadian tells you "someday in the future I'm sure we'll have a Canadian Head of State," that could mean what you think. It could also mean "SOMEDAY [when I am good and motherfucking dead] in the [very very far] future I'm SURE..."

Nick
hihgdm
2018-12-02 12:34:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by hihgdm
There are other changes afoot that may speed up the rate of change of monarchical streamlining. Brexit
may lead to another Scottish independence referendum which, if successful, will have the effect of
abolishing the political union known as the United Kingdom.
The Irish are always so sure that everyone else will decide that they were right the whole time.
----------
That's very clever. Is it a quote or did you make it up?
----------
Post by n***@gmail.com
For the record, it would abolish the UK of GB, but not abolish the UK of E, W, and NI. And I strongly suspect that if the English people realize that Brexit means losing Scotland their political leadership will be told to un-do Brexit.
----------
I wouldn't hold your breath. Some Europeans think that we, the people of GB, are more trouble than we are worth. They would either say no or they would make the business of re-joining so onerous and one-sided that it wouldn't be worth it. And if the English haven't already realised that Brexit probably means losing Scotland, then tough, it's too late. No-one should underestimate the resolve of the Scots when it comes to Europe. Scotland voted to stay by almost 2 to 1. I voted to leave because GB has lost so much of it's sovereignty but I am happy to pretend otherwise if it means getting independence, plus which in my experience Europeans living permanently in Scotland are a big asset to the country.
n***@gmail.com
2018-12-03 03:42:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by hihgdm
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by hihgdm
There are other changes afoot that may speed up the rate of change of monarchical streamlining. Brexit
may lead to another Scottish independence referendum which, if successful, will have the effect of
abolishing the political union known as the United Kingdom.
The Irish are always so sure that everyone else will decide that they were right the whole time.
----------
That's very clever. Is it a quote or did you make it up?
It's just an observation.

There's a couple of you guys on this list who constantly create scenarios where large numbers of countries that are not Ireland, do not have the same history with the Crown Ireland does, will (for no apparent reason) decide their current governmental model has been a disaster and that they should just become New Ireland. State-side not even the Texans do that.
Post by hihgdm
----------
Post by n***@gmail.com
For the record, it would abolish the UK of GB, but not abolish the UK of E, W, and NI. And I strongly
suspect that if the English people realize that Brexit means losing Scotland their political leadership
will be told to un-do Brexit.
----------
I wouldn't hold your breath. Some Europeans think that we, the people of GB, are more trouble than we
are worth. They would either say no or they would make the business of re-joining so onerous and one
-sided that it wouldn't be worth it.
How?

The terms of the EU deal are the same for every country that's in the EU. That's the entire point. The only exception is the UK's rebate. So they can play hardball on the rebate, but that only amounts to something like 6 Billion Euros a year. That's 100 Euros per Brit, or 12 Euros per EU citizen. If the UK wants to come back, they won't mind 100 Euros. The EU will get more than 12 Euros per capita out of totally discrediting EU secessionist ideology.

The negotiations won't be that hard.
Post by hihgdm
And if the English haven't already realised that Brexit probably means losing Scotland, then tough, it's
too late. No-one should underestimate the resolve of the Scots when it comes to Europe. Scotland voted
to stay by almost 2 to 1. I voted to leave because GB has lost so much of it's sovereignty but I am happy
to pretend otherwise if it means getting independence, plus which in my experience Europeans living
permanently in Scotland are a big asset to the country.
English and Welsh and Northern Irish. In particular keep an eye on the Northern Irish. They have a range of possible reactions to Scots secession, but in the Norn lands lots of those reactions involve violence. Particularly if Republicans in Down and/or Belfast start planning their own secession drive. Or the Ulster Defence types thinks they're planning a secession drive.

And if there's violence there the supply agreement is dead, there's a new election, and whomever wins will have to deal with the fact that Brexit lost the country half it's land area and started a war in the six counties.

Nick
hihgdm
2018-12-03 12:01:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by hihgdm
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by hihgdm
There are other changes afoot that may speed up the rate of change of monarchical streamlining. Brexit
may lead to another Scottish independence referendum which, if successful, will have the effect of
abolishing the political union known as the United Kingdom.
The Irish are always so sure that everyone else will decide that they were right the whole time.
----------
That's very clever. Is it a quote or did you make it up?
It's just an observation.
There's a couple of you guys on this list who constantly create scenarios where large numbers of countries that are not Ireland, do not have the same history with the Crown Ireland does, will (for no apparent reason) decide their current governmental model has been a disaster and that they should just become New Ireland. State-side not even the Texans do that.
----------
I have no idea what any of that means. It reads like a stream of consciousness that doesn't reach a natural conclusion, although Ireland is pre-eminent. Is it really about the Irish Rebellion and the unspeakably inhumane treatment of the Irish people by successive British governments, most prominently during the reign of George V, who did nothing to protect his Irish subjects?
----------
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by hihgdm
Post by n***@gmail.com
For the record, it would abolish the UK of GB, but not abolish the UK of E, W, and NI. And I strongly
suspect that if the English people realize that Brexit means losing Scotland their political leadership
will be told to un-do Brexit.
----------
I wouldn't hold your breath. Some Europeans think that we, the people of GB, are more trouble than we
are worth. They would either say no or they would make the business of re-joining so onerous and one
-sided that it wouldn't be worth it.
How?
-------------
By being as obstructionist and unpleasant about it as possible, regardless of the so-called rules, and there are a number of ways to achieve this. If I were an eminent European person who didn't want GB to rejoin the EU, I would embark on a massive press campaign in opposition to it, given how much influence the press has. There are also ways to massively delay a bureacractic process if the people in charge wish it. (I speak as a former bureaucrat). I disagree with you - I think the negotiations would be monumentally difficult. It would seem simpler to stop it before it happens, but that would need a new referendum which would abrogate the result of the first referendum, which would be an abrogation of democracy.
-------------
Post by n***@gmail.com
The terms of the EU deal are the same for every country that's in the EU. That's the entire point. The only exception is the UK's rebate. So they can play hardball on the rebate, but that only amounts to something like 6 Billion Euros a year. That's 100 Euros per Brit, or 12 Euros per EU citizen. If the UK wants to come back, they won't mind 100 Euros. The EU will get more than 12 Euros per capita out of totally discrediting EU secessionist ideology.
The negotiations won't be that hard.
Post by hihgdm
And if the English haven't already realised that Brexit probably means losing Scotland, then tough, it's
too late. No-one should underestimate the resolve of the Scots when it comes to Europe. Scotland voted
to stay by almost 2 to 1. I voted to leave because GB has lost so much of it's sovereignty but I am happy
to pretend otherwise if it means getting independence, plus which in my experience Europeans living
permanently in Scotland are a big asset to the country.
English and Welsh and Northern Irish. In particular keep an eye on the Northern Irish. They have a range of possible reactions to Scots secession, but in the Norn lands lots of those reactions involve violence. Particularly if Republicans in Down and/or Belfast start planning their own secession drive. Or the Ulster Defence types thinks they're planning a secession drive.
And if there's violence there the supply agreement is dead, there's a new election, and whomever wins will have to deal with the fact that Brexit lost the country half it's land area and started a war in the six counties.
----------
Of course Irish republicans wherever they are want NI to secede so that it can become a part of the republic, and I agree with them...but without the violence. At the same time, much of NI is always proactively unionist, not least because it provides them with the best form of defence (from the republicans). I'm not sure how the English and the Welsh figure into the Irish question.
n***@gmail.com
2018-12-05 03:51:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by hihgdm
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by hihgdm
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by hihgdm
There are other changes afoot that may speed up the rate of change of monarchical streamlining. Brexit
may lead to another Scottish independence referendum which, if successful, will have the effect of
abolishing the political union known as the United Kingdom.
The Irish are always so sure that everyone else will decide that they were right the whole time.
----------
That's very clever. Is it a quote or did you make it up?
It's just an observation.
There's a couple of you guys on this list who constantly create scenarios where large numbers of
countries that are not Ireland, do not have the same history with the Crown Ireland does, will (for no
apparent reason) decide their current governmental model has been a disaster and that they should
just become New Ireland. State-side not even the Texans do that.
----------
I have no idea what any of that means. It reads like a stream of consciousness that doesn't reach a
natural conclusion, although Ireland is pre-eminent. Is it really about the Irish Rebellion and the
unspeakably inhumane treatment of the Irish people by successive British governments, most
prominently during the reign of George V, who did nothing to protect his Irish subjects?
----------
I suppose multi-clause sentences can be difficult for you whiny nuero-typicals.

