Discussion:
Can Tom Parker Bowles be King?
(too old to reply)
Aggie
2006-06-06 11:39:50 UTC
Permalink
Obviously it's not likely that Tom Parker Bowles will be placed onto
the throne. But it is within the realm of possibilities.


If he can get Prince Charles to announce on public television that he
had a marriage with Camilla that was maintained until December 18,
1974 (the day of Tom's birth), that it was conducted in a church (with
forgery), that it had received the support of the privacy council (more
forgery), how would England react?

Tom would have then met all of the requirements constitutionally to be
second-in-line. And most importantly, he'd have the support of a major
member of the Royal family and the heir to the throne.

Tom is older than Prince William; his so-called parents (Charles and
Camilla) were known to be courting at the time of his birth; he is
known to do irrational things.

His mother has the ear of her supposedly obedient husband; her husband
is a respectable public figure; her royal family has untold connections
to MI5. She was once a strumpet, but now a Duchess, and future Queen
Consort; who knows where her ambition will go next?


I say to you that England would acquiesce, just as it has with Camilla,
the Princess of Wales.

Aggie
f***@southernskies.co.uk
2006-06-06 12:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Aggie wrote:

[You've written some really silly stuff here, but I'm a bit bored so
I'll bite.]
Post by Aggie
If he can get Prince Charles to announce on public television that he
had a marriage with Camilla that was maintained until December 18,
1974 (the day of Tom's birth), that it was conducted in a church (with
forgery)
People faking marriages usually do so on the basis of a forged marriage
certificate. The circumstances that you describe would require someone
forging the actual registers, which would be phenomenally difficult to
achieve.

Details of marriage registrations appear on sequentially numbered pages
in bound volumes, and are viewable by the public. Copies are also
maintained by both the relevant register office and the GRO; the latter
also produces indexes which are publicly accessible (indeed, facsimiles
are viewable via the 'net). All of these would need to be convincingly
altered, at a minimum.

Anyway, you have made two errors here. Firstly, it would be necessary
to prove that the marriage had taken place before her marriage to
Andrew Parker Bowles, which apparently took place on July 4, 1973.
Secondly, there is no legal requirement that the heir to the throne
should marry in church; marriages of the Royal Family within England
are technically governed by English common law.
Post by Aggie
that it had received the support of the privacy council (more
forgery)
Presumably you mean the Privy Council. However, any purported consent
by it is entirely meaningless, since the Royal Marriages Act requires
that consent be obtained from the Queen (and be formally recorded), or
perhaps from Parliament (whose proceedings are of course also
recorded).
Post by Aggie
Tom would have then met all of the requirements constitutionally to be
second-in-line.
Assuming that he's not a Catholic. Incidentally, he's apparently
married, which would presumably be in contravention of the Royal
Marriages Act and hence he would be unable to transmit the throne to
any children. I think that would then put Prince Andrew next in line?
Post by Aggie
And most importantly, he'd have the support of a major
member of the Royal family and the heir to the throne.
Hardly relevant. The succession is determined by law, not preference.
--
AGw.
Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell
2006-06-06 17:43:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@southernskies.co.uk
[You've written some really silly stuff here, but I'm a bit bored so
I'll bite.]
Post by Aggie
If he can get Prince Charles to announce on public television that he
had a marriage with Camilla that was maintained until December 18,
1974 (the day of Tom's birth), that it was conducted in a church (with
forgery)
People faking marriages usually do so on the basis of a forged marriage
certificate. The circumstances that you describe would require someone
forging the actual registers, which would be phenomenally difficult to
achieve.
Details of marriage registrations appear on sequentially numbered pages
in bound volumes, and are viewable by the public. Copies are also
maintained by both the relevant register office and the GRO; the latter
also produces indexes which are publicly accessible (indeed, facsimiles
are viewable via the 'net). All of these would need to be convincingly
altered, at a minimum.
Anyway, you have made two errors here. Firstly, it would be necessary
to prove that the marriage had taken place before her marriage to
Andrew Parker Bowles, which apparently took place on July 4, 1973.
Secondly, there is no legal requirement that the heir to the throne
should marry in church; marriages of the Royal Family within England
are technically governed by English common law.
Post by Aggie
that it had received the support of the privacy council (more
forgery)
Presumably you mean the Privy Council. However, any purported consent
by it is entirely meaningless, since the Royal Marriages Act requires
that consent be obtained from the Queen (and be formally recorded), or
perhaps from Parliament (whose proceedings are of course also
recorded).
Post by Aggie
Tom would have then met all of the requirements constitutionally to be
second-in-line.
Assuming that he's not a Catholic. Incidentally, he's apparently
married, which would presumably be in contravention of the Royal
Marriages Act and hence he would be unable to transmit the throne to
any children. I think that would then put Prince Andrew next in line?
Post by Aggie
And most importantly, he'd have the support of a major
member of the Royal family and the heir to the throne.
Hardly relevant. The succession is determined by law, not preference.
--
AGw.
PLEASE DO NOT START THIS AGAIN - IGNORE AGGIE'S RAVINGS!!!!
Aggie
2006-06-06 19:13:59 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for your response.
"The circumstances that you describe would require someone
forging the actual registers, which would be phenomenally difficult to
achieve.
Details of marriage registrations appear on sequentially numbered pages
in bound volumes, and are viewable by the public"
Perhaps just forging one copy and destroying the other copies, if there
are other copies, would suffice. And yes, it wouldn't be perfect, but I
imagine that the forgery would not be caught for the first few days,
which should give the public enough time to absorb the information of a
previous royal marriage. Then the forged registrar can be placed, for
"safe-keeping", in the royal vaults.

"Firstly, it would be necessary
to prove that the marriage had taken place before her marriage to
Andrew Parker Bowles, which apparently took place on July 4, 1973"

Yes, I had forgotten that for a moment. But, perhaps that marriage
would then be considered void, and ergo, the marriage between Charles
and Diana considered void. Or they can say that Charles and Camilla had
a divorce in 1973, and that only the Andrew Parker Bowles/Camilla
marriage is invalid.
However, any purported consent
by it is entirely meaningless, since the Royal Marriages Act requires
that consent be obtained from the Queen (and be formally recorded), or
perhaps from Parliament (whose proceedings are of course also
recorded).
The constitution also requires that the marriage be registered in the
church's books, as well as receiving support from the privy council, in
order for him to the heir.

Again, Queen Elizabeth II supporting Tom Parker Bowles for the
second-in-line isn't impossible; remember her animosity towards Diana.
And, if she died, King Charles will have an easier time appointing his
preferred successor.

