Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To The Throne?

The
army was the personal body guard of the ruler.

When and where?

Unless there's been a specific act repealing that status, legally the
Crown Estate belongs to the Queen. Period. End of story. Do not pass
go, do not collect $200.

The Crown Estates Office is an arm of the Home Civil Service coming under
the control of a Cabinet Minister called The Chancellor of the Duchy of
Lancaster.

In other words the stuff may belong to her but she doesn't get to run them,
have any say in the management of them or appoint any of the staff who work
on them.

Every government establishment and military base is technically part of the
'crown estate' but they belong to the Queen for just as long as she sits
down and keeps quiet about it.

The day she decides to sell Portsmouth Dockyard to pay the vet's bill for
the corgis is the day she gets replaced.

N***@gmail.com

2007-11-24 15:18:21 UTC

The
army was the personal body guard of the ruler.

When and where?

In the Middle Ages. That's changed now, but it's the reason the oldest
regiment in the British Army was raised during the English Civil War.
And that every British soldier swears loyalty to the Queen, not the
kingdom or the Government.

Unless there's been a specific act repealing that status, legally the
Crown Estate belongs to the Queen. Period. End of story. Do not pass
go, do not collect $200.

She trades those rights to the government for Civil List payments.
AKA: the Queen rents the Crown Estate to the Government.

Nick

William Black

2007-11-26 15:40:28 UTC

The
army was the personal body guard of the ruler.

When and where?

In the Middle Ages.

No it wasn't.

There was no personal bodyguard for the English kings (Unless you count the
Anglo-Saxon Huscarls) until Henry VII.

That's changed now, but it's the reason the oldest

Post by N***@gmail.com
regiment in the British Army was raised during the English Civil War.

It wasn't. Both the Buffs and the HAC are older.

Post by N***@gmail.com
And that every British soldier swears loyalty to the Queen, not the
kingdom or the Government.

Nope.

They swear loyalty the 'The Queen and their lawful sucessors'.

The lawful sucessor is decided by parliament.

Also the 'Army Act' that raises the funds to pay for the armed forces has to
be passed every year.

Parlimant is supreme in the matter of the armed forces.

Unless there's been a specific act repealing that status, legally the
Crown Estate belongs to the Queen. Period. End of story. Do not pass
go, do not collect $200.

She trades those rights to the government for Civil List payments.
AKA: the Queen rents the Crown Estate to the Government.

No.

The Crown Estate is the property of the nation.

The nation chooses to give the Queen and some of her family some money.

No rental takes place.

N***@gmail.com

2007-11-28 14:06:48 UTC

The
army was the personal body guard of the ruler.

When and where?

In the Middle Ages.

No it wasn't.
There was no personal bodyguard for the English kings (Unless you count the
Anglo-Saxon Huscarls) until Henry VII.

Uhh...

What would you call the troops that fought the Hundred Years War? Or
the war between Stephen and Matilda?

It was the king, and his personal troops, plus vassals and their
personal troops. You can parse the phrase "bodyguard" all you want,
you ain't gonna prove an institution that didn't exist (Parliament)
ran the English Military in the 12th century.

Post by N***@gmail.com
That's changed now, but it's the reason the oldest
regiment in the British Army was raised during the English Civil War.

It wasn't. Both the Buffs and the HAC are older.

I stand corrected.

Note, however, that neither came into existence until the 16th
century.

Post by N***@gmail.com
And that every British soldier swears loyalty to the Queen, not the
kingdom or the Government.

Nope.
They swear loyalty the 'The Queen and their lawful sucessors'.
The lawful sucessor is decided by parliament.
Also the 'Army Act' that raises the funds to pay for the armed forces has to
be passed every year.
Parlimant is supreme in the matter of the armed forces.

Yeah, now they do.

That was kinda the point. Now parliament has the powers of a modern
government, but it hasn't always had those powers. The oath to the
Queen is a vestige of that former time.

Unless there's been a specific act repealing that status, legally the
Crown Estate belongs to the Queen. Period. End of story. Do not pass
go, do not collect $200.

She trades those rights to the government for Civil List payments.
AKA: the Queen rents the Crown Estate to the Government.

No.
The Crown Estate is the property of the nation.
The nation chooses to give the Queen and some of her family some money.
No rental takes place.

When did the Crown Estate stop being the personal property of the
sovereign? I'm looking for a date.

Your argument apparently boils down to "In other countries the
government owns the Crown Estate, the UK has a government, therefore
the British government owns the Crown estate." But property law just
don't work that way.

Nick

Turenne

2007-11-28 19:30:41 UTC

Post by N***@gmail.com
That's changed now, but it's the reason the oldest
regiment in the British Army was raised during the English Civil War.

It wasn't. Both the Buffs and the HAC are older. <<<<<

I thought that the Royal Scots (1st Foot) were the oldest British
Regiment. Their nickname as you are no doubt aware, was 'Pontius
Pilate's Bodyguard', so called because during a discussion between an
officer of the Regiment de Picardie and an officer of the Regiment de
Douglas (Royal Scots) over which regiment was the oldest, the Picardie
soldier claimed that their regiment was on duty on the night of the
crusifixion, to which the officer of the Douglas's replied: 'Had we
been on duty we would not have slept at our posts'.

The Buffs didn't have continuous service as the Royal East Kents, but
maybe I'm wrong..

Richard Lichten

a.spencer3

2007-11-24 09:45:55 UTC

STARK...
Source?

Living memory, for some, including my dear mama.

And me!

Surreyman

D. Spencer Hines

2007-11-24 17:27:11 UTC

So, blame it all on the Evil United States and your War Debts -- rather than
silly-buggers British politics and National Security policies in the 1920's
and 1930's ---- under a series of Prime Ministers.

You should have listened to Cousin Winston.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

STARK...
Source?

Living memory, for some, including my dear mama.

And me!
Surreyman

a.spencer3

2007-11-25 11:30:00 UTC

Post by D. Spencer Hines
So, blame it all on the Evil United States and your War Debts -- rather than
silly-buggers British politics and National Security policies in the 1920's
and 1930's ---- under a series of Prime Ministers.
You should have listened to Cousin Winston.

What the xxxxx has that got to do with rationing?

Twit!

