• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Charles III's coronation

Re the idea of "President Johnson". In what way did the queen restrict Boris in any way? He lied to the house, he lied to the queen and there were zero consequences. He put lie to the Royalist claim that a monarch is a brake on executive power.
 
zooterkin said:
Not according to wikipedia.. Queen Mary preferred not to use the title, but it goes back to 1660, apparently.

Seriously, as much as it matters, I think erwinl is correct, Camilla would just be the queen dowager.
Click to expand...

Whilst Queen May of Teck was given the title, it was only honorary, she was never in the line of succession, as for her 'preferring not to use the title' this is likely a polite way of saying she couldn't as it would cause confusion. Just as it is said Princess Anne 'chose' not to give her kids titles. Prince Andrew's kids only got titles because he had a massive strop over it and being the Queen's favourite son, she gave into him. (Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.)

George V died on 20 January 1936, after his physician, Lord Dawson of Penn, gave him an injection of morphine and cocaine that may have hastened his death.[40] Queen Mary's eldest son ascended the throne as Edward VIII. She was then to be known as Her Majesty Queen Mary.
Click to expand...

Likewise, Camilla is not in the line of succession either (nor Kate) the Sovereign, now Charles, can award any title he likes on the favoured but in the case of all non-succession line wives, the titles are only via marriage to their husbands. Should the hereditary title holder divorce or die, then they revert to, for example, Princess Kate, would become Kate, Princess of Wales, or Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

On her kids birth certificates Kate put as her occupation, 'Princess of the realm' (or similar), so Meghan simply copied Kate and did the same.

However, prince or princess is a title from birth for the offspring of the monarch. Their wives and husbands only have courtesy titles.
 
Wudang said:
Re the idea of "President Johnson". In what way did the queen restrict Boris in any way? He lied to the house, he lied to the queen and there were zero consequences. He put lie to the Royalist claim that a monarch is a brake on executive power.
Click to expand...

The difference is, the members of his party could kick him out with a vote of no confidence. Thank goodness there is no guarantee that a rogue PM can stay for a fixed term of office.

At present, the PM has no dominion over the armed forces and a large part of the establishment (unlike the US President).

Remember, all MP's have to swear allegiance to the Sovereign so they are effectively prohibited from bring anti-monarchy bills, which the monarch has had no hesitation in secretly striking out behind the scenes.
 
catsmate said:
Exactly.

Why not stick it in a single volume and make it hard to alter.
Click to expand...

What's the point? The US has a written one that's hard to alter, but that doesn't matter because whoever's in power at the moment can simply interpret it to mean whatever they like.
 
Vixen said:
The difference is, the members of his party could kick him out with a vote of no confidence. Thank goodness there is no guarantee that a rogue PM can stay for a fixed term of office.

At present, the PM has no dominion over the armed forces and a large part of the establishment (unlike the US President).

Remember, all MP's have to swear allegiance to the Sovereign so they are effectively prohibited from bring anti-monarchy bills, which the monarch has had no hesitation in secretly striking out behind the scenes.
Click to expand...

This is not an answer to the question : "In what way did the queen restrict Boris in any way?"
 
Vixen said:
Whilst Queen May of Teck was given the title, it was only honorary, she was never in the line of succession,
Click to expand...
Er, yes, that's exactly why she was given the title, Queen Mother, the same as our previous queen's mother. Who suggested the title had anything to do with succession?

as for her 'preferring not to use the title' this is likely a polite way of saying she couldn't as it would cause confusion.
Click to expand...
What confusion would it have caused?
 
catsmate said:
Exactly.

Why not stick it in a single volume and make it hard to alter.
Click to expand...

I think being in a country that has a non-codified constitution it gives us a different outlook and I think a more realistic outlook. There is no state that is governed by their codified constituion, they are all governed by the laws that are passed, the court decisions, the parliamentary procedures and so on.

When you talk about a country's constitution you are (unless in an academic setting) more than likely talking about how a country is governed, which isn't by the text of the constitution.
 
Vixen said:
The difference is, the members of his party could kick him out with a vote of no confidence. Thank goodness there is no guarantee that a rogue PM can stay for a fixed term of office.

At present, the PM has no dominion over the armed forces and a large part of the establishment (unlike the US President).