Aggie
f***@southernskies.co.uk
2006-06-06 19:19:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Post by f***@southernskies.co.uk
However, any purported consent
by it is entirely meaningless, since the Royal Marriages Act requires
that consent be obtained from the Queen (and be formally recorded), or
perhaps from Parliament (whose proceedings are of course also
recorded).
The constitution also requires that the marriage be registered in the
church's books, as well as receiving support from the privy council, in
order for him to the heir.
Your source for this statement is...?
--
AGw.
Candide
2006-06-06 19:31:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Thanks for your response.
"The circumstances that you describe would require someone
forging the actual registers, which would be phenomenally difficult to
achieve.
Details of marriage registrations appear on sequentially numbered pages
in bound volumes, and are viewable by the public"
Perhaps just forging one copy and destroying the other copies, if there
are other copies, would suffice. And yes, it wouldn't be perfect, but I
imagine that the forgery would not be caught for the first few days,
which should give the public enough time to absorb the information of a
previous royal marriage. Then the forged registrar can be placed, for
"safe-keeping", in the royal vaults.
"Firstly, it would be necessary
to prove that the marriage had taken place before her marriage to
Andrew Parker Bowles, which apparently took place on July 4, 1973"
Yes, I had forgotten that for a moment. But, perhaps that marriage
would then be considered void, and ergo, the marriage between Charles
and Diana considered void. Or they can say that Charles and Camilla had
a divorce in 1973, and that only the Andrew Parker Bowles/Camilla
marriage is invalid.
However, any purported consent
by it is entirely meaningless, since the Royal Marriages Act requires
that consent be obtained from the Queen (and be formally recorded), or
perhaps from Parliament (whose proceedings are of course also
recorded).
The constitution also requires that the marriage be registered in the
church's books, as well as receiving support from the privy council, in
order for him to the heir.
Again, Queen Elizabeth II supporting Tom Parker Bowles for the
second-in-line isn't impossible; remember her animosity towards Diana.
And, if she died, King Charles will have an easier time appointing his
preferred successor.
Aggie
Neither "King" Charles nor any other monarch on the throne of GB has any
such right to "appoint" a successor. Parliament holds all the reins in
any matter relating to the succession and has done so since naming heirs
of the Electress Sophia as heirs to the throne, and also other various
acts in relation to the same matter.

Prince Charles may have some funny ideas about what sort of monarch he
would like to be, but am almost certain planning to install Tom Parker
Bowles as an heir is not one of them. If PC did entertain any sort of
dangerous ideas, Parliament could simply remove 'king" Charles and call
the next in line (PW), and that would be the least of their options.
What else could happen? The mind reels at the possibilities, ranging
from removing the Windsors, to abolishing the monarchy all together.

Candide
Breton
2006-06-06 20:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Candide
Post by Aggie
Thanks for your response.
"The circumstances that you describe would require someone
forging the actual registers, which would be phenomenally difficult
to
Post by Aggie
achieve.
Details of marriage registrations appear on sequentially numbered
pages
Post by Aggie
in bound volumes, and are viewable by the public"
Perhaps just forging one copy and destroying the other copies, if
there
Post by Aggie
are other copies, would suffice. And yes, it wouldn't be perfect, but
I
Post by Aggie
imagine that the forgery would not be caught for the first few days,
which should give the public enough time to absorb the information of
a
Post by Aggie
previous royal marriage. Then the forged registrar can be placed, for
"safe-keeping", in the royal vaults.
"Firstly, it would be necessary
to prove that the marriage had taken place before her marriage to
Andrew Parker Bowles, which apparently took place on July 4, 1973"
Yes, I had forgotten that for a moment. But, perhaps that marriage
would then be considered void, and ergo, the marriage between Charles
and Diana considered void. Or they can say that Charles and Camilla
had
Post by Aggie
a divorce in 1973, and that only the Andrew Parker Bowles/Camilla
marriage is invalid.
However, any purported consent
by it is entirely meaningless, since the Royal Marriages Act requires
that consent be obtained from the Queen (and be formally recorded),
or
Post by Aggie
perhaps from Parliament (whose proceedings are of course also
recorded).
The constitution also requires that the marriage be registered in the
church's books, as well as receiving support from the privy council,
in
Post by Aggie
order for him to the heir.
Again, Queen Elizabeth II supporting Tom Parker Bowles for the
second-in-line isn't impossible; remember her animosity towards Diana.
And, if she died, King Charles will have an easier time appointing his
preferred successor.
Aggie
Neither "King" Charles nor any other monarch on the throne of GB has any
such right to "appoint" a successor. Parliament holds all the reins in
any matter relating to the succession and has done so since naming heirs
of the Electress Sophia as heirs to the throne, and also other various
acts in relation to the same matter.
Prince Charles may have some funny ideas about what sort of monarch he
would like to be, but am almost certain planning to install Tom Parker
Bowles as an heir is not one of them. If PC did entertain any sort of
dangerous ideas, Parliament could simply remove 'king" Charles and call
the next in line (PW), and that would be the least of their options.
What else could happen? The mind reels at the possibilities, ranging
from removing the Windsors, to abolishing the monarchy all together.
Candide
Breton
2006-06-06 20:13:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Candide
Neither "King" Charles nor any other monarch on the throne of GB has any
such right to "appoint" a successor. Parliament holds all the reins in
any matter relating to the succession and has done so since naming heirs
of the Electress Sophia as heirs to the throne, and also other various
acts in relation to the same matter.
Prince Charles may have some funny ideas about what sort of monarch he
would like to be, but am almost certain planning to install Tom Parker
Bowles as an heir is not one of them. If PC did entertain any sort of
dangerous ideas, Parliament could simply remove 'king" Charles and call
the next in line (PW), and that would be the least of their options.
What else could happen? The mind reels at the possibilities, ranging
from removing the Windsors, to abolishing the monarchy all together.
Candide
"Aggie" has been pushing this stupid idea for weeks and weeks. She
appears to be someone who can't get past Camilla marrying Charles, and
this thread on TPB is, to me, a deeply sarcastic way of commenting on
their marriage; that since Charles was "allowed" to marry Camilla by
extension this means that something really off the wall, like TPB
acceding, would also be countenanced. If you go thru her AGR threads
look for the one where she suggested that a Sovereign could be cloned
by using the DNA obtain from feces. I concur with others that ATR
should ignore this deeply disturbed woman.

Breton
Aggie
2006-06-06 21:53:19 UTC
Permalink
Truth is stranger than fiction, my friend.