Surreyman

a.spencer3

2007-11-24 09:52:16 UTC

Don't talk rubbish. If the UK had acted the same as those why really got
rid of their royals they would have been lucky to have escaped with
their heads still on their bodies.

So Cromwell lost his head, did he?

Actually, I believe he did, posthumously.

Surreyman

Renia

2007-11-24 10:21:32 UTC

Don't talk rubbish. If the UK had acted the same as those why really got
rid of their royals they would have been lucky to have escaped with
their heads still on their bodies.

So Cromwell lost his head, did he?

Actually, I believe he did, posthumously.

Yes he did, after he was dug up as a result of post-Commonwealth
royalist guilt.

But he kept his head and ruled the country having "got rid of the
royals", which was my point.

Robert Peffers

2007-11-25 01:24:03 UTC

Don't talk rubbish. If the UK had acted the same as those why really got
rid of their royals they would have been lucky to have escaped with
their heads still on their bodies.

So Cromwell lost his head, did he?

Actually, I believe he did, posthumously.

Yes he did, after he was dug up as a result of post-Commonwealth royalist
guilt.
But he kept his head and ruled the country having "got rid of the royals",
which was my point.

Trouble was he did not get rid of them.

--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

Renia

2007-11-25 02:03:28 UTC

Post by Renia

Don't talk rubbish. If the UK had acted the same as those why really got
rid of their royals they would have been lucky to have escaped with
their heads still on their bodies.

So Cromwell lost his head, did he?

Actually, I believe he did, posthumously.

Yes he did, after he was dug up as a result of post-Commonwealth
royalist guilt.
But he kept his head and ruled the country having "got rid of the
royals", which was my point.

Trouble was he did not get rid of them.

Well, he did, for 11 years. And then they were invited back.

Robert Peffers

2007-11-25 19:49:59 UTC

Post by Renia

Post by Renia

Don't talk rubbish. If the UK had acted the same as those why really got
rid of their royals they would have been lucky to have escaped with
their heads still on their bodies.

So Cromwell lost his head, did he?

Actually, I believe he did, posthumously.

Yes he did, after he was dug up as a result of post-Commonwealth
royalist guilt.
But he kept his head and ruled the country having "got rid of the
royals", which was my point.

Trouble was he did not get rid of them.

Well, he did, for 11 years. And then they were invited back.

Exactly. He didn't get rid of them.

a.spencer3

2007-11-24 09:56:28 UTC

People don't seem to understand his name is Charles Philip Arthur George.
Diana had some problems with all that at their wedding.
He could choose any of those names -- or a new one, I suppose.
But GEORGE does seem to have a quite reasonable chance of selection.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Britannicus Traductus Sum

'George' has been unofficially touted by 'friends' and officially denied by
Clarence House.
It's all total conjecture.

Surreyman

D. Spencer Hines

2007-11-24 17:18:10 UTC

Of course it's conjecture...

That's what makes it fun.

But "to honor his Grandfather, George VI". ?

Charles was just three when George VI died.

DSH

'George' has been unofficially touted by 'friends' and officially denied
by Clarence House. It's all total conjecture.
Surreyman

N***@gmail.com

2007-11-24 15:05:16 UTC

Perhaps you can suggest a better strategy?
Going to war in 1936 would have been a disaster.
No modern aircraft or tanks for a start, and the Germans had loads of nice
new shiny stuff.

I have to agree with William. British tank designs were never as good
as German, even in 1939 their aircraft were mostly WWI-style biplanes.
RAF biplanes saw combat in Iraq as late as 1941, because the Brits
didn't have enough monoplanes to re-equip their air force.

More to the point it's hard to see how the Brits could have actually
attacked germany in 1936. At that point Hitler wasn't demanding
anything that was particularly unreasonable -- Versailles had set up a
Europe based on the principle national self-determination. The only
exception was the German nation, which was not allowed to control all
ethnic-German territory and could not send troops to all the territory
it actually controlled. The only reason to refuse Hitler's pre-1939
moves is realpolitik, and little countries start to get nervous when
big countries use realpolitik. And in political terms this is
realpolitik against the wrong guy -- Hitler's greatest opponent was
always Stalin, so all the anti-Communists liked the guy.

The Brits would not have permission to use Belgian, Danish, or
Austrian territory. That leaves a narrow front in France, which may
not pan out due to the fact the UK is going to war solely to advance
it's own interests. Germany's North Sea coast, and the Kattegat are
geographically possible, but the only people who thought amphibious
operations were possible in 1936 were the US Marines.

Eastern Europe is a semi-viable option, but the Brits had no way to
send troops there. It would be the Poles and Czechs fighting all by
themselves, which didn't work out so well for them even in 1939 when
the whole damn world was on their side.

Nick

Robert Peffers

2007-11-25 01:20:04 UTC

Meat was still being rationed in 1954?
Grim Indeed...

Only the USA ended the war twice as rich as when it started.
--
John Briggs

Indeed and the UK were still paying for that grasping greed until last year
when we made the final payments.
The truth often hurts and both the, "Cash & Carry Act", and the, "Lease/Lend
Act", started with the words, "In defense of the US", proving, beyond doubt,
that they were well aware the European Allies were fighting and dying for
them. Yet they have the temerity to claim they came to fight for us when the
plain truth is that they only came to fight after both Japan and Germany
declared war upon them proving, also beyond doubt, that they only came to
fight their own corner AFTER they were forced to.
We were grateful for the help but was it necessary to tell lies about it to
themselves and to teach their children flawed history?

--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

Renia

2007-11-25 02:02:52 UTC

Meat was still being rationed in 1954?
Grim Indeed...

Only the USA ended the war twice as rich as when it started.
--
John Briggs

Indeed and the UK were still paying for that grasping greed until last
year when we made the final payments.
The truth often hurts and both the, "Cash & Carry Act", and the,
"Lease/Lend Act", started with the words, "In defense of the US",
proving, beyond doubt, that they were well aware the European Allies
were fighting and dying for them. Yet they have the temerity to claim
they came to fight for us when the plain truth is that they only came to
fight after both Japan and Germany declared war upon them proving, also
beyond doubt, that they only came to fight their own corner AFTER they
were forced to.
We were grateful for the help but was it necessary to tell lies about it
to themselves and to teach their children flawed history?

Well said.