To translate to the boring:
There're a couple guys on this list. They constantly create fantastical scenarios. Scenarios that involve many. These countries that have no reason to change governments. But in the scenario they jusrt decide to become New Ireland. State-side not even Texans do that.
Post by hihgdm
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by hihgdm
Post by n***@gmail.com
For the record, it would abolish the UK of GB, but not abolish the UK of E, W, and NI. And I strongly
suspect that if the English people realize that Brexit means losing Scotland their political leadership
will be told to un-do Brexit.
----------
I wouldn't hold your breath. Some Europeans think that we, the people of GB, are more trouble than we
are worth. They would either say no or they would make the business of re-joining so onerous and one
-sided that it wouldn't be worth it.
How?
-------------
By being as obstructionist and unpleasant about it as possible, regardless of the so-called rules, and
there are a number of ways to achieve this. If I were an eminent European person who didn't want GB to
rejoin the EU, I would embark on a massive press campaign in opposition to it, given how much influence
the press has. There are also ways to massively delay a bureacractic process if the people in charge
wish it. (I speak as a former bureaucrat). I disagree with you - I think the negotiations would be
monumentally difficult. It would seem simpler to stop it before it happens, but that would need a new
referendum which would abrogate the result of the first referendum, which would be an abrogation of
democracy.
-------------
For one thing the Eu's Solicitor General just ruled there's no need for any negotiations. A the the UK need do is tell the rest of the EU they aren't leaving and they stay.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that the Judges disagree.

How do they delay this?

EU Accession negotiations are slow because the EU has to look at all a country's practices and decree they are up to European standards. A bureaucrat can obfuscate on paperwork, he can delay paperwork, but the one thing he absolutely positively can't do is lie on paperwork. And if the UK was not compliant on any of the 35 chapters it would not have been let in in the first place.

A look at the steps:
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/fact-figures/how-do-countries-join-the-eu/
Indicates that there are several opportunities for any EU government to veto a British re-join. But who has the balls to do that?

Maybe Hungary? Everybody hates them anyway. Maybe the current Italian government could try to extort some sort of concession? But the Brits are rich so letting them in gives everyone more EU tax money to play with...

That's why I think the only possible thing anyone could extract is the removal of the British Rebate. And if parliament is eating the humiliation of going back to the EU it will eat the 4 Billion Euros too.
Post by hihgdm
Post by n***@gmail.com
The terms of the EU deal are the same for every country that's in the EU. That's the entire point. The
only exception is the UK's rebate. So they can play hardball on the rebate, but that only amounts to
something like 6 Billion Euros a year. That's 100 Euros per Brit, or 12 Euros per EU citizen. If the UK
wants to come back, they won't mind 100 Euros. The EU will get more than 12 Euros per capita out of
totally discrediting EU secessionist ideology.
The negotiations won't be that hard.
Post by hihgdm
And if the English haven't already realised that Brexit probably means losing Scotland, then tough, it's
too late. No-one should underestimate the resolve of the Scots when it comes to Europe. Scotland voted
to stay by almost 2 to 1. I voted to leave because GB has lost so much of it's sovereignty but I am happy
to pretend otherwise if it means getting independence, plus which in my experience Europeans living
permanently in Scotland are a big asset to the country.
English and Welsh and Northern Irish. In particular keep an eye on the Northern Irish. They have a
range of possible reactions to Scots secession, but in the Norn lands lots of those reactions involve
violence. Particularly if Republicans in Down and/or Belfast start planning their own secession drive. Or
the Ulster Defence types thinks they're planning a secession drive.
And if there's violence there the supply agreement is dead, there's a new election, and whomever wins
will have to deal with the fact that Brexit lost the country half it's land area and started a war in the six
counties.
----------
Of course Irish republicans wherever they are want NI to secede so that it can become a part of the
republic, and I agree with them...but without the violence. At the same time, much of NI is always
proactively unionist, not least because it provides them with the best form of defence (from the
republicans). I'm not sure how the English and the Welsh figure into the Irish question.
I strongly agree that whatever happens in the six counties should be decided by the residents of those counties with no violence. Unfortunately both sides have some real crazy mother-fuckers.