Aggie
t***@comcast.net
2006-06-06 22:49:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Truth is stranger than fiction, my friend.
Aggie
Aggie, sind Sie ein regelwidriger riechender Gestank in den
Nasenlöchern der Alt Gespräch Abgabe und der Alt Klatschabgabe.
J***@yahoo.de
2006-06-28 13:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@comcast.net
Post by Aggie
Truth is stranger than fiction, my friend.
Aggie
Aggie, sind Sie ein regelwidriger riechender Gestank in den
Nasenlöchern der Alt Gespräch Abgabe und der Alt Klatschabgabe.
This is nice.
When translating "royalty", you picked the German word used exclusively
in the financial sense of "(license) fee", never for the (former)
ruling houses of monarchies.

Jörg
Aggie
2006-06-29 04:27:25 UTC
Permalink
He must be a modern royal :-/


Aggie
c***@webtv.net
2006-06-06 22:36:26 UTC
Permalink
Breton wrote:""Aggie" has been pushing this stupid idea for weeks and
weeks. She appears to be someone who can't get past Camilla marrying
Charles, and this thread on TPB is, to me, a deeply sarcastic way of
commenting on their marriage; that since Charles was "allowed" to marry
Camilla by extension this means that something really off the wall, like
TPB acceding, would also be countenanced. If you go thru her AGR threads
look for the one where she suggested that a Sovereign could be cloned by
using the DNA obtain from feces. I concur with others that ATR should
ignore this deeply disturbed woman.
Breton"
--------------------------------------------------
Shhh. Don't give Aggie ideas. Next she'll be posting "Can Tom Parker's
Bowels be King?"
Louis Epstein
2006-06-08 00:54:12 UTC
Permalink
Candide <***@anywhere.com> wrote:
:
:
: "Aggie" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
: news:***@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
:> Thanks for your response.
:>
:> >"The circumstances that you describe would require someone
:> >forging the actual registers, which would be phenomenally difficult
: to
:> >achieve.
:>
:> >Details of marriage registrations appear on sequentially numbered
: pages
:> >in bound volumes, and are viewable by the public"
:>
:>
:> Perhaps just forging one copy and destroying the other copies, if
: there
:> are other copies, would suffice. And yes, it wouldn't be perfect, but
: I
:> imagine that the forgery would not be caught for the first few days,
:> which should give the public enough time to absorb the information of
: a
:> previous royal marriage. Then the forged registrar can be placed, for
:> "safe-keeping", in the royal vaults.
:>
:> "Firstly, it would be necessary
:> to prove that the marriage had taken place before her marriage to
:> Andrew Parker Bowles, which apparently took place on July 4, 1973"
:>
:> Yes, I had forgotten that for a moment. But, perhaps that marriage
:> would then be considered void, and ergo, the marriage between Charles
:> and Diana considered void. Or they can say that Charles and Camilla
: had
:> a divorce in 1973, and that only the Andrew Parker Bowles/Camilla
:> marriage is invalid.
:>
:> >However, any purported consent
:> >by it is entirely meaningless, since the Royal Marriages Act requires
:> >that consent be obtained from the Queen (and be formally recorded),
: or
:> >perhaps from Parliament (whose proceedings are of course also
:> >recorded).
:>
:> The constitution also requires that the marriage be registered in the
:> church's books, as well as receiving support from the privy council,
: in
:> order for him to the heir.
:>
:> Again, Queen Elizabeth II supporting Tom Parker Bowles for the
:> second-in-line isn't impossible; remember her animosity towards Diana.
:> And, if she died, King Charles will have an easier time appointing his
:> preferred successor.
:>
:> Aggie
:
: Neither "King" Charles nor any other monarch on the throne of GB has any
: such right to "appoint" a successor. Parliament holds all the reins in
: any matter relating to the succession and has done so since naming heirs
: of the Electress Sophia as heirs to the throne, and also other various
: acts in relation to the same matter.

Nonsensical as the ravings of Aggie are,
the claims of Parliament are incapable of
relevance regardless of who believes them.

: Prince Charles may have some funny ideas about what sort of monarch he
: would like to be, but am almost certain planning to install Tom Parker
: Bowles as an heir is not one of them. If PC did entertain any sort of
: dangerous ideas, Parliament could simply remove 'king" Charles and call
: the next in line (PW), and that would be the least of their options.
: What else could happen? The mind reels at the possibilities, ranging
: from removing the Windsors, to abolishing the monarchy all together.

The instant it disobeys the will of the Monarch,
Parliament becomes nothing but a criminal gang.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Aggie
2006-06-08 02:04:29 UTC
Permalink
That's right, it is more unlikely that Tom Parker Bowles (TPB) will be
placed on the throne by parliament than it is with the consent and
support of the sovereign.

When I first brought forward this issue, I simply stated that Tom
Parker Bowles needs simply to agitate parliament and motivate them to
back him. I suppose that's still a possibility, but then I came up with
a better possibility, which is constitutionally-sound and more likely
to happen: that Charles declares Tom to be his son.

But people pointed out that it's not enough for Tom to be a biological
son. He needs to be born legitimate.

And so I theorized how Charles and Camilla could have been wed at the
time of TPB's birth. There are two possibilities that I can find:
1) Camilla and Charles were wed BEFORE Camilla married Andrew Parker
Bowles, and thus that second marriage is deemed bigamous. 2) Camilla
and Charles' marriage occurs after Camilla is wed to Andrew Parker
Bowles, and it is found, at that time, that Camilla and Andrew's
marriage was declared null and void by the sovereign, by the church or
by the privy council.

Obviously #1 is more likely than #2. It is far more easier to prove a
marriage happened when it didn't, than it is to prove a marriage that
did happen actually did not happen properly, and was deemed to be such
at the time... and both options require a marriage to be faked between
Camilla and Charles, anyway.

I'm not saying that this did happen - but rather it can be said to have
happened, and perhaps, proven. With forged documents, of course.

Aggie
f***@southernskies.co.uk
2006-06-08 02:22:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
That's right, it is more unlikely that Tom Parker Bowles (TPB) will be
placed on the throne by parliament than it is with the consent and
support of the sovereign.
I suggest that you look up how Parliament makes laws. There's a bit at
the end of the process that you don't appear to be aware of!
Post by Aggie
and it is found, at that time, that Camilla and Andrew's
marriage was declared null and void by the sovereign, by the church or
by the privy council.
Neither the sovereign nor the privy council have any lawful authority
to pronounce on the legality of a marriage between two commoners.
Post by Aggie
It is far more easier to prove a
marriage happened when it didn't, than it is to prove a marriage that
did happen actually did not happen properly
You have that entirely the wrong way round, as various people in Henry
VIII's life would be only too painfully aware of.