Robert Peffers

2007-11-25 01:23:12 UTC

Don't talk rubbish. If the UK had acted the same as those why really got
rid of their royals they would have been lucky to have escaped with their
heads still on their bodies.

So Cromwell lost his head, did he?

Who ever claimed that?

Robert Peffers

2007-11-25 01:32:02 UTC

his name isn't george.

It isn't Windsor either, but, as monarch, he can choose whatever
name
he likes.
After all there was never a Queen Elizabeth I of the UK but the
present incumbent called herself, Elizabeth II.

Quiz time: which king was the third of that name of England, the

second

Scotland, and the first of Ireland?
--
John Briggs

Who bloody cares?

Well, this is a History group, not soc.rabid.anti.royals
Surreyman

Oh! So just what, "group", did you think you posted your message into?
Your headers say,
"alt.history.british,alt.talk.royalty,soc.culture.scottish,soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval".
I, and several others, are reading your stuff in, "soc.culture.scottish",
and it is not yours, or anybody else's place to tell us what we should
discuss in the groups we are reading your posts in.
If you think them off topic in whatever group you are reading them in
then trim that group from the headers before you hit send.

Oh, dear. You were the one implying it was off-topic. Surreyman was saying
it was on-topic. I added it was a rare post which was on-topic for ALL the
groups it was posted to.

I hope you are not, as it seems, saying I said, or implied, anything was off
topic.
Quite the reverse. My only reference to topic was, "If you think them off
topic".

--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

Louis Epstein

2007-11-25 04:15:13 UTC

In alt.talk.royalty allan connochie <***@noemail.com> wrote:
:
: "Louis Epstein" wrote in message
: news:vo-***@velocitywest.net...
:> 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

and incorrectly

: 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!

: Allan

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

allan connochie

2007-11-25 09:28:40 UTC

Incorrectly in your opinion........which doesn't matter a hoot! The fact is
that monarchs have been deposed throughout history. As to the monarchy
itself then hypothetically if the UK; or an independent Scotland; or much
more possibly Australia chose to end the rule of the monarchy then it would
end.

Allan

Robert Peffers

2007-11-25 19:58:30 UTC

Incorrectly in your opinion........which doesn't matter a hoot! The fact
is that monarchs have been deposed throughout history. As to the monarchy
itself then hypothetically if the UK; or an independent Scotland; or much
more possibly Australia chose to end the rule of the monarchy then it
would end.
Allan

Most certainly the new Australian government has stated that they are
anti-Royalist.
Will they just ditch the Queen of the UK or will they hold a referendum?

--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

AGw. (Usenet)

2007-11-25 23:11:00 UTC

[irrelevant newsgroups snipped]

Post by Robert Peffers
Most certainly the new Australian government has stated that they are
anti-Royalist.
Will they just ditch the Queen of the UK or will they hold a referendum?

Making Australia a republic would require a federal constitutional
amendment, which would in turn require a referendum.

Approval by referendum requires both that the overall vote is in
favour, and also that the votes in a majority of the states support
the amendment. Most proposed amendments that have made it to the
referendum stage have failed to get the necessary votes, which is
exactly what happened with the awful model put on offer in 1999.

--
AGw.

Louis Epstein

2007-11-27 05:08:31 UTC

In alt.talk.royalty allan connochie <***@noemail.com> wrote:
:
: "Louis Epstein" <***@main.put.com> wrote in message
: news:***@velocitywest.net...
:> In alt.talk.royalty allan connochie <***@noemail.com> wrote:
:> :
:> : "Louis Epstein" wrote in message
:> : news:vo-***@velocitywest.net...
:> :> 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
:>
:> and incorrectly
:
: Incorrectly in your opinion........which doesn't matter a hoot! The fact is
: that monarchs have been deposed throughout history. As to the monarchy
: itself then hypothetically if the UK; or an independent Scotland; or much
: more possibly Australia chose to end the rule of the monarchy then it would
: end.

And this would,unequivocally,be wrong.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Robert Peffers

2007-11-27 13:09:37 UTC

Post by Louis Epstein
:> : "Louis Epstein" wrote in message
:> :> : On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
:> :> :>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
:>
:> and incorrectly
: Incorrectly in your opinion........which doesn't matter a hoot! The fact is
: that monarchs have been deposed throughout history. As to the monarchy
: itself then hypothetically if the UK; or an independent Scotland; or much
: more possibly Australia chose to end the rule of the monarchy then it would
: end.
And this would,unequivocally,be wrong.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Why would it. Australia is a democracy.
If the majority do not want a queen then they will not have a queen.

allan connochie

2007-11-27 23:14:30 UTC

Post by Louis Epstein
: Incorrectly in your opinion........which doesn't matter a hoot! The fact is
: that monarchs have been deposed throughout history. As to the monarchy
: itself then hypothetically if the UK; or an independent Scotland; or much
: more possibly Australia chose to end the rule of the monarchy then it would
: end.
And this would,unequivocally,be wrong.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Why would it. Australia is a democracy.
If the majority do not want a queen then they will not have a queen.

That is the logical conclusion that modern free thinking people would come
to. The other poster seems to be living in his own little time warp :-)

Allan

Westprog

2007-11-28 13:04:29 UTC

...

Post by Robert Peffers
Why would it. Australia is a democracy.
If the majority do not want a queen then they will not have a queen.

That is the logical conclusion that modern free thinking people would
come to. The other poster seems to be living in his own little time
warp :-)

ISTR that the Australians recently had a referendum on the issue.

--
J/

SOTW: "Ellen West" - Throwing Muses

allan connochie

2007-11-28 21:13:21 UTC

Post by Westprog
...

Post by Robert Peffers
Why would it. Australia is a democracy.
If the majority do not want a queen then they will not have a queen.

That is the logical conclusion that modern free thinking people would
come to. The other poster seems to be living in his own little time
warp :-)

ISTR that the Australians recently had a referendum on the issue.

They did and they decided to keep the monarchy. If they'd decided to get rid
of it then it'd go. Louis suggests that getting rid of monarchy is
unequivocally wrong though. He seems to believe that it is some kind of god
given position. Nobody much has believed that in Britain for 300 years or so
and it didn't hold sway before that either.

