In alt.talk.royalty allan connochie <***@noemail.com> wrote:
: "Louis Epstein" wrote in message
:> In alt.talk.royalty The Highlander <***@shaw.ca> wrote:
:> : On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
:> : <***@excelsior.com> wrote:
:> :>It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal
:> :>Line of Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
:> :>Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of Succession,
:> :>who was James VI of Scotland and succeeded Queen Elizabeth, his first
:> :>cousin, twice removed to the throne in 1603.
:> : Allow me to remind you that there is no such title as "XXX, King of
:> : Scotland. The Scottish monarch is "XXX, King of Scots" or "XXX, Queen
:> : of Scots." That is why Mary was called Mary, Queen of Scots.
:> : Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States". it
:> : would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".
:> : Scotland belongs to its people; the King or Queen rules the people.
:> That is a misapprehension about the immutable,universal nature of
:> Monarchy held by certain Scots,evidenced on certain occasions as the
:> Mistaken Allegation of Arbroath.
: The Arbroath Letter states categorically
: that if the monarch isn't acting on
: behalf of the Scottish people then they can be deposed. King Robert himself
: must have agreed to this contractual monarchy even if he wasn't happy about
: it. However James VII was actually thrown off the throne by the Scots
: (admittedly they could only safely do this once he'd lost his English power
: base) and was proclaimed a traitor. Again it was spelt out clearly what a
Contrafactually asserted,is my point...
: monarch must do to hold the crown and that was they had to be of the
: Scottish royal line, be of the Protestant faith and swear the Coronation
: Oath guaranteeing the Presbyterian settlement in Scotland. So the idea that
: it is contractual with the people as to who gets to sit on the throne is as
: old as the hills,
No matter how old or how popular the idea is,
it's wrong...anyone who holds it doesn't understand
intrinsic properties of Monarchy that man is as
powerless to change as the laws of gravity.
: in England as well as in Scotland. As to the monarchy
: itself, no matter what you think, or wish, the case to be, the fact is that
: if the British people decided they wanted a Republic (a mighty big if but
: I'm talking hypothetically) then a Republic there would be!
And,being a Republic,legitimacy would be totally beyond its
capacity to possess!
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.