There's really no point in dreaming up all sorts of exotic theories
based on procedural irregularities if you don't actually understand how
any of those procedures operate in the first place!
--
AGw.
Aggie
2006-06-08 02:54:24 UTC
Permalink
" suggest that you look up how Parliament makes laws. There's a bit at

the end of the process "

Do you have the name of that Act? And what's the section number?
(3.2.6, A.2.b.iv).

I have reviewed the Royal Marriages Act in preparation.

Aggie
f***@southernskies.co.uk
2006-06-08 03:09:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Do you have the name of that Act?
I referred to the *process* of making laws, not a specific enactment.
--
AGw.
Aggie
2006-06-08 09:24:27 UTC
Permalink
The process of making laws with regards to royal matters is simple.
Usually there is a simple vote, and parliamentarians unanimously
approve whatever has been proposed by sovereign and the aristocrats
behind her.

The end of the approval process for crowning a sovereign rests with the
Archbishops and the church, not with parliament. Is that what you're
referring to?

In any event, all of these bodies would acquiesce, if given the right
circumstances.

Given Tom has a chance of being King, what should England do to stop
it?


Aggie
Louis Epstein
2006-06-08 23:24:32 UTC
Permalink
Aggie <***@gmail.com> wrote:
: Given Tom has a chance of being King,

For values of "chance" above the truly infinitesimal,
this simply is not true!

And given THAT...

: what should England do to stop it?

...nothing is necessary.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Aggie
2006-06-09 19:36:15 UTC
Permalink
Louis, the infinite is a very, very large number. I would even say the
the chance of pigs flying is less than infinitesimal. It almost
certainly will not happen; but there is a slight possibility of it
happening, which makes its odds of happening much better than
infinitesimal.

Some people have asked, why do I write about Tom Parker Bowles? It's
because of people like you.

Don't let the preconceptions of society cloud your view of reality
always. Most clouding is necessary; otherwise we would be very worried
creatures. But don't let that clouding actually make you believe that
something is not possible.

I'll give you another example of this clouded view of reality. We still
live in a nuclear age. In fact, it's been alleged that Iran and other
less-than-democratic nations have nuclear weapons. Surely such a weapon
can strike us. And if it does, you may die.

But do people worry about that? No. Should they? Yes and no. No in that
Ignorance is bliss and I certainly don't worry about these kind of
things almost at all. But yes in that, if nobody paid attention to it,
then we would be more vulnerable to nuclear attack.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist; I'm not one to be convinced that
conspiracies have occurred unless I have definitive, objective and real
proof of it. I'm not a worrier; I don't think about all the many
dangers of the world as I go about my day.

Rather, if I think about it, I'm probably a person who is very vehement
when I think I'm right. And your denial fuels me.

Aggie
f***@southernskies.co.uk
2006-06-09 19:44:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Louis, the infinite is a very, very large number. I would even say the
the chance of pigs flying is less than infinitesimal.
I'm not sure that anything can be "less than infinitesimal"!
Post by Aggie
I'll give you another example of this clouded view of reality. We still
live in a nuclear age. In fact, it's been alleged that Iran and other
less-than-democratic nations have nuclear weapons. Surely such a weapon
can strike us. And if it does, you may die.
I suggest that you learn something about missile ranges...
--
AGw.
Aggie
2006-06-09 23:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Always these insults deprecating my intelligence!

Sure there is something called missile ranges. Sure Iran may or may not
have long-range missiles. Sure they may not pose a large threat to the
western world if they only have short- or mid- range weapons.

But other nations in this world do have long-range nuclear weapons.
This includes Russia and some of the other breakaway Soviet Republics.

We still live under the possibility of being obliterated by nuclear
weapons. I don't worry about it, nor do most people; but thankfully we
do have people who are responsible for it and are worrying about it.

With regards to Tom Parker Bowles, the question remains:
Why would Charles prefer Tom to be an heir as a opposed to William?


Aggie
f***@southernskies.co.uk
2006-06-09 23:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Why would Charles prefer Tom to be an heir as a opposed to William?
He wouldn't. I believe that ends the thread.
--
AGw.
Aggie
2006-06-10 07:13:25 UTC
Permalink
He wouldn't? Freder you are closing your mind off to the possibilities.


Men have been known to some dastrardly things. Families can make them
worse. And royals? Are you kidding me.

Aggie
Louis Epstein
2006-06-17 02:50:42 UTC
Permalink
Aggie <***@gmail.com> wrote:
: He wouldn't? Freder you are closing your mind off to the possibilities.

He's got a realistic sense of what possibilities
are worth discussing...you clearly do not.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Aggie
2006-06-17 19:46:46 UTC
Permalink
What is realistic is what people think may happen

But a possibility is what could happen in reality


Aggie
Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell
2006-06-17 20:30:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
What is realistic is what people think may happen
But a possibility is what could happen in reality
Aggie
And this is neither realistic nor a probability.
And you are not people, but a deranged individual.
Aggie
2006-06-17 23:37:47 UTC
Permalink
It's not a probability, but a possibility.

And while I'm not people or deranged, I'm also not reality; reality
exists on its own. The reality is that almost anything can happen in
this world - that even you could rise above insults to making a
productive contribution to this discussion.

Or is that not probable?

Aggie
Post by Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell
Post by Aggie
What is realistic is what people think may happen
But a possibility is what could happen in reality
Aggie
And this is neither realistic nor a probability.
And you are not people, but a deranged individual.
Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell
2006-06-18 00:22:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
It's not a probability, but a possibility.
No, it is not even in the range of the possible.
Post by Aggie
And while I'm not people or deranged, I'm also not reality; reality
exists on its own. The reality is that almost anything can happen in
this world - that even you could rise above insults to making a
productive contribution to this discussion.
Or is that not probable?
Aggie
Post by Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell
Post by Aggie
What is realistic is what people think may happen
But a possibility is what could happen in reality
Aggie
And this is neither realistic nor a probability.
And you are not people, but a deranged individual.
Aggie
2006-06-18 19:52:51 UTC
Permalink
That's absurd.

If the 20th Century has taught us anything, it's that anything that is
governed by the laws of science is possible. The moon, to deep sea, the
mountains, all have been traversed by humanity.

The only limits of humanity is reality and the laws of science, as well
as the cynicism and defeatism that invariably comes from those hampered
with prejudices and a lack of creativity.