Allan

Louis Epstein

2007-11-29 05:29:06 UTC

In alt.talk.royalty allan connochie <***@noemail.com> wrote:
:
: "Westprog" <***@hottmail.com> wrote in message
: news:fijp0i$qob$***@news.datemas.de...
:> allan connochie wrote:
:>> "Robert Peffers" <***@btinternet.com> wrote in message
:>> news:***@bt.com...
:> ...
:>>> Why would it. Australia is a democracy.
:>>> If the majority do not want a queen then they will not have a queen.
:>
:>> That is the logical conclusion that modern free thinking people would
:>> come to. The other poster seems to be living in his own little time
:>> warp :-)
:>
:> ISTR that the Australians recently had a referendum on the issue.
:
: They did and they decided to keep the monarchy. If they'd decided to get rid
: of it then it'd go. Louis suggests that getting rid of monarchy is
: unequivocally wrong though. He seems to believe that it is some kind of god
: given position. Nobody much has believed that in Britain for 300 years or so
: and it didn't hold sway before that either.

But anyone who believes it is right,
and anyone who denies it is wrong.

: Allan

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

allan connochie

2007-11-29 18:42:05 UTC

Post by Louis Epstein
:> ...
:>>> Why would it. Australia is a democracy.
:>>> If the majority do not want a queen then they will not have a queen.
:>
:>> That is the logical conclusion that modern free thinking people would
:>> come to. The other poster seems to be living in his own little time
:>> warp :-)
:>
:> ISTR that the Australians recently had a referendum on the issue.
: They did and they decided to keep the monarchy. If they'd decided to get rid
: of it then it'd go. Louis suggests that getting rid of monarchy is
: unequivocally wrong though. He seems to believe that it is some kind of god
: given position. Nobody much has believed that in Britain for 300 years or so
: and it didn't hold sway before that either.
But anyone who believes it is right,
and anyone who denies it is wrong.

I imagine flat earthers say the same.

Allan

a.spencer3

2007-11-29 09:47:09 UTC

Post by Westprog
...

Post by Robert Peffers
Why would it. Australia is a democracy.
If the majority do not want a queen then they will not have a queen.

That is the logical conclusion that modern free thinking people would
come to. The other poster seems to be living in his own little time
warp :-)

ISTR that the Australians recently had a referendum on the issue.

But, without knowing the details, wasn't the referendum proposal apparently
worded so as to make the 'non-Royal' option less attractive?

Which is precisely what would probably happen if Brown ever did allow an EU
referendum!

Surreyman

John Cartmell

2007-11-29 10:42:52 UTC

Post by a.spencer3
Which is precisely what would probably happen if Brown ever did allow an EU
referendum!

You are getting fixed ideas in your old age. It is not necessary to take a
swipe at the government at every opportunity. In any case referenda are stupid
ideas...

--
John Cartmell ***@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.qercus.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

a.spencer3

2007-11-29 11:00:08 UTC

Post by a.spencer3
Which is precisely what would probably happen if Brown ever did allow an EU
referendum!

You are getting fixed ideas in your old age. It is not necessary to take a
swipe at the government at every opportunity. In any case referenda are stupid
ideas...

Well, seems the whole world is swiping the Brown government from various
different directions at the moment - it's too easy.
You've got me wrong. Given the current crowd I'd probably rather have the
present government than any of the alternatives.
But it's the bad choice from even worse.

Surreyman

John Cartmell

2007-11-29 11:34:27 UTC

Post by a.spencer3
Well, seems the whole world is swiping the Brown government from various
different directions at the moment - it's too easy.

It is when you are too stupid (not you - but the commentators) to appreciate
simple facts and logic. They seem to think that "I had a policy of not
accepting donations from people I didn't know" is the same as "I knew the
donation wasn't really from her". When you hear an announcement, and an
immediate response to it that mangles it for political effect, you (should)
stop taking note of those swipes.

Data loss: almost certainly because the department is tied in to a private
company who charge thousands of pounds for a 10 minute job. Why are government
departments tied into private companies with such badly negotiated terms?
Because Thatcher insisted on it and Blair failed to undo all the knots.

Funding: Labour do far worse than the Tories because their large scale funding
is done somewhat amateurishly by individuals whilst the Tories get it from
people who hire lawyers and accountants by the dozen rather than the hour. The
Tories walked out off the discussions about opening up funding when they
realised that the quid pro quo for union funding (where the individual member
can opt out of paying his/her share) might be balanced by allowing
shareholders to individually opt out of company funding. The Tories feel safe
only because a line has been drawn under their earlier very murky and mucky
practices - although a certain peerage should certainly be questioned as it's
holder still doesn't appear to be paying UK taxes, despite very specific
promises that were due to be filled quite some years ago.

All the public hear is the Tories "get the police in" and "resign" ignoring
the fact that the Labour governments are the ones who have improved the
situation immeasurably against the wishes of the Tories who are / were
responsible for the problems in the first place. Any reasonable commentator
would make that plain - but we don't have those anymore.

--
John Cartmell ***@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.qercus.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

a.spencer3

2007-11-29 11:47:17 UTC

Post by a.spencer3
Well, seems the whole world is swiping the Brown government from various
different directions at the moment - it's too easy.

It is when you are too stupid (not you - but the commentators) to appreciate
simple facts and logic. They seem to think that "I had a policy of not
accepting donations from people I didn't know" is the same as "I knew the
donation wasn't really from her". When you hear an announcement, and an
immediate response to it that mangles it for political effect, you (should)
stop taking note of those swipes.
Data loss: almost certainly because the department is tied in to a private
company who charge thousands of pounds for a 10 minute job. Why are government
departments tied into private companies with such badly negotiated terms?
Because Thatcher insisted on it and Blair failed to undo all the knots.
Funding: Labour do far worse than the Tories because their large scale funding
is done somewhat amateurishly by individuals whilst the Tories get it from
people who hire lawyers and accountants by the dozen rather than the hour. The
Tories walked out off the discussions about opening up funding when they
realised that the quid pro quo for union funding (where the individual member
can opt out of paying his/her share) might be balanced by allowing
shareholders to individually opt out of company funding. The Tories feel safe
only because a line has been drawn under their earlier very murky and mucky
practices - although a certain peerage should certainly be questioned as it's
holder still doesn't appear to be paying UK taxes, despite very specific
promises that were due to be filled quite some years ago.
All the public hear is the Tories "get the police in" and "resign" ignoring
the fact that the Labour governments are the ones who have improved the
situation immeasurably against the wishes of the Tories who are / were
responsible for the problems in the first place. Any reasonable commentator
would make that plain - but we don't have those anymore.