And as recently as '01 there were bombings in London.

Nick
hihgdm
2018-12-06 12:38:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by hihgdm
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by hihgdm
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by hihgdm
There are other changes afoot that may speed up the rate of change of monarchical streamlining. Brexit
may lead to another Scottish independence referendum which, if successful, will have the effect of
abolishing the political union known as the United Kingdom.
The Irish are always so sure that everyone else will decide that they were right the whole time.
----------
That's very clever. Is it a quote or did you make it up?
It's just an observation.
There's a couple of you guys on this list who constantly create scenarios where large numbers of
countries that are not Ireland, do not have the same history with the Crown Ireland does, will (for no
apparent reason) decide their current governmental model has been a disaster and that they should
just become New Ireland. State-side not even the Texans do that.
----------
I have no idea what any of that means. It reads like a stream of consciousness that doesn't reach a
natural conclusion, although Ireland is pre-eminent. Is it really about the Irish Rebellion and the
unspeakably inhumane treatment of the Irish people by successive British governments, most
prominently during the reign of George V, who did nothing to protect his Irish subjects?
----------
I suppose multi-clause sentences can be difficult for you whiny nuero-typicals.
There're a couple guys on this list. They constantly create fantastical scenarios. Scenarios that involve many. These countries that have no reason to change governments. But in the scenario they jusrt decide to become New Ireland. State-side not even Texans do that.
Post by hihgdm
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by hihgdm
Post by n***@gmail.com
For the record, it would abolish the UK of GB, but not abolish the UK of E, W, and NI. And I strongly
suspect that if the English people realize that Brexit means losing Scotland their political leadership
will be told to un-do Brexit.
----------
I wouldn't hold your breath. Some Europeans think that we, the people of GB, are more trouble than we
are worth. They would either say no or they would make the business of re-joining so onerous and one
-sided that it wouldn't be worth it.
How?
-------------
By being as obstructionist and unpleasant about it as possible, regardless of the so-called rules, and
there are a number of ways to achieve this. If I were an eminent European person who didn't want GB to
rejoin the EU, I would embark on a massive press campaign in opposition to it, given how much influence
the press has. There are also ways to massively delay a bureacractic process if the people in charge
wish it. (I speak as a former bureaucrat). I disagree with you - I think the negotiations would be
monumentally difficult. It would seem simpler to stop it before it happens, but that would need a new
referendum which would abrogate the result of the first referendum, which would be an abrogation of
democracy.
-------------
For one thing the Eu's Solicitor General just ruled there's no need for any negotiations. A the the UK need do is tell the rest of the EU they aren't leaving and they stay.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume that the Judges disagree.
How do they delay this?
EU Accession negotiations are slow because the EU has to look at all a country's practices and decree they are up to European standards. A bureaucrat can obfuscate on paperwork, he can delay paperwork, but the one thing he absolutely positively can't do is lie on paperwork. And if the UK was not compliant on any of the 35 chapters it would not have been let in in the first place.
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/fact-figures/how-do-countries-join-the-eu/
Indicates that there are several opportunities for any EU government to veto a British re-join. But who has the balls to do that?
Maybe Hungary? Everybody hates them anyway. Maybe the current Italian government could try to extort some sort of concession? But the Brits are rich so letting them in gives everyone more EU tax money to play with...
That's why I think the only possible thing anyone could extract is the removal of the British Rebate. And if parliament is eating the humiliation of going back to the EU it will eat the 4 Billion Euros too.
Post by hihgdm
Post by n***@gmail.com
The terms of the EU deal are the same for every country that's in the EU. That's the entire point. The
only exception is the UK's rebate. So they can play hardball on the rebate, but that only amounts to
something like 6 Billion Euros a year. That's 100 Euros per Brit, or 12 Euros per EU citizen. If the UK
wants to come back, they won't mind 100 Euros. The EU will get more than 12 Euros per capita out of
totally discrediting EU secessionist ideology.
The negotiations won't be that hard.
Post by hihgdm
And if the English haven't already realised that Brexit probably means losing Scotland, then tough, it's
too late. No-one should underestimate the resolve of the Scots when it comes to Europe. Scotland voted
to stay by almost 2 to 1. I voted to leave because GB has lost so much of it's sovereignty but I am happy
to pretend otherwise if it means getting independence, plus which in my experience Europeans living
permanently in Scotland are a big asset to the country.
English and Welsh and Northern Irish. In particular keep an eye on the Northern Irish. They have a
range of possible reactions to Scots secession, but in the Norn lands lots of those reactions involve
violence. Particularly if Republicans in Down and/or Belfast start planning their own secession drive. Or
the Ulster Defence types thinks they're planning a secession drive.
And if there's violence there the supply agreement is dead, there's a new election, and whomever wins
will have to deal with the fact that Brexit lost the country half it's land area and started a war in the six
counties.
----------
Of course Irish republicans wherever they are want NI to secede so that it can become a part of the
republic, and I agree with them...but without the violence. At the same time, much of NI is always
proactively unionist, not least because it provides them with the best form of defence (from the
republicans). I'm not sure how the English and the Welsh figure into the Irish question.
I strongly agree that whatever happens in the six counties should be decided by the residents of those counties with no violence. Unfortunately both sides have some real crazy mother-fuckers.
And as recently as '01 there were bombings in London.
Nick
---------------
I wonder what proportion of NI people are unionist and what proportion support joining the republic? They seem to be the only viable options. I can't imagine NI surviving as a country without any affiliations. I also wonder how much of the discord is still based on religious differences and how much is based on habit?
Al
2018-12-02 12:49:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by hihgdm
There are other changes afoot that may speed up the rate of change of monarchical streamlining. Brexit
may lead to another Scottish independence referendum which, if successful, will have the effect of
abolishing the political union known as the United Kingdom.
For the record, it would abolish the UK of GB, but not abolish the UK of E, W, and NI. And I strongly suspect that if the English people realize that Brexit means losing Scotland their political leadership will be told to un-do Brexit.
I can't make sense of your point but if you are suggesting England doesn't want to lose Scotland and that will reverse brexit then you are simply wrong. To the extent we have polling there was more support for scotland leaving the UK in England than in Scotland (in terms of brexit consequences)
n***@gmail.com
2018-12-03 04:00:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Al
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by hihgdm
There are other changes afoot that may speed up the rate of change of monarchical streamlining. Brexit
may lead to another Scottish independence referendum which, if successful, will have the effect of
abolishing the political union known as the United Kingdom.
For the record, it would abolish the UK of GB, but not abolish the UK of E, W, and NI. And I strongly
suspect that if the English people realize that Brexit means losing Scotland their political leadership
will be told to un-do Brexit.
I can't make sense of your point but if you are suggesting England doesn't want to lose Scotland and
that will reverse brexit then you are simply wrong. To the extent we have polling there was more support
for scotland leaving the UK in England than in Scotland (in terms of brexit consequences)
If this were a simple two-player game, and the English people weren't somewhat panicked by Brexit, and the British elite would not consider the loss of Scotland to be a huge blow...