There are even fewer limits in human power relations than there are in
science; and this allows for far more variables. It is an art that has
not yet been discovered by any scientist, and never has; though for
thousands of years, people have written about it, and have come close
to it (Sun Tzu's Art of War, Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince).

Imagine the religious cynics who protested Newton's gravity theory. Or
the ones who maintained that the world is flat, in contrary to Galileo.
You are of those people, Tom.

Don't get me wrong, it's important that we have people who cling on to
old systems; otherwise society would be in utter flux and there would
be much instability.

But that doesn't make the cynics right. They only have control over
what is probable. But the possible, however, only has its limits in
human application.

Aggie
Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell
2006-06-18 22:03:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
That's absurd.
The only thing absurd is YOU.
Post by Aggie
If the 20th Century has taught us anything, it's that anything that is
governed by the laws of science is possible. The moon, to deep sea, the
mountains, all have been traversed by humanity.
The only limits of humanity is reality and the laws of science, as well
as the cynicism and defeatism that invariably comes from those hampered
with prejudices and a lack of creativity.
There are even fewer limits in human power relations than there are in
science; and this allows for far more variables. It is an art that has
not yet been discovered by any scientist, and never has; though for
thousands of years, people have written about it, and have come close
to it (Sun Tzu's Art of War, Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince).
Imagine the religious cynics who protested Newton's gravity theory. Or
the ones who maintained that the world is flat, in contrary to Galileo.
You are of those people, Tom.
Don't get me wrong, it's important that we have people who cling on to
old systems; otherwise society would be in utter flux and there would
be much instability.
But that doesn't make the cynics right. They only have control over
what is probable. But the possible, however, only has its limits in
human application.
Aggie
t***@comcast.net
2006-06-21 04:40:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
It's not a probability, but a possibility.
And while I'm not people or deranged, I'm also not reality; reality
exists on its own. The reality is that almost anything can happen in
this world - that even you could rise above insults to making a
productive contribution to this discussion.
Or is that not probable?
Aggie
In point of fact, It is neither probable nor possible.

A review of the bloodtypes of Charles, Camilla, Andrew, and Tom ( all
of which ARE on records) will show beyond any doubt that Tom cannot
possibly be the son of Charles and Camilla- and this is without ANY DNA
testing.

--
The Vermiantor
Aggie
2006-06-21 10:15:55 UTC
Permalink
Verminator, you must be choking on your words. Remember when the debate
some months ago revolved around whether Tom can successfully claim he
is a biological son? Well you said that that was irrelevant. What's
needed is that his supposed parents (Charles and Camilla) were married
at the time of his birth.

Simply announcing that Charles and Camilla were not only married in
2004, but also 1973, would make Tom the second-in-line to the throne.
Sure those forged documents would need to be produced; but like in war,
the attackers always have the advantage.

The authority of the Queen, or Prince Charles, in announcing something
like this on public television, with a forged marriage certificate,
authentically signed Royal proclamation dated 1973, and church records,
and thus meeting all the constitutional requirements (according to the
Royal Marriages Act) and appearing very authoritative to the stunned
public, would make victory very possible.

Don't underestimate authority figures, gentlemen. You wouldn't believe
how many people out there believe everything they read.

Even the great fanfare over Rooney. Well I've watched England's games
and he seems to be a "cherry-picker", and very unimpressive. Yet the
crowds yell his name, and the companies are eager to have his
endorsement. Soccer, like life, is not a game where the best footballer
wins. It's a game where those who successfully use opportunities win.

Public relations, likewise, is not a game where the most skilled, noble
or honourable person wins, and has the masses chant his name. It's a
game where those who make the public love them wins.

I put it to you that the Queen is loved because of the masses'
insecurities, and there desire for a grand, parental power over them.
Her reign and all reigns rest on their self-desired fealty. The masses
can love (and hate) anybody, as long as they feel that emotional
rollercoaster.

And if the Queen says it, they'll believe it. Even Prince Charles too,
to a certain extent.

Imagine the ways he can play it. He can say, "poor me, I've been hiding
this for so long, because my mother didn't want Camilla/my family
disapproved/it was not legal because she was not of royal blood/I was
young and unsure of myself/I was reclusive and wanted only my love
Camilla to know I'm hers/Camilla's father disapproved so we got married
in secret, but then father found out and he threatened to bludgeon me
with his ceremonial sword, so we kept it a secret/I feared for the
monarchy and didn't want the people to hate me for marrying someone
like Camilla/our courtship was done in isolation, deep within our
estates, and all we ever did was fox hunt and bush wack, and we didn't
want others ruining it, etc.

You take your pick, Verminator.


Aggie
t***@comcast.net
2006-06-21 14:09:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Verminator, you must be choking on your words. Remember when the debate
some months ago revolved around whether Tom can successfully claim he
is a biological son? Well you said that that was irrelevant. What's
needed is that his supposed parents (Charles and Camilla) were married
at the time of his birth.
The very FIRST requirement for ANYONE to be monarch is that they be the
heir of the body of the Electress Sophia and the issue of a lawful and
valid marriage- Period.

As I said- bloodtypes will reveal that Tom is NOT the heir of the body
of the Electress Sophia and thus can NOT be monarch.

--
The Verminator
Sacha
2006-06-21 17:41:28 UTC
Permalink
On 21/6/06 15:09, in article
Post by t***@comcast.net
Post by Aggie
Verminator, you must be choking on your words. Remember when the debate
some months ago revolved around whether Tom can successfully claim he
is a biological son? Well you said that that was irrelevant. What's
needed is that his supposed parents (Charles and Camilla) were married
at the time of his birth.
The very FIRST requirement for ANYONE to be monarch is that they be the
heir of the body of the Electress Sophia and the issue of a lawful and
valid marriage- Period.
As I said- bloodtypes will reveal that Tom is NOT the heir of the body
of the Electress Sophia and thus can NOT be monarch.
--
The Verminator
As a matter of interest, why do you bother to answer 'Aggie'? Your contempt
and 'her' agenda are both so clear that it's hard to understand why you
encourage 'her' to continue to post to these groups and disrupt them.
Because that IS what you're doing. If you need someone to fight with, I
believe there are groups that fulfil that need.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(email address on website)
Aggie
2006-06-21 20:43:56 UTC
Permalink
Also, you're right Verminator that is a requirement to be a descendent
of Sophia, but that's not explicitly biological. Many have alleged that
various Kings of years yonder were born of un-royal fathers. The Royal
Family has never submitted to a DNA analysis of their blood to show
their relations to Sophia, and I suggest to you that they won't. For if
the present Royal Family do not have the appropriate DNA match with
Sophia, then the entire family, including William and Harry, would be
disqualified.