You might be surprised to hear that I agree with most of that.
The donation events are apparently pretty obvious, and most certainly don't
need police investigations, for Gawd's sake.
The disk events were much more potentially serious, but are an office
procedures problem, not a national political scandal.
It's the spin accompanying the events which it is sad to see, and that does
deserve the opposition's energy.
I thought Brown was going to produce an unimaginative administration, but
I'd hoped we'd got rid of these unnecessary sillies.

Surreyman

John Cartmell

2007-11-29 12:08:48 UTC

Post by a.spencer3
You might be surprised to hear that I agree with most of that.

And I with yours! ;-)

My big disappointment with governments from 1997 is that they haven't thrown
out more of the dangerous Thatcher rubbish. A big one is privatisation of
local and central government functions; without the privatisation of cleaning
hospitals could better get a grip on infections. A bigger one is the pride in
doing a job well - though I don't think this can ever be repaired.

--
John Cartmell ***@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.qercus.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

a.spencer3

2007-11-29 12:26:23 UTC

Post by a.spencer3
You might be surprised to hear that I agree with most of that.

And I with yours! ;-)
My big disappointment with governments from 1997 is that they haven't thrown
out more of the dangerous Thatcher rubbish. A big one is privatisation of
local and central government functions; without the privatisation of cleaning
hospitals could better get a grip on infections. A bigger one is the pride in
doing a job well - though I don't think this can ever be repaired.

Yep, absolutely.
And trains ... post ... telephones ... water ... I never thought, say, 20
years back, that I'd be pro-nationalisation! With all its ills, it can be
better.
We must stop meeting like this.

Surreyman

Westprog

2007-11-29 12:34:28 UTC

Post by John Cartmell
My big disappointment with governments from 1997 is that they haven't
thrown out more of the dangerous Thatcher rubbish. A big one is
privatisation of local and central government functions; without the
privatisation of cleaning hospitals could better get a grip on
infections. A bigger one is the pride in doing a job well - though I
don't think this can ever be repaired.

If we could only get back to the British motor industry of the sixties and
seventies.

--
J/

SOTW: "Ellen West" - Throwing Muses

John Cartmell

2007-11-29 13:56:01 UTC

If we could only get back to the British motor industry of the sixties and
seventies.

I did say privatisation of local and central government functions! Whilst
power supply, water supply, telecommunications, public transport, and sewerage
could reasonably be included in that - BL or BMC isn't. Thankfully. ;-)

--
John Cartmell ***@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.qercus.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

D. Spencer Hines

2007-11-30 11:12:23 UTC

You need to make cars as good as Toyotas.

Sadly, you don't.

DSH

If we could only get back to the British motor industry of the sixties and
seventies.

Robert Peffers

2007-12-01 14:31:53 UTC

Post by D. Spencer Hines
You need to make cars as good as Toyotas.
Sadly, you don't.

And, once again, you get it all wrong.
Such cars are still being made in the UK.
They are still made by UK workers and these are often still members of the
same unions.
These cars are often designed in Britain by British workers.
So, what has changed?
Not the workforce and not the places
Well! That management, that the media made out to be always right, is no
longer in charge.
So after all the claims against the British worker and the British unions it
was the management that need to be replaced after all.

Post by D. Spencer Hines
DSH

If we could only get back to the British motor industry of the sixties and
seventies.

--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

D. Spencer Hines

2007-11-30 10:59:07 UTC

An interesting point.

We understand that British hospitals are often quite filthy.

DSH

A big one is privatisation of local and central government functions;
without the privatisation of cleaning hospitals could better get a grip
on infections.

Robert Peffers

2007-12-01 14:41:38 UTC

Post by D. Spencer Hines
An interesting point.
We understand that British hospitals are often quite filthy.
DSH

A big one is privatisation of local and central government functions;
without the privatisation of cleaning hospitals could better get a grip
on infections.

You understand nothing, some things never change.
The hospitals are surface clean and mostly not filthy.
Where the trouble lies is twofold.
Staff have been reduced to the point where they have no time for anything
and that includes time to wash hands thoroughly before treating every
patient.
Secondly the cleaning, once done by the nurses on the wards and supervised
by the sisters and a matron, is now in the hands of unqualified outside
contractors who are cleaning hospital wards as they would clean their own
living rooms rather than with an eye to clinical cleanliness. They are also
paid by results and thus paid more for quick work that for good work.
Incidentally, there was a report yesterday that there were several incidents
of people drinking the alcohol based hand scrub fluid provided at each
bedside.

--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

D. Spencer Hines

2007-12-01 17:25:28 UTC

Yep...

British hospitals are often filthy -- as I've already pointed out.

DSH

Post by D. Spencer Hines
An interesting point.
We understand that British hospitals are often quite filthy.
DSH

A big one is privatisation of local and central government functions;
without the privatisation of cleaning hospitals could better get a grip
on infections.

You understand nothing, some things never change.
The hospitals are surface clean and mostly not filthy.
Where the trouble lies is twofold.
Staff have been reduced to the point where they have no time for anything
and that includes time to wash hands thoroughly before treating every
patient.
Secondly the cleaning, once done by the nurses on the wards and supervised
by the sisters and a matron, is now in the hands of unqualified outside
contractors who are cleaning hospital wards as they would clean their own
living rooms rather than with an eye to clinical cleanliness. They are
also paid by results and thus paid more for quick work that for good
work.
Incidentally, there was a report yesterday that there were several
incidents of people drinking the alcohol based hand scrub fluid provided
at each bedside.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

Turenne

2007-12-01 17:59:03 UTC

Post by D. Spencer Hines
British hospitals are often filthy -- as I've already pointed out.

I personally haven't come across any filthy hospitals though I'm sure
some exist. One thing I do know is that on being admitted to a
hospital in this country it isn't neccessary to produce a load of
documentation or to prove that you are insured. There are some areas
(not many) that we lag behind the US, but access to medical facilities
for those who need treatment isn't one of them.

Richard Lichten

Turenne

2007-12-01 22:40:38 UTC

Post by D. Spencer Hines
To whom did he say it?