In Northern Ireland Brexit is not going to be popular. If Scotland is seceding to stay in the EU many factions in Northern Ireland will think that they can secede too. The ones who go about it in a Democratic way are fine, that's what they are supposed to do. The problem is going to be everyone else's reaction to that,

So the timeline is pretty simple. The Brexit deal gets finalized, the Scots hate it and demand a new referendum, the polling for the new referendum is positive so everyone freaks out that the country is about to collapse, somebody in the UDL notices a dude in Belfast singing "A Nation Once Again"and reacts as the UDL is wont to do...

If you believe there is any chance in hell that the English voters response to that is "gee, Brexit was a great idea and we'll be fine without Scotland, fighting a war in Northern Ireland, dealing with secessionists in Wales and London, etc." I suspect you're racist against English people.

Nick
hihgdm
2018-12-03 12:08:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by Al
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by hihgdm
There are other changes afoot that may speed up the rate of change of monarchical streamlining. Brexit
may lead to another Scottish independence referendum which, if successful, will have the effect of
abolishing the political union known as the United Kingdom.
For the record, it would abolish the UK of GB, but not abolish the UK of E, W, and NI. And I strongly
suspect that if the English people realize that Brexit means losing Scotland their political leadership
will be told to un-do Brexit.
I can't make sense of your point but if you are suggesting England doesn't want to lose Scotland and
that will reverse brexit then you are simply wrong. To the extent we have polling there was more support
for scotland leaving the UK in England than in Scotland (in terms of brexit consequences)
If this were a simple two-player game, and the English people weren't somewhat panicked by Brexit, and the British elite would not consider the loss of Scotland to be a huge blow...
In Northern Ireland Brexit is not going to be popular. If Scotland is seceding to stay in the EU many factions in Northern Ireland will think that they can secede too. The ones who go about it in a Democratic way are fine, that's what they are supposed to do. The problem is going to be everyone else's reaction to that,
So the timeline is pretty simple. The Brexit deal gets finalized, the Scots hate it and demand a new referendum, the polling for the new referendum is positive so everyone freaks out that the country is about to collapse, somebody in the UDL notices a dude in Belfast singing "A Nation Once Again"and reacts as the UDL is wont to do...
If you believe there is any chance in hell that the English voters response to that is "gee, Brexit was a great idea and we'll be fine without Scotland, fighting a war in Northern Ireland, dealing with secessionists in Wales and London, etc." I suspect you're racist against English people.
Nick
I'm not racist against anyone.
Graham
2018-12-02 14:17:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by n***@gmail.com
There are other changes afoot that may speed up the rate of change of monarchical streamlining. ... On another front, there is a federal election in Oz next year and by all
accounts, and considering the disarray in the current liberal party government, the labour party will be
elected as the next government. The leader of that party has, as far as I’m aware, promised to resurrect
the republican issue to the extent of holding a plebiscite to determine the state of play.
And how well did that work out the last time a Labour PM tried it?
Nothing has changed in Aussie polling since then to indicate you would get a different result this time. In fact the only pollster who has been doing this since before the last referendum, using the same question, has found an extremely significant decline in the support for a Republic since then.
Now if our potential Labour PM was incredibly charismatic, and could avoid dying on Carbon-Tax-Hill long enough to accomplish something, he could convince the US-style-President people and the Just-call-the-Governor-General-Mr.-President-people to vote the same way, etc...
Not to mention any people who want a directly-elected non-executive president on the Irish model. Or any people who want an executive President plus a Prime Minister on the French model.
Donald4564
2018-12-02 19:52:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graham
Post by n***@gmail.com
There are other changes afoot that may speed up the rate of change of monarchical streamlining. ... On another front, there is a federal election in Oz next year and by all
accounts, and considering the disarray in the current liberal party government, the labour party will be
elected as the next government. The leader of that party has, as far as I’m aware, promised to resurrect
the republican issue to the extent of holding a plebiscite to determine the state of play.
And how well did that work out the last time a Labour PM tried it?
Nothing has changed in Aussie polling since then to indicate you would get a different result this time. In fact the only pollster who has been doing this since before the last referendum, using the same question, has found an extremely significant decline in the support for a Republic since then.
Now if our potential Labour PM was incredibly charismatic, and could avoid dying on Carbon-Tax-Hill long enough to accomplish something, he could convince the US-style-President people and the Just-call-the-Governor-General-Mr.-President-people to vote the same way, etc...
Not to mention any people who want a directly-elected non-executive president on the Irish model. Or any people who want an executive President plus a Prime Minister on the French model.
Let's see now, the new Aussie PM Mr. Shorten will spend about $10M on the first plebiscite asking everyone whether they want a republic. Getting a resounding "No" I believe he will then have another plebiscite spending another $10M asking everyone what type of republic they want (when they don't want one). Here he will really get stuck as no-one knows what type of republic to have (even if they did want one).

Having been rebuffed completely on the issue, the Labor party will still go ahead removing more of the trappings of monarchy as they know better than anyone else and what they think is right is what they think may eventually happen.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if one day Oz ended up like Hungary after the Great War. A monarchy without a monarch, probably with somebody like Grand Admiral Regent Shorten in charge of things.

What a joke.