And then the Kingship would go to some very distant relative of the
Royals, who actually is a direct descendant of Sophia... but we won't
go there :-/

Aggie
Aggie
2006-06-21 10:18:42 UTC
Permalink
Also, it can be said that the bloodtypes were inaccurate or
deliberately made-up when they were recorded 30 years ago, and that Tom
has conducted another blood test, and a trusty doctor (willing to say
so on camera, of course) has declared him to be Charles' blood type.

What are their respective blood types by the way?

Aggie
Aggie
2006-06-21 10:21:49 UTC
Permalink
I found out Prince Charles' blood type. It's O, the most common in the
world.

See: http://www.blood.co.uk/pages/secrets_in_blood.html

Aggie
t***@comcast.net
2006-06-21 14:13:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
I found out Prince Charles' blood type. It's O, the most common in the
world.
See: http://www.blood.co.uk/pages/secrets_in_blood.html
Aggie
And that info alone should tell you why Tom can never be the Heir of
the body of Sophia.
Aggie
2006-06-21 20:33:40 UTC
Permalink
Verminator, we don't know if Tom Parker Bowles has blood type O. It is
apparently the most common blood type, so him having this blood type is
not out of the question.

Do we know what his blood type is? Surely if it's so easy to locate,
you'll be able to find out?


Aggie
t***@comcast.net
2006-06-21 23:24:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Verminator, we don't know if Tom Parker Bowles has blood type O. It is
apparently the most common blood type, so him having this blood type is
not out of the question.
Do we know what his blood type is? Surely if it's so easy to locate,
you'll be able to find out?
Aggie
Let's just say that Tom's bloodtype negates ANY possibility of either
of his parents having type O blood.

--
The Verminator
Q
2006-06-22 01:23:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@comcast.net
Post by Aggie
Verminator, we don't know if Tom Parker Bowles has blood type O. It is
apparently the most common blood type, so him having this blood type is
not out of the question.
Do we know what his blood type is? Surely if it's so easy to locate,
you'll be able to find out?
Aggie
Let's just say that Tom's bloodtype negates ANY possibility of either
of his parents having type O blood.
How is that possible? -- Q
Post by t***@comcast.net
--
The Verminator
t***@comcast.net
2006-06-22 01:49:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Q
Post by t***@comcast.net
Post by Aggie
Verminator, we don't know if Tom Parker Bowles has blood type O. It is
apparently the most common blood type, so him having this blood type is
not out of the question.
Do we know what his blood type is? Surely if it's so easy to locate,
you'll be able to find out?
Aggie
Let's just say that Tom's bloodtype negates ANY possibility of either
of his parents having type O blood.
How is that possible? -- Q
Because of the way bloodgroups combine:

Type A= (A+A) or (A+0)
Type B= (B+B) or (B+0)
Type AB= (A+B)
Type O= (0+0)

Children of Type O people can only be Type A (A+0), Type B (B+0), or
Type 0 (0+0). It is impossible for someone with Type AB to have a
parent with Type O blood.

--
The Verminator
Q
2006-06-22 01:58:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@comcast.net
Post by Q
Post by t***@comcast.net
Post by Aggie
Verminator, we don't know if Tom Parker Bowles has blood type O. It is
apparently the most common blood type, so him having this blood type is
not out of the question.
Do we know what his blood type is? Surely if it's so easy to locate,
you'll be able to find out?
Aggie
Let's just say that Tom's bloodtype negates ANY possibility of either
of his parents having type O blood.
How is that possible? -- Q
Type A= (A+A) or (A+0)
Type B= (B+B) or (B+0)
Type AB= (A+B)
Type O= (0+0)
Children of Type O people can only be Type A (A+0), Type B (B+0), or
Type 0 (0+0). It is impossible for someone with Type AB to have a
parent with Type O blood.
That's very interesting. Thank you.

Wandering from the topic a bit, do you know whether it is possible for two
RH-positive people to have an RH-negative child? -- Q
Post by t***@comcast.net
--
The Verminator
t***@comcast.net
2006-06-22 02:06:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Q
That's very interesting. Thank you.
Wandering from the topic a bit, do you know whether it is possible for two
RH-positive people to have an RH-negative child? -- Q
See this link:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv1-adbe&p=%22RH%2b+parents%22+%22RH-+child%22

--
The Verminator
t***@comcast.net
2006-06-22 02:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@comcast.net
Post by Q
That's very interesting. Thank you.
Wandering from the topic a bit, do you know whether it is possible for two
RH-positive people to have an RH-negative child? -- Q
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv1-adbe&p=%22RH%2b+parents%22+%22RH-+child%22
--
The Verminator
Sorry- Full URL is:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv1-adbe&p=%22RH%2b
+parents%22+%22RH-+child%22

--
The Verminator
Q
2006-06-22 02:58:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@comcast.net
Post by t***@comcast.net
Post by Q
That's very interesting. Thank you.
Wandering from the topic a bit, do you know whether it is possible for two
RH-positive people to have an RH-negative child? -- Q
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv1-adbe&p=%22RH%2b+parents%22+%
22RH-+child%22
Post by t***@comcast.net
Post by t***@comcast.net
--
The Verminator
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv1-adbe&p=%22RH%2b
+parents%22+%22RH-+child%22
Thanks. This helps a lot.

Would all the children of any two parents have the same blood type? Or to
return to the topic, is it possible for Tom and Laura Parker-Bowles to have
different blood types -- assuming they have the same parents? -- Q
Post by t***@comcast.net
--
The Verminator
Aggie
2006-06-22 04:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Excellent point, Verminator.

Tell me though, are you sure Tom Parker Bowles has type AB blood?

Aggie
Aggie
2006-06-22 04:46:08 UTC
Permalink
Also, there is apparently a rare phenomenon known as the Bombay
phenotype, which can make a type AB child from a type O parent ( ormore
specifically, a parent who always tests as type O).
See link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_phenotype#Bombay_phenotype

There are apparently some rare examples of this occurring. This posting
below is unscientific, but it may help as a case study:
http://www.dadamo.com/forum/archivea/admin_config.pl?read=90338

Aggie
Aggie
2006-06-23 04:27:30 UTC
Permalink
Q, Verminator, no response?