A young journalist after a lengthy dinner.

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Thanks, but do you have a citation?

A citation - for a well known quote...are you kidding?

Richard L

The Highlander

2008-01-11 14:54:27 UTC

Post by D. Spencer Hines
British hospitals are often filthy -- as I've already pointed out.

DSH is so full of shit that his eyes have brown flecks.

William Black

2007-12-02 09:47:38 UTC

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Yep...
British hospitals are often filthy -- as I've already pointed out.

Name the filthy ones please.

a.spencer3

2007-12-02 12:57:01 UTC

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Yep...
British hospitals are often filthy -- as I've already pointed out.

When were you last in one, so how would you know?

They don't even approach 'filthy', but are generally spotless.

The current controversy is regarding the eradication of 'invisible'
bacteria.

Twit!

Surreyman

D. Spencer Hines

2007-11-30 10:52:36 UTC

The Brown government is simply characteristic of the weak, dithering,
fumbling, unsure and unsteady-at-the helm governments we've grown to expect
from British Labour governments.

So, no surprises there -- par for the course.

Gordon Brown does have one thing right however....

We need a massive effort to educate the American and British people
concerning the serious threats of Global Islamofascist Jihadist Terrorism --
an effort similar in scope, seriousness and expense to the one that was so
essential to our winning of The Cold War against the Soviet Union.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Post by a.spencer3
Well, seems the whole world is swiping the Brown government from various
different directions at the moment - it's too easy.
You've got me wrong. Given the current crowd I'd probably rather have the
present government than any of the alternatives.
But it's the bad choice from even worse.
Surreyman

AGw. (Usenet)

2007-11-30 11:22:56 UTC

Post by D. Spencer Hines
The Brown government is simply characteristic of the weak, dithering,
fumbling, unsure and unsteady-at-the helm governments we've grown to expect
from British Labour governments.
So, no surprises there -- par for the course.

"Thatcher and Blair have, in point of fact, been excellent Prime
Ministers --
and History will so regard them."
Posted by D. Spencer Hines, within the last 24 hours
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.history.british/msg/f83676a5406a9413

What party do you think Tony Blair led while in government?!

--
AGw.

D. Spencer Hines

2007-11-30 11:30:09 UTC

Blair was clearly the exception that proves the rule....

Any fool knows that.

Old Labour hates/hated him for being so different from the standard Labour
model PM -- weak, dithering, fumbling, unsure and unsteady-at-the helm

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Post by AGw. (Usenet)

Post by D. Spencer Hines
The Brown government is simply characteristic of the weak, dithering,
fumbling, unsure and unsteady-at-the helm governments we've grown to
expect from British Labour governments.
So, no surprises there -- par for the course.

"Thatcher and Blair have, in point of fact, been excellent Prime
Ministers -- and History will so regard them."
Posted by D. Spencer Hines, within the last 24 hours
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.history.british/msg/f83676a5406a9413
What party do you think Tony Blair led while in government?!

Turenne

2007-11-30 13:50:43 UTC

Post by D. Spencer Hines
To whom did he say it?

A young journalist after a lengthy dinner.

Richard L

D. Spencer Hines

2007-11-30 14:08:16 UTC

Thanks, but do you have a citation?

DSH

Post by Turenne

Post by D. Spencer Hines
To whom did he say it?

A young journalist after a lengthy dinner.
Richard L

William Black

2007-11-30 17:10:28 UTC

Name them, and their fumbling, unsure, unsteady weak and dithering
policies.

As a general rule Labour governments have been none of these things but have
been depicted as such by the gutter press, which remains steadfastly in the
hands of a few evil and corrupt men.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the New borough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Sacha

2007-11-30 18:55:10 UTC

Name them, and their fumbling, unsure, unsteady weak and dithering
policies.
As a general rule Labour governments have been none of these things but have
been depicted as such by the gutter press, which remains steadfastly in the
hands of a few evil and corrupt men.

Are you trying to tell us that this Labour government is steadfast, honest
and true? Mandelson dismissed twice for lying, TWO successive PMs and their
administrations under investigation for corruption? Jowell's husband
connected with corruption in Italy and she 'knew nothing about'? Labour
supporters fudging or lying about contributions to the party? They are an
out and out disgrace whatever one's politics might be. They turn us into a
laughing stock with every day that passes. They have brought us lower in
world opinion than any govt. before them. They are weak, supine,
ungoverning and ungovernable. They are complacent and condescending to
those they govern. I cannot begin to believe that *anyone* can defend this
Labour government and nor, apparently, can those answering the opinion
polls. They are disgusting and have let us down in every possible way.
People are dying in hospitals and some children are virtually innumerate
when they leave school. It is possible that the only clever thing Blair did
was to get out when he did. Rats and ships come to mind.

--
Sacha
(response only to atr)

Brian Pears

2007-12-01 00:00:12 UTC

Post by Sacha
Are you trying to tell us that this Labour government is steadfast,
honest and true? Mandelson dismissed twice for lying, TWO successive
PMs and their administrations under investigation for corruption?
Jowell's husband connected with corruption in Italy and she 'knew
nothing about'? Labour supporters fudging or lying about contributions
to the party? They are an out and out disgrace whatever one's politics
might be. They turn us into a laughing stock with every day that
passes. They have brought us lower in world opinion than any govt.
before them. They are weak, supine, ungoverning and ungovernable. They
are complacent and condescending to those they govern. I cannot begin
to believe that *anyone* can defend this Labour government and nor,
apparently, can those answering the opinion polls. They are disgusting
and have let us down in every possible way. People are dying in
hospitals and some children are virtually innumerate when they leave
school. It is possible that the only clever thing Blair did was to get
out when he did. Rats and ships come to mind.

I agree with every word. They are either corrupt from top to bottom
or so stupid as to be unfit to be let out on their own.

"Knew nothing about it" indeed, when her husband is the party treasurer?
Sorry Harriett, I think you're telling porkies and should be kicked
out of your job and be prosecuted for breaking the "Political Parties,
Elections and Referendum Act 2000".

--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK

Sacha

2007-12-01 10:20:27 UTC

Post by Brian Pears

I agree with every word. They are either corrupt from top to bottom
or so stupid as to be unfit to be let out on their own.
"Knew nothing about it" indeed, when her husband is the party treasurer?
Sorry Harriett, I think you're telling porkies and should be kicked
out of your job and be prosecuted for breaking the "Political Parties,
Elections and Referendum Act 2000".