Regards
Donald Binks
hihgdm
2018-12-03 11:10:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Post by Graham
Post by n***@gmail.com
There are other changes afoot that may speed up the rate of change of monarchical streamlining. ... On another front, there is a federal election in Oz next year and by all
accounts, and considering the disarray in the current liberal party government, the labour party will be
elected as the next government. The leader of that party has, as far as I’m aware, promised to resurrect
the republican issue to the extent of holding a plebiscite to determine the state of play.
And how well did that work out the last time a Labour PM tried it?
Nothing has changed in Aussie polling since then to indicate you would get a different result this time. In fact the only pollster who has been doing this since before the last referendum, using the same question, has found an extremely significant decline in the support for a Republic since then.
Now if our potential Labour PM was incredibly charismatic, and could avoid dying on Carbon-Tax-Hill long enough to accomplish something, he could convince the US-style-President people and the Just-call-the-Governor-General-Mr.-President-people to vote the same way, etc...
Not to mention any people who want a directly-elected non-executive president on the Irish model. Or any people who want an executive President plus a Prime Minister on the French model.
Let's see now, the new Aussie PM Mr. Shorten will spend about $10M on the first plebiscite asking everyone whether they want a republic. Getting a resounding "No" I believe he will then have another plebiscite spending another $10M asking everyone what type of republic they want (when they don't want one). Here he will really get stuck as no-one knows what type of republic to have (even if they did want one).
Having been rebuffed completely on the issue, the Labor party will still go ahead removing more of the trappings of monarchy as they know better than anyone else and what they think is right is what they think may eventually happen.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if one day Oz ended up like Hungary after the Great War. A monarchy without a monarch, probably with somebody like Grand Admiral Regent Shorten in charge of things.
What a joke.
Regards
Donald Binks
-------------------
Shorten seems to be a sensible and pragmatic dude, for a politician. If the private polling that he commissions tell him that chasing the republican rainbow is dead in the water for the time being, do you really believe he would pursue it? I would like to see Oz become a republic but if it isn't the right time to strike in the near future, then it won't happen...but it will happen eventually. If the throne becomes vacant, would you consider stepping up to the plate? You could be King Donald of Oz. Of course the Oz throne, the one in the Senate, is very unprepossessing so you might consider upgrading it with a few bells and whistles, or flashing lights.
Donald4564
2018-12-03 13:36:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by hihgdm
-------------------
Shorten seems to be a sensible and pragmatic dude, for a politician. If the private polling that he commissions tell him that chasing the republican rainbow is dead in the water for the time being, do you really believe he would pursue it? I would like to see Oz become a republic but if it isn't the right time to strike in the near future, then it won't happen...but it will happen eventually. If the throne becomes vacant, would you consider stepping up to the plate? You could be King Donald of Oz. Of course the Oz throne, the one in the Senate, is very unprepossessing so you might consider upgrading it with a few bells and whistles, or flashing lights.
.......
I consider 99.999% of politicians only one step away from used car salesmen, real estate agents, porn directors or snake oil salesmen. They will do anything if they think it may garner them votes. The Labor party has always decided to go along with the trendy pursuits of the chardonnay sippers of Double Bay - and most of that lot are as educated to how the system works as Fido the Wonder Dog.

It will happen eventually? Yes, I suppose if taken with the view that the sun will eventually go out, then yes, I suppose it will, however, while we are alive and kicking, we should leave all good systems intact.

The throne is not likely to be offered to me, however I have my top hat and morning coat ready should I ever be called upon to be Her Majesty's representative. :-)

I shall leave bells, whistles and flashing lights to those republicans who are impressed by such things.