Aggie
Aggie
2006-06-23 09:48:52 UTC
Permalink
Trustworthy, honourable Tom Parker Bowles, who would never do anything
to harm anyone:

"As well as being Charles' stepson, Tom is equally well known for his
past drug abuse. He was shamed on the front cover of British newspapers
in May 1999 after taking drugs at the Cannes Film Festival. The News Of
The World newspaper ran the front cover headline "This is Camilla's son
high on coke" along with a photo. He was overheard by reporters
arranging a drug supply to a society girl and recommending a drug den
he had visited. His employers and the reason why he was at Cannes,
Dennis Davidson Associates, said that they stood by him and that drug
taking was "part of our life in general"."


Aggie
Aggie
2006-06-25 03:39:43 UTC
Permalink
Given the possibility that the "Bombay phenotype" can explain to the
press why Charles has a different blood type than Tom, supposing Tom
has the blood type AB as you profess, does that address this hurdle
that you forsee, Verminator?


Aggie
Aggie
2006-06-28 00:48:36 UTC
Permalink
Verminator.... oh Verminator.... won't you come out dear?
Post by Aggie
Given the possibility that the "Bombay phenotype" can explain to the
press why Charles has a different blood type than Tom, supposing Tom
has the blood type AB as you profess, does that address this hurdle
that you forsee, Verminator?
Aggie
t***@comcast.net
2006-06-21 14:11:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Also, it can be said that the bloodtypes were inaccurate or
deliberately made-up when they were recorded 30 years ago, and that Tom
has conducted another blood test, and a trusty doctor (willing to say
so on camera, of course) has declared him to be Charles' blood type.
What are their respective blood types by the way?
Aggie
LOL!!

Aggie- do you have any idea on how many documents at different dates
their blood types have been recorded?? !!

It would take years just to locate all the copies of those records.

--
The Verminator
Big Dickie
2006-06-20 12:37:44 UTC
Permalink
Aggie you seem like a fun girl, have you ever considered taking up lawn
bowls ?

If not why not ?

Big Dickie
Post by Aggie
Louis, the infinite is a very, very large number. I would even say the
the chance of pigs flying is less than infinitesimal. It almost
certainly will not happen; but there is a slight possibility of it
happening, which makes its odds of happening much better than
infinitesimal.
Some people have asked, why do I write about Tom Parker Bowles? It's
because of people like you.
Don't let the preconceptions of society cloud your view of reality
always. Most clouding is necessary; otherwise we would be very worried
creatures. But don't let that clouding actually make you believe that
something is not possible.
I'll give you another example of this clouded view of reality. We still
live in a nuclear age. In fact, it's been alleged that Iran and other
less-than-democratic nations have nuclear weapons. Surely such a weapon
can strike us. And if it does, you may die.
But do people worry about that? No. Should they? Yes and no. No in that
Ignorance is bliss and I certainly don't worry about these kind of
things almost at all. But yes in that, if nobody paid attention to it,
then we would be more vulnerable to nuclear attack.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist; I'm not one to be convinced that
conspiracies have occurred unless I have definitive, objective and real
proof of it. I'm not a worrier; I don't think about all the many
dangers of the world as I go about my day.
Rather, if I think about it, I'm probably a person who is very vehement
when I think I'm right. And your denial fuels me.
Aggie
Aggie
2006-06-20 21:35:53 UTC
Permalink
I bust balls all the time.

Aggie
Aggie
2006-06-21 04:03:54 UTC
Permalink
In fact one can say that's my chief preoccupation on this
newsgroup..... ;-)


Aggie
t***@comcast.net
2006-06-21 04:22:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
I bust balls all the time.
Aggie
OH PLEASE !

Mary Poppins in more of a ball buster that even you in your little
warped mind could ever hope to be !

--
The Verminator
Big Dickie
2006-06-19 08:56:28 UTC
Permalink
Aggie you strike me as a fun girl.......have you ever considered taking
up lawn bowls ?

If not why not ?

Big Dickie
Post by Aggie
That's right, it is more unlikely that Tom Parker Bowles (TPB) will be
placed on the throne by parliament than it is with the consent and
support of the sovereign.
When I first brought forward this issue, I simply stated that Tom
Parker Bowles needs simply to agitate parliament and motivate them to
back him. I suppose that's still a possibility, but then I came up with
a better possibility, which is constitutionally-sound and more likely
to happen: that Charles declares Tom to be his son.
But people pointed out that it's not enough for Tom to be a biological
son. He needs to be born legitimate.
And so I theorized how Charles and Camilla could have been wed at the
1) Camilla and Charles were wed BEFORE Camilla married Andrew Parker
Bowles, and thus that second marriage is deemed bigamous. 2) Camilla
and Charles' marriage occurs after Camilla is wed to Andrew Parker
Bowles, and it is found, at that time, that Camilla and Andrew's
marriage was declared null and void by the sovereign, by the church or
by the privy council.
Obviously #1 is more likely than #2. It is far more easier to prove a
marriage happened when it didn't, than it is to prove a marriage that
did happen actually did not happen properly, and was deemed to be such
at the time... and both options require a marriage to be faked between
Camilla and Charles, anyway.
I'm not saying that this did happen - but rather it can be said to have
happened, and perhaps, proven. With forged documents, of course.
Aggie
Aggie
2006-06-19 09:00:08 UTC
Permalink
Absolutely. I bust balls all the time.


Aggie
Aggie
2006-06-19 09:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell
The only thing absurd is YOU.
The absurd is absolutely nonsensical and incomprensible. It is not
understandable, and certainly not logical. The fact that you are
responding at all to my messages means you have an idea of what I am
saying.

I encourage you though to read past the first line. You wouldn't want
to judge a book by its cover.

Aggie

------------------

If the 20th Century has taught us anything, it's that anything that is
governed by the laws of science is possible. The moon, to deep sea, the

mountains, all have been traversed by humanity.


The only limits of humanity is reality and the laws of science, as well

as the cynicism and defeatism that invariably comes from those hampered

with prejudices and a lack of creativity.


There are even fewer limits in human power relations than there are in
science; and this allows for far more variables. It is an art that has
not yet been discovered by any scientist, and never has; though for
thousands of years, people have written about it, and have come close
to it (Sun Tzu's Art of War, Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince).


Imagine the religious cynics who protested Newton's gravity theory. Or
the ones who maintained that the world is flat, in contrary to Galileo.

You are of those people, Tom.


Don't get me wrong, it's important that we have people who cling on to
old systems; otherwise society would be in utter flux and there would
be much instability.


But that doesn't make the cynics right. They only have control over
what is probable. But the possible, however, merely has its limits in
human application.