Perhaps she'll doe a Jowell and divorce him.........!

--
Sacha

a.spencer3

2007-12-01 11:22:50 UTC

But I thought you've been a big Blair fan in recent years?

Twit!

Surreyman

Westprog

2007-11-29 11:11:48 UTC

a.spencer3 wrote:
...

Post by Westprog
ISTR that the Australians recently had a referendum on the issue.

They did and they decided to keep the monarchy. If they'd decided to
get rid of it then it'd go. Louis suggests that getting rid of
monarchy is unequivocally wrong though. He seems to believe that it
is some kind of god given position. Nobody much has believed that in
Britain for 300 years or so and it didn't hold sway before that
either.

But, without knowing the details, wasn't the referendum proposal
apparently worded so as to make the 'non-Royal' option less
attractive?

What they did was to consider what the alternatives were. The Australians
were faced with the possibility of any number of their own politicians being
Head Of State.

The opponents of the monarchy (including Murdoch and his international news
network) were keen to avoid any mention of the alternative. They wanted to
just be allowed vote out the monarchy - which would probably have worked.

IMO it's reasonable enough to insist that if you want to change something,
you decide what you want to change to.

Post by a.spencer3
Which is precisely what would probably happen if Brown ever did allow
an EU referendum!

--
J/

SOTW: "Ellen West" - Throwing Muses

John Cartmell

2007-11-29 11:52:50 UTC

Post by Westprog
What they did was to consider what the alternatives were. The Australians
were faced with the possibility of any number of their own politicians being
Head Of State.

the UK had a republican fringe until someone whispered the words "President
Thatcher". There is no UK republican movement now.

--
John Cartmell ***@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.qercus.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

Westprog

2007-11-29 12:09:24 UTC

Post by Westprog
What they did was to consider what the alternatives were. The
Australians were faced with the possibility of any number of their
own politicians being Head Of State.

the UK had a republican fringe until someone whispered the words
"President Thatcher". There is no UK republican movement now.

The strange thing is that opposition to the Royal Family didn't involve
republicans, but Diana supporters. There are plenty of people who don't want
her ex-husband, but most of them would favour her son. Though the real
hard-line Dianistas don't regard anyone else as worthy of her.

--
J/

SOTW: "Ellen West" - Throwing Muses

Turenne

2007-11-29 12:10:03 UTC

Further to John Cartmell's excellent points concerning the
government's current difficulties, one is reminded of the famous
MacMillan quote: "Events, Dear Boy, Events" referring to the
thwarting of his best intentions by events happening outside of his
direct control.

Richard Lichten

John Cartmell

2007-11-29 13:57:41 UTC

In article

Post by Turenne
Further to John Cartmell's excellent points concerning the
government's current difficulties, one is reminded of the famous
MacMillan quote: "Events, Dear Boy, Events" referring to the
thwarting of his best intentions by events happening outside of his
direct control.

It should be writ large at the top of every manifesto. "We would like to do
the following - but events will happen ..."

--
John Cartmell ***@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.qercus.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

D. Spencer Hines

2007-11-30 11:03:27 UTC

To whom did he say it?

DSH

Westprog

2007-11-29 12:04:27 UTC

Post by Westprog
...

Post by Westprog
ISTR that the Australians recently had a referendum on the issue.

They did and they decided to keep the monarchy. If they'd decided to
get rid of it then it'd go. Louis suggests that getting rid of
monarchy is unequivocally wrong though. He seems to believe that it
is some kind of god given position. Nobody much has believed that in
Britain for 300 years or so and it didn't hold sway before that
either.

But, without knowing the details, wasn't the referendum proposal
apparently worded so as to make the 'non-Royal' option less
attractive?

What they did was to consider what the alternatives were. The
Australians were faced with the possibility of any number of their
own politicians being Head Of State.
The opponents of the monarchy (including Murdoch and his
international news network) were keen to avoid any mention of the
alternative. They wanted to just be allowed vote out the monarchy -
which would probably have worked.

"A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of
Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced
by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the
Commonwealth Parliament."

There was some feeling that the President should have been directly elected.
However, the Irish experience doesn't show that a directly elected president
is a way to get away from political appointments of party hacks.

--
J/

SOTW: "Ellen West" - Throwing Muses

Féachadóir

2007-11-29 13:18:15 UTC

Post by Westprog
...

Post by Westprog
ISTR that the Australians recently had a referendum on the issue.

They did and they decided to keep the monarchy. If they'd decided to
get rid of it then it'd go. Louis suggests that getting rid of
monarchy is unequivocally wrong though. He seems to believe that it
is some kind of god given position. Nobody much has believed that in
Britain for 300 years or so and it didn't hold sway before that
either.

But, without knowing the details, wasn't the referendum proposal
apparently worded so as to make the 'non-Royal' option less
attractive?

What they did was to consider what the alternatives were. The
Australians were faced with the possibility of any number of their
own politicians being Head Of State.
The opponents of the monarchy (including Murdoch and his
international news network) were keen to avoid any mention of the
alternative. They wanted to just be allowed vote out the monarchy -
which would probably have worked.

"A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of
Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced
by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the
Commonwealth Parliament."
There was some feeling that the President should have been directly elected.
However, the Irish experience doesn't show that a directly elected president
is a way to get away from political appointments of party hacks.

The Irish experience is that Presidents are best kept politically
neutered, while Parliament does the heavy lifting. Their job is to
greet visiting ambassadors, open shopping centres, occasionally make
an interesting speech, and step in as rarely as possible when the
normal machinery of government breaks down. As an added bonus, the
prospect of the president intervening usually focuses the minds of
parliamentarians when there's a hint of a constitutional crisis.

CJ Buyers

2007-11-30 08:55:08 UTC

Post by Westprog
...

Post by Westprog
ISTR that the Australians recently had a referendum on the issue.

They did and they decided to keep the monarchy. If they'd decided to
get rid of it then it'd go. Louis suggests that getting rid of
monarchy is unequivocally wrong though. He seems to believe that it
is some kind of god given position. Nobody much has believed that in
Britain for 300 years or so and it didn't hold sway before that
either.