Regards
Donald Binks
hihgdm
2018-12-06 12:28:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Post by hihgdm
-------------------
Shorten seems to be a sensible and pragmatic dude, for a politician. If the private polling that he commissions tell him that chasing the republican rainbow is dead in the water for the time being, do you really believe he would pursue it? I would like to see Oz become a republic but if it isn't the right time to strike in the near future, then it won't happen...but it will happen eventually. If the throne becomes vacant, would you consider stepping up to the plate? You could be King Donald of Oz. Of course the Oz throne, the one in the Senate, is very unprepossessing so you might consider upgrading it with a few bells and whistles, or flashing lights.
.......
I consider 99.999% of politicians only one step away from used car salesmen, real estate agents, porn directors or snake oil salesmen. They will do anything if they think it may garner them votes. The Labor party has always decided to go along with the trendy pursuits of the chardonnay sippers of Double Bay - and most of that lot are as educated to how the system works as Fido the Wonder Dog.
It will happen eventually? Yes, I suppose if taken with the view that the sun will eventually go out, then yes, I suppose it will, however, while we are alive and kicking, we should leave all good systems intact.
The throne is not likely to be offered to me, however I have my top hat and morning coat ready should I ever be called upon to be Her Majesty's representative. :-)
--------
That raises images of Sir John Kerr, which is enough to give anyone a migraine.
--------
Post by Donald4564
I shall leave bells, whistles and flashing lights to those republicans who are impressed by such things.
Regards
Donald Binks
Louis Epstein
2018-12-04 05:18:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by hihgdm
There are other changes afoot that may speed up the rate of change of monarchical streamlining. Brexit
may lead to another Scottish independence referendum which, if successful, will have the effect of
abolishing the political union known as the United Kingdom.
The Irish are always so sure that everyone else will decide that they were right the whole time.
For the record, it would abolish the UK of GB, but not abolish the UK
of E, W, and NI.
The EWNIted Kingdom.
Post by n***@gmail.com
And I strongly suspect that if the English people realize that Brexit
means losing Scotland their political leadership will be told to un-do
Brexit.
The Scottish people need to understand that they would be worse off as
a helpless pawn of Brussels.
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by hihgdm
This may provide the POW with even more ammunition in his reformist bent, notwithstanding that he
would become King of Scotland. On another front, there is a federal election in Oz next year and by all
accounts, and considering the disarray in the current liberal party government, the labour party will be
elected as the next government. The leader of that party has, as far as I?m aware, promised to resurrect
the republican issue to the extent of holding a plebiscite to determine the state of play.
And how well did that work out the last time a Labour PM tried it?
Nothing has changed in Aussie polling since then to indicate you would get a different result this time. In fact the only pollster who has been doing this since before the last referendum, using the same question, has found an extremely significant decline in the support for a Republic since then.
Now if our potential Labour PM was incredibly charismatic, and could avoid dying on Carbon-Tax-Hill long enough to accomplish something, he could convince the US-style-President people and the Just-call-the-Governor-General-Mr.-President-people to vote the same way, etc...
But that is a non-trivial amount of ifs.
Post by hihgdm
If the end result is that Oz becomes a republic, NZ will follow suit and Canada will take note, although
the zeal in Canada to become a republic seems less pronounced.
Republican polling in NZ is even worse then the Aussies.
As for the Canadians...
From the start, Canada has been a union between French speakers (who
desperately want to avoid Protestant, American, Anglo-Saxon-style
Capitalism being imposed upon them), and English-speakers (who literally
fled the United States in terror at George Washington's Republic). In
these more enlightened times numerous immigrants have joined the
country, and the natives ("Aboriginals" is the Canadian term) are
I thought "Aboriginals" was the Australian term and the Canadians called
analogous peoples "First Nations"?
Post by n***@gmail.com
considered citizens. The immigrant groups almost to a person
specifically chose to come to Canada over the US. The Aboriginals have
their issues with the Federal government, but have noted their issues
with their Federal government are less serious then the issues native
Americans have with the US Federal Government.
In short, you know how the thing that holds the Irish together is a
shared struggle against the English? The thing that holds Canada
together is that they are not-America. Since adopting a President would
be the American thing to do, it is not an exaggeration to say most
Canadians would see a President as step 1 on the road to becoming part
of the US.
Now if some Canadian thinks of a way to fire the Royals in a very very
not-American way, we could talk about whether that constituted a
Canadian Republic. But as is if you ask Canadians about this they tend
to get very polite, and they will be somewhat passive-aggressive about
their defense of their Queen. For example, if a Canadian tells you
"someday in the future I'm sure we'll have a Canadian Head of State,"
that could mean what you think. It could also mean "SOMEDAY [when I am
good and motherfucking dead] in the [very very far] future I'm SURE..."
Nick
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Graham
2018-12-04 20:29:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by hihgdm
There are other changes afoot that may speed up the rate of change of monarchical streamlining. Brexit
may lead to another Scottish independence referendum which, if successful, will have the effect of
abolishing the political union known as the United Kingdom.
The Irish are always so sure that everyone else will decide that they were right the whole time.
For the record, it would abolish the UK of GB, but not abolish the UK
of E, W, and NI.
The EWNIted Kingdom.
Post by n***@gmail.com
And I strongly suspect that if the English people realize that Brexit
means losing Scotland their political leadership will be told to un-do
Brexit.
The Scottish people need to understand that they would be worse off as
a helpless pawn of Brussels.
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by hihgdm
This may provide the POW with even more ammunition in his reformist bent, notwithstanding that he
would become King of Scotland. On another front, there is a federal election in Oz next year and by all
accounts, and considering the disarray in the current liberal party government, the labour party will be
elected as the next government. The leader of that party has, as far as I?m aware, promised to resurrect
the republican issue to the extent of holding a plebiscite to determine the state of play.
And how well did that work out the last time a Labour PM tried it?
Nothing has changed in Aussie polling since then to indicate you would get a different result this time. In fact the only pollster who has been doing this since before the last referendum, using the same question, has found an extremely significant decline in the support for a Republic since then.
Now if our potential Labour PM was incredibly charismatic, and could avoid dying on Carbon-Tax-Hill long enough to accomplish something, he could convince the US-style-President people and the Just-call-the-Governor-General-Mr.-President-people to vote the same way, etc...
But that is a non-trivial amount of ifs.
Post by hihgdm
If the end result is that Oz becomes a republic, NZ will follow suit and Canada will take note, although
the zeal in Canada to become a republic seems less pronounced.
Republican polling in NZ is even worse then the Aussies.
As for the Canadians...
From the start, Canada has been a union between French speakers (who
desperately want to avoid Protestant, American, Anglo-Saxon-style
Capitalism being imposed upon them), and English-speakers (who literally
fled the United States in terror at George Washington's Republic). In
these more enlightened times numerous immigrants have joined the
country, and the natives ("Aboriginals" is the Canadian term) are
I thought "Aboriginals" was the Australian term and the Canadians called
analogous peoples "First Nations"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_in_Canada - "Indigenous peoples in Canada, also known as Aboriginal Canadians (French: Canadiens Autochtones), ... comprise the First Nations, Inuit and Métis."
n***@gmail.com
2018-12-04 23:11:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
I thought "Aboriginals" was the Australian term and the Canadians called
analogous peoples "First Nations"?
Both countries seem to use Aboriginal.

In Canada, First Nations only includes some of them. The Inuit and the Metís are considered Aboriginal, but not First Nations.

Nick
David Amicus
2018-12-05 01:17:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by Louis Epstein
I thought "Aboriginals" was the Australian term and the Canadians called
analogous peoples "First Nations"?
Both countries seem to use Aboriginal.
In Canada, First Nations only includes some of them. The Inuit and the Metís are considered Aboriginal, but not First Nations.
Nick
Are the French "Second Nation"? And would the British be the "Third Nation"? Everyone else the "Fourth Nation"? Do "First Nation" peoples receive special benefits the other Nations don't?
n***@gmail.com
2018-12-06 06:21:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Amicus
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by Louis Epstein
I thought "Aboriginals" was the Australian term and the Canadians called
analogous peoples "First Nations"?
Both countries seem to use Aboriginal.
In Canada, First Nations only includes some of them. The Inuit and the Metís are considered Aboriginal, but not First Nations.
Nick
Are the French "Second Nation"? And would the British be the "Third Nation"? Everyone else the "Fourth
Nation"? Do "First Nation" peoples receive special benefits the other Nations don't?
The First nations are the Indians, so so legally speaking almost everyone else is just leasing the country from them. They would not have sold the country to the Canadian government without some extras.

That "Indian" thing is actually why they came up with the term. Lots of Canadian laws referred to First Nations people as "Indians," despite the fact First nations people have jack-shit to do with the subcontinent. With increased immigration from India things got very confusing. You had Indo-Indians, the technical term for someone who is ethnic Indo-Indian and a Canadian is Indian-Canadian, a lot of these Indian Canadians (particularly the ones from Assam State) are actually members of tribes. You had Canadian Indians who are tibal members and Indian-Canadians who were tribal members and it's a very important difference legally because Canadian Indian tribes have a special legal relationship with the Federal government whereas an Indian-Canadian has the exact same legal rights/responsibilities as a white dude...

So they had to think of something, it had to be something that Canadian Indians wanted to be called, "Native Canadian" has it's own problems; so they came up with "First Nations."