Aggie
t***@comcast.net
2006-06-06 22:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Thanks for your response.
"The circumstances that you describe would require someone
forging the actual registers, which would be phenomenally difficult to
achieve.
Details of marriage registrations appear on sequentially numbered pages
in bound volumes, and are viewable by the public"
Perhaps just forging one copy and destroying the other copies, if there
are other copies, would suffice. And yes, it wouldn't be perfect, but I
imagine that the forgery would not be caught for the first few days,
which should give the public enough time to absorb the information of a
previous royal marriage. Then the forged registrar can be placed, for
"safe-keeping", in the royal vaults.
"Firstly, it would be necessary
to prove that the marriage had taken place before her marriage to
Andrew Parker Bowles, which apparently took place on July 4, 1973"
Yes, I had forgotten that for a moment. But, perhaps that marriage
would then be considered void, and ergo, the marriage between Charles
and Diana considered void. Or they can say that Charles and Camilla had
a divorce in 1973, and that only the Andrew Parker Bowles/Camilla
marriage is invalid.
However, any purported consent
by it is entirely meaningless, since the Royal Marriages Act requires
that consent be obtained from the Queen (and be formally recorded), or
perhaps from Parliament (whose proceedings are of course also
recorded).
The constitution also requires that the marriage be registered in the
church's books, as well as receiving support from the privy council, in
order for him to the heir.
Again, Queen Elizabeth II supporting Tom Parker Bowles for the
second-in-line isn't impossible; remember her animosity towards Diana.
And, if she died, King Charles will have an easier time appointing his
preferred successor.
Aggie
Aggie, vous êtes une puanteur sentante fétide dans les narines de la
redevance d'entretien d'alt et de la redevance de bavardage d'alt.
j***@yahoo.com
2006-06-07 01:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Questions pertaining to this hypothetical scenario remind me of the
speculation surrounding King George III -- and his presumed marriage
(in 1759, one year prior to his accession to the throne) to some "Fair
Quaker" Hannah Lightfoot.

Records surrounding her person are highly vague and uncertain -- and
the marital documents have proven to be a forgery. That being said, IF
they were authentic (we're talking about a union contracted prior to
the 1772 Royal Marriages Acts; hence, it would have been canonically
and legally valid), then his "official" marriage (in 1761, to Princess
Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz) would actually have been bigamous.

This, of course, would set up a major intrigue -- in which some
pretender could claim the British sovereignty. But I realize that the
whole account is phony ...
Post by f***@southernskies.co.uk
Hardly relevant. The succession is determined by law, not preference.
--
AGw.
t***@comcast.net
2006-06-07 01:58:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@yahoo.com
Questions pertaining to this hypothetical scenario remind me of the
speculation surrounding King George III -- and his presumed marriage
(in 1759, one year prior to his accession to the throne) to some "Fair
Quaker" Hannah Lightfoot.
Records surrounding her person are highly vague and uncertain -- and
the marital documents have proven to be a forgery. That being said, IF
they were authentic (we're talking about a union contracted prior to
the 1772 Royal Marriages Acts; hence, it would have been canonically
and legally valid), then his "official" marriage (in 1761, to Princess
Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz) would actually have been bigamous.
This, of course, would set up a major intrigue -- in which some
pretender could claim the British sovereignty. But I realize that the
whole account is phony ...
Post by f***@southernskies.co.uk
Hardly relevant. The succession is determined by law, not preference.
--
AGw.
Maybe Tom could claim to be a descendant of this union and lay claim to
the throne!
<HUGE GRIN!>

--
The Verminator
Aggie
2006-06-07 10:48:10 UTC
Permalink
It's not a question of phonyness; it's a question of effectiveness.
This Hannah Lightfoot had the opportunity, but was not able to spin the
state machinery in her interests. Unlike Camilla.

"(Aggie) appears to be someone who can't get past Camilla marrying
Charles, and this thread on TPB is, to me, a deeply sarcastic way of
commenting on their marriage;"

To be honest with you, I was rather amused at Camilla and Charles
getting married, and was especially happy to hear that Camilla will be
Queen, as I had predicted it before the engagement was announced. I
like Camilla, actually.

" that since Charles was "allowed" to marry
Camilla by extension this means that something really off the wall,
like
TPB acceding, would also be countenanced. "

Yes, that's the point.

"If you go thru her AGR threads
look for the one where she suggested that a Sovereign could be cloned
by
using the DNA obtain from feces."

The purpose of this discussion is amusement. The possibility that a
turd can be King is funny to me. That's not saying that it can't
happen; and it probably won't. But with the coming technologies of the
future, it's a possibility. I have a picture of people bowing before a
turd, very funny! Don't you think?

Aggie
Nimrod
2006-06-19 22:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
The purpose of this discussion is amusement. The possibility that a
turd can be King is funny to me. That's not saying that it can't
happen; and it probably won't. But with the coming technologies of the
future, it's a possibility. I have a picture of people bowing before a
turd, very funny! Don't you think?
People bow before turds all the time... in Republican countries!

As for this line, what absolute nonsense! The laws governing
succession are fairly well-defined. It is NOT down to DNA alone... but
through constitutional convention. By the time scientific advancement
enables us to clone a human from such genetic material... the case will
be wholly legitimised beyoind all doubt that we need a traditionalist
monarchy more than ever before amid such souless science!
Aggie
2006-06-20 10:38:30 UTC
Permalink
There is no soul, only the will to power.


Aggie
Aggie
2006-06-07 10:49:35 UTC
Permalink
"Next she'll be posting "Can Tom Parker's
Bowels be King?""

Funny!


Aggie
Strap on Dickie
2006-06-29 07:41:06 UTC
Permalink
Aggie some good person a week or so ago stated that you were slightly
unhinged. Can you recall who said that ?

Strap on Dickie
Post by Aggie
"Next she'll be posting "Can Tom Parker's
Bowels be King?""
Funny!
Aggie
Aggie
2006-06-30 02:21:48 UTC
Permalink
To the contrary, I'm not unhinged; I'm strapless.

Aggie

Gillian White
2006-06-07 02:09:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@yahoo.com
Records surrounding her person are highly vague and uncertain -- and
the marital documents have proven to be a forgery. That being said, IF
they were authentic (we're talking about a union contracted prior to
the 1772 Royal Marriages Acts; hence, it would have been canonically
and legally valid), then his "official" marriage (in 1761, to Princess
Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz) would actually have been bigamous.
Not quite correct, for two reasons :

1. Hannah Lightfoot was already married to someone else at the time, so her
'union' with George would not even have been legal in the first place.

2. Hannah Lightfoot died two years before George married Charlotte, so he
could not possibly have committed bigamy himself.

Gillian
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...