But, without knowing the details, wasn't the referendum proposal
apparently worded so as to make the 'non-Royal' option less
attractive?

What they did was to consider what the alternatives were. The Australians
were faced with the possibility of any number of their own politicians being
Head Of State.
The opponents of the monarchy (including Murdoch and his international news
network) were keen to avoid any mention of the alternative. They wanted to
just be allowed vote out the monarchy - which would probably have worked.
IMO it's reasonable enough to insist that if you want to change something,
you decide what you want to change to.

Indeed, but the issue goes far beyond tactics. It is yet another
example of the sheer ignorance of many Australians on the workings of
their own institutions.

The Australian Constitution requires a referendum in order for that
constitution to be legally changed. Consequently, any referendum must
put a concrete alternative to the existing law before the electorate.
Referenda are not grand opinion polls. A question about changing from
the existing system to "something else" is simply not possible.

The referendum didn't actually consider the question of monarchy. It
simply considered the existing system, whatever that actually means in
the minds of the populace. If one were to hold a grand opinion asking
folks whether the existing system was a monarchy, a surprisingly large
number of Australians would say it was not.

allan connochie

2007-11-29 18:44:41 UTC

Post by Westprog
...

Post by Robert Peffers
Why would it. Australia is a democracy.
If the majority do not want a queen then they will not have a queen.

That is the logical conclusion that modern free thinking people would
come to. The other poster seems to be living in his own little time
warp :-)

ISTR that the Australians recently had a referendum on the issue.

They did and they decided to keep the monarchy. If they'd decided to get

rid

Post by allan connochie
of it then it'd go. Louis suggests that getting rid of monarchy is
unequivocally wrong though. He seems to believe that it is some kind of

god

Post by allan connochie
given position. Nobody much has believed that in Britain for 300 years or

Post by allan connochie
and it didn't hold sway before that either.

But, without knowing the details, wasn't the referendum proposal apparently
worded so as to make the 'non-Royal' option less attractive?

I've no idea. It was the general principle that a monarch only has the right
to rule when the people wish the monarchy to remain in place that I was
defending. As to the Aussie thing well it is up to them.

Allan

Louis Epstein

2007-11-29 05:28:17 UTC

In alt.talk.royalty Robert Peffers <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
: "Louis Epstein" <***@main.put.com> wrote in message
: news:***@velocitywest.net...
:> In alt.talk.royalty allan connochie <***@noemail.com> wrote:
:> :
:> : "Louis Epstein" <***@main.put.com> wrote in message
:> : news:***@velocitywest.net...
:> :> In alt.talk.royalty allan connochie <***@noemail.com> wrote:
:> :> :
:> :> : "Louis Epstein" wrote in message
:> :> : news:vo-***@velocitywest.net...
:> :> :> 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
:> :>
:> :> and incorrectly
:> :
:> : Incorrectly in your opinion........which doesn't matter a hoot! The
:> : fact is that monarchs have been deposed throughout history. As to the
:> : monarchy itself then hypothetically if the UK; or an independent Scotland;
:> : or much more possibly Australia chose to end the rule of the
:> : monarchy then it would end.
:>
:> And this would,unequivocally,be wrong.
:>
:
: Why would it. Australia is a democracy.
: If the majority do not want a queen then they will not have a queen.

Democracy has no place except as the obedient servant of Monarchy.

The superiority of Monarchy to other forms of government is no
more subject to change in the face of popular desire than the
laws of physics.

:> -=-=-
:> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
:> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Robert Peffers

2007-11-25 19:55:54 UTC

Post by Louis Epstein
: "Louis Epstein" wrote in message
:> : On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
:> :>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
and incorrectly
: 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.

Tell that to the Holstein-Gottorp-Romanovs.

Post by Louis Epstein
: 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!

Is that because God gave them that right?
Does such a God that actually exist?

--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

David

2007-11-25 21:09:25 UTC

Post by Louis Epstein
And,being a Republic,legitimacy would be totally beyond its
capacity to possess!

Is that because God gave them that right?
Does such a God that actually exist?

For Louis it's not "a God", exactly, it's more sort of a Supreme Being
who has, as far as I can tell, no ethical, ontological, or
eschatological dimension, but merely exists to provide legitimacy
(what he calls the "Mandate of Heaven") to royal families at times,
and at other times to withdraw it in favor of other royals -- wholly
without regard to *their* religion; apparently this S.B. was giving
and taking away its "Mandate" at least as far back as the First
Dynasty of Egypt. Whether the S.B. was taking an interest in the
genealogy of village chieftains before Narmer united Upper and Lower
Egypt, I've never bothered to inquire; but I imagine Louis would say
yes.

Citizen Jimserac

2007-11-25 23:10:31 UTC

:: "Louis Epstein" wrote in message

Side note to Louis: Looks like we lost, they're putting
up some claptrap design instead of rebuilding the
towers stronger, taller, better. A shame.

It seems the U.S. economy that could build the towers
and send men to the moon nearly 40 years ago
cannot do those things now.

Citizen Jimserac.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

c***@webtv.net

2007-11-25 10:36:16 UTC

I do not know who made this list but anyway
***@excelsior.com (D.=A0Spencer=A0Hines) wrote:
Meat was still being rationed in 1954?
Grim Indeed...
DSH
"Renia" <***@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message news:fi7m1p$2t0$***@mouse.otenet.gr...
D. Spencer Hines wrote:...<snip>

</snip>
Here were the dates rations stopped. [throughout the United Kingdom?]
July 1948 - Bread.
December 1948 - Jam.
May 1950 - Points rationing ended.
October 1952 - Tea.
February 1953 - Sweets.
April 1953 - Cream.
March 1953 - Eggs.
September 1953 - Sugar.
May 1954 - Butter, cheese, margarine and cooking fats. June 1954 - Meat
and bacon. </c&p>
...........................................................
It is off topic but since someone else brought rationing up,
I have seen movies about the blitz/battle of britain, wartime, etc,
where the american flyboy and his english girl go to the fish and chip
shop and have, wait for it, fish and chips.
They cost something like ninepence and no one asks for coupons. Was it
really possible to buy fish and chips without points?

apologies, my quotation, apostrophe, plus, minus, hyphen and several
other keys are not working.

j***@gmail.com

2007-11-28 21:21:17 UTC