Nick
hihgdm
2018-12-06 12:29:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by hihgdm
There are other changes afoot that may speed up the rate of change of monarchical streamlining. Brexit
may lead to another Scottish independence referendum which, if successful, will have the effect of
abolishing the political union known as the United Kingdom.
The Irish are always so sure that everyone else will decide that they were right the whole time.
For the record, it would abolish the UK of GB, but not abolish the UK
of E, W, and NI.
The EWNIted Kingdom.
-----------
Good one Comrade. I may use that in future.
-----------
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by n***@gmail.com
And I strongly suspect that if the English people realize that Brexit
means losing Scotland their political leadership will be told to un-do
Brexit.
The Scottish people need to understand that they would be worse off as
a helpless pawn of Brussels.
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by hihgdm
This may provide the POW with even more ammunition in his reformist bent, notwithstanding that he
would become King of Scotland. On another front, there is a federal election in Oz next year and by all
accounts, and considering the disarray in the current liberal party government, the labour party will be
elected as the next government. The leader of that party has, as far as I?m aware, promised to resurrect
the republican issue to the extent of holding a plebiscite to determine the state of play.
And how well did that work out the last time a Labour PM tried it?
Nothing has changed in Aussie polling since then to indicate you would get a different result this time. In fact the only pollster who has been doing this since before the last referendum, using the same question, has found an extremely significant decline in the support for a Republic since then.
Now if our potential Labour PM was incredibly charismatic, and could avoid dying on Carbon-Tax-Hill long enough to accomplish something, he could convince the US-style-President people and the Just-call-the-Governor-General-Mr.-President-people to vote the same way, etc...
But that is a non-trivial amount of ifs.
Post by hihgdm
If the end result is that Oz becomes a republic, NZ will follow suit and Canada will take note, although
the zeal in Canada to become a republic seems less pronounced.
Republican polling in NZ is even worse then the Aussies.
As for the Canadians...
From the start, Canada has been a union between French speakers (who
desperately want to avoid Protestant, American, Anglo-Saxon-style
Capitalism being imposed upon them), and English-speakers (who literally
fled the United States in terror at George Washington's Republic). In
these more enlightened times numerous immigrants have joined the
country, and the natives ("Aboriginals" is the Canadian term) are
I thought "Aboriginals" was the Australian term and the Canadians called
analogous peoples "First Nations"?
Post by n***@gmail.com
considered citizens. The immigrant groups almost to a person
specifically chose to come to Canada over the US. The Aboriginals have
their issues with the Federal government, but have noted their issues
with their Federal government are less serious then the issues native
Americans have with the US Federal Government.
In short, you know how the thing that holds the Irish together is a
shared struggle against the English? The thing that holds Canada
together is that they are not-America. Since adopting a President would
be the American thing to do, it is not an exaggeration to say most
Canadians would see a President as step 1 on the road to becoming part
of the US.
Now if some Canadian thinks of a way to fire the Royals in a very very
not-American way, we could talk about whether that constituted a
Canadian Republic. But as is if you ask Canadians about this they tend
to get very polite, and they will be somewhat passive-aggressive about
their defense of their Queen. For example, if a Canadian tells you
"someday in the future I'm sure we'll have a Canadian Head of State,"
that could mean what you think. It could also mean "SOMEDAY [when I am
good and motherfucking dead] in the [very very far] future I'm SURE..."
Nick
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Graham
2018-12-02 14:31:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by hihgdm
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Has the Queen said that Prince Harry's children will have the title of prince/princess with the style of Royal Highness?
On a different but related historical note, the Duke of Windsor and his next two siblings in line were not born “royal” but were born with the style Highness, presumably as great-grandchildren of the sovereign. Said sovereign changed this in 1898 by stipulating that “…THE Queen has been pleased, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal, to declare that the Children of the Eldest Son of any Prince of Wales shall have, and at all times hold and enjoy, the style, title, or attribute of Royal Highness...". Then it seems it got changed again in 1917, and again in 2012. As far as one can tell, under the old rules the grandsons of the previous Dukes of Kent and Gloucester would be Princes and Highnesses, which may give Princess Michael sleepless nights.
In his zeal to, very sensibly, streamline the monarchy, the POW could, as king, restrict the number and timing of the application of “royal highness” in some way. He could stipulate that only the current heir apparent and his or her spouse are titled and styled as prince(ss) and royal highness. This would mean that when the heir apparent became the sovereign, the only people to become royal highnesses would be the new sovereign’s eldest child and thus heir apparent, and his or her spouse. The net effect would be that there are never more than two royal highnesses under the British system. The rest of the family would follow the rules of the peerage somehow, unless that very antiquated system was either abolished or at least streamlined. The Norwegian system could provide a good start as it has much more streamlined rules.
1. The Norwegian system allows for more than two HRHs - see eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Ingrid_Alexandra_of_Norway
2. And it allows for the monarch's children other than the heir apparent to be Prince/sses - see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_M%C3%A4rtha_Louise_of_Norway and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Astrid,_Mrs._Ferner
hihgdm
2018-12-03 11:32:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graham
Post by hihgdm
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Has the Queen said that Prince Harry's children will have the title of prince/princess with the style of Royal Highness?
On a different but related historical note, the Duke of Windsor and his next two siblings in line were not born “royal” but were born with the style Highness, presumably as great-grandchildren of the sovereign. Said sovereign changed this in 1898 by stipulating that “…THE Queen has been pleased, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal, to declare that the Children of the Eldest Son of any Prince of Wales shall have, and at all times hold and enjoy, the style, title, or attribute of Royal Highness...". Then it seems it got changed again in 1917, and again in 2012. As far as one can tell, under the old rules the grandsons of the previous Dukes of Kent and Gloucester would be Princes and Highnesses, which may give Princess Michael sleepless nights.
In his zeal to, very sensibly, streamline the monarchy, the POW could, as king, restrict the number and timing of the application of “royal highness” in some way. He could stipulate that only the current heir apparent and his or her spouse are titled and styled as prince(ss) and royal highness. This would mean that when the heir apparent became the sovereign, the only people to become royal highnesses would be the new sovereign’s eldest child and thus heir apparent, and his or her spouse. The net effect would be that there are never more than two royal highnesses under the British system. The rest of the family would follow the rules of the peerage somehow, unless that very antiquated system was either abolished or at least streamlined. The Norwegian system could provide a good start as it has much more streamlined rules.
1. The Norwegian system allows for more than two HRHs - see eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Ingrid_Alexandra_of_Norway
2. And it allows for the monarch's children other than the heir apparent to be Prince/sses - see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_M%C3%A4rtha_Louise_of_Norway and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Astrid,_Mrs._Ferner
My point about Norwegian streamlining is highlighted at the first of the two links..."Along with her parents and grandparents – but unlike her brother, half-brother Marius, and other relatives – Princess Ingrid Alexandra is a member of the Norwegian Royal House..."

Princess Martha-Louise's HRH was changed to Highness by King Olaf, and Prince Sverre-Magnus is a Highness rather than HRH. It's not clear if he will be elevated to HRH when his father becomes king.

It's close to the model that the POW could follow, except that the eldest child of the heir apparent is already an HRH.
Louis Epstein
2018-12-04 05:29:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Has the Queen said that Prince Harry's children will have the title of prince/princess with the style of Royal Highness?
On a different but related historical note, the Duke of Windsor and his next two siblings in line were not born ?royal? but were born with the style Highness, presumably as great-grandchildren of the sovereign. Said sovereign changed this in 1898 by stipulating that ??THE Queen has been pleased, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal, to declare that the Children of the Eldest Son of any Prince of Wales shall have, and at all times hold and enjoy, the style, title, or attribute of Royal Highness...". Then it seems it got changed again in 1917, and again in 2012. As far as one can tell, under the old rules the grandsons of the previous Dukes of Kent and Gloucester would be Princes and Highnesses, which may give Princess Michael sleepless nights.
In his zeal to, very sensibly, streamline the monarchy,
Nonsense,nonsense,nonsense...while there is no need for the Austrian
paradigm of Archdukes-ad-infinitum the Head of the Royal Family has a
duty to resist all "streamliners" and discreetly impress the treasonous
nature of any desire for such held by anyone.
the POW could, as king, restrict the number and timing of the
application of ?royal highness? in some way. He could stipulate that
only the current heir apparent and his or her spouse are titled and
styled as prince(ss) and royal highness. This would mean that when the
heir apparent became the sovereign, the only people to become royal
highnesses would be the new sovereign?s eldest child and thus heir
apparent, and his or her spouse. The net effect would be that there are
never more than two royal highnesses under the British system.
THAT would be absolutely disgusting.

It would be better to introduce the HRH for children of a Sovereign's
eldest daughter as well as of the sons.(Edward VII took a step in this
direction when he made the children of HIS eldest daughter Highnesses,
albeit not Royal Highnesses).
The rest of the family would follow the rules of the peerage somehow,
unless that very antiquated system was either abolished or at least
streamlined. The Norwegian system could provide a good start as it has
much more streamlined rules.
Nothing good about failure to defend the allegedly "antiquated" ways
against any change until one's last breath!
There are other changes afoot that may speed up the rate of change of
monarchical streamlining.
Better by far of course to throw such "streamlining" into a hard and
permanent reverse gear!
Brexit may lead to another Scottish independence referendum which, if
successful, will have the effect of abolishing the political union known
as the United Kingdom. This may provide the POW with even more
ammunition in his reformist bent,
Let us hope that it would instead discredit and shock him out of
any "reformist bent" by which he might be afflicted.
notwithstanding that he would become King of Scotland. On another
front, there is a federal election in Oz next year and by all accounts,
and considering the disarray in the current liberal party government,
the labour party will be elected as the next government. The leader of
that party has, as far as I?m aware, promised to resurrect the
republican issue to the extent of holding a plebiscite to determine the
state of play. If the end result is that Oz becomes a republic, NZ will
follow suit and Canada will take note, although the zeal in Canada to
become a republic seems less pronounced. With fewer kingdoms under his
belt, Prince Charles might again use the new world to further reform the
monarchy.
Quite the opposite...with those disloyal to the Crown weeded out it
would be time to deepen its influence.
And finally?I?m sorry but I have to say it?the imminent political
demise of Fake President Spanky Drumpf and his Fake Bone Spurs and his
Disgusting Family may influence Prince Charles in some way. I?m not
sure now but at the very least I?m sure he?ll be as pleased as most of
the rest the world, but it may also influence him in other very positive
ways. I just had to get that in.
And even more finally Comrade, you have a choice. Life will be so much
easier and less stressful for you if you get with the program and adopt
the New World Order and stop pining for that which is gone, or almost
gone, and will never return.
The return of what may be stolen from us must NEVER stop being demanded,
though the sun grow cold and the seas run dry.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Donald4564
2018-12-01 18:23:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I presume that the present conservative government will be thrown out in Oz at the next Federal election and that Labor will win. What I am waiting for then is the incredulous looks on the faces of that lot when they see the result of their planned plebiscite on Oz becoming a republic - and the answer is a resounding "No". Present polls state that such a vote is extremely likely.

Talk about laugh!

Regards
Donald Binks
hihgdm
2018-12-02 12:05:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
I presume that the present conservative government will be thrown out in Oz at the next Federal election and that Labor will win. What I am waiting for then is the incredulous looks on the faces of that lot when they see the result of their planned plebiscite on Oz becoming a republic - and the answer is a resounding "No". Present polls state that such a vote is extremely likely.
Talk about laugh!
Regards
Donald Binks
Sounds like more wishful thinking on your part but if you are correct, as you well could be, and if PM Shorten believes that a plebiscite would return a big fat no vote then he would presumably not waste his time with it. Either way, as long as he handles the issue and indeed the whole business of government with the dignity and coolness that the current lot lacks, he can't go wrong. In the event of a plebiscite, I'm sure he will appropriately handle the hysterical monarchists screeching at him. As a bonus for him, the Queen reputedly likes left-wing PMs more than the alternative, so I'm sure they'll get along famously.
Donald4564
2018-12-06 07:18:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I love the way that being politically correct has enriched our language. In Oz we have the "indigenous population", formerly called "aborigines". People who have settled here from other lands are now "people of differing ethnic descent", formerly called "foreigners" or "New Australians". Of course, people like myself (who are probably frowned on as ignorant) and the majority of the indigenous population merely use the term "blackfellahs" and "whitefellahs".

Regards
Donald Binks
Loading...