Remember, all MP's have to swear allegiance to the Sovereign so they are effectively prohibited from bring anti-monarchy bills, which the monarch has had no hesitation in secretly striking out behind the scenes.
Click to expand...

Of course they do. Who ordered the armada down to the Falklands? Who finances and decides what the armed forces will do etc.

All the swearing stuff is the theatre of the country.
 
Wudang said:
This is not an answer to the question : "In what way did the queen restrict Boris in any way?"
Click to expand...

As all conversations between the monarch and the serving Prime Minister is confidential, it doesn't follow that the sovereign has no clout. It is a common misconception that 'the Queen did not get involved in politics' when by gosh, she jolly well did!!! For example, keeping out Rab Butler after MacMillan resigned in 1963, at his request. When Gordon Brown advised he couldn't form a government the Queen with the machinations of Lord Geidt brought about the Cameron-Clegg leadership. The Queen's predecessor George VI was tricked by Asquith (IIRC) into appointing a whole bunch of Liberal peers into the House of Lords to swing political votes.

Whilst we cannot know whether Her Maj 'restricted Boris in any way' I am quite sure she pulled strings, just as she did with Thatcher, whom she hated.
 
zooterkin said:
Er, yes, that's exactly why she was given the title, Queen Mother, the same as our previous queen's mother. Who suggested the title had anything to do with succession?


What confusion would it have caused?
Click to expand...

I was referencing back to the original question as to whether Camila would become Queen if Charles died: the distinction between hereditary titles and line of succession and the ones conferred as a favour by the reigning monarch. People unfamiliar with the way the RF are titled can be forgiven for thinking Camilla the 'Queen' is equal in status to Charles the King. Therein lies the potential confusion for our cousins over the pond.
 
Darat said:
Of course they do. Who ordered the armada down to the Falklands? Who finances and decides what the armed forces will do etc.

All the swearing stuff is the theatre of the country.
Click to expand...

Sure, Thatcher will have been 'advised' by the Armed Forces Intelligence Services to fight for the Falklands but the reality is, in any war, it is usually the Generals who call the shots. The Monarch is head of the armed forces. The idea the Prime Minister is in charge is largely an illusion when it comes to anything that affects the sovereignty of the UK.
 
Vixen said:
I was referencing back to the original question as to whether Camila would become Queen if Charles died: the distinction between hereditary titles and line of succession and the ones conferred as a favour by the reigning monarch. People unfamiliar with the way the RF are titled can be forgiven for thinking Camilla the 'Queen' is equal in status to Charles the King. Therein lies the potential confusion for our cousins over the pond.
Click to expand...

That question had already been answered, and you were replying to a completely different post, so it was not possible to tell that's what you were doing.
 
Camilla won't be queen after Charles dies because the "accident" William is arranging will take them both out at once. I know what you're thinking: what title will they put on the tomb? She won't have one: William will have her body thrown into his secret alligator lagoon. That will insure she can't rise again as she has several times before.
 
The Atheist said:
And Charles certainly fits that bill.
Click to expand...

I know Charles is inbred and all, but it’s still a pretty good effort to get the very best education available, have so many privileges, never need to get his hands dirty and still be so breathtakingly dim.
 
The Atheist said:
My main point about Camilla is that anyone who preferred her over the delightful and delightfully attractive woman that Diana was, is a complete idiot.

And Charles certainly fits that bill.
Click to expand...

Meh, tastes differ and looks aren't everything. Charles actually knew Diana personally so, idiot or not, his was an informed choice. For all we know, Camilla is a demon in the sack, or Diana had terrible body odor, or maybe Charles has a fetish for neck wattles and Camilla can flare hers out like that dinosaur in Jurassic Park.
 
Vixen said:
As all conversations between the monarch and the serving Prime Minister is confidential, it doesn't follow that the sovereign has no clout. It is a common misconception that 'the Queen did not get involved in politics' when by gosh, she jolly well did!!! For example, keeping out Rab Butler after MacMillan resigned in 1963, at his request. When Gordon Brown advised he couldn't form a government the Queen with the machinations of Lord Geidt brought about the Cameron-Clegg leadership. The Queen's predecessor George VI was tricked by Asquith (IIRC) into appointing a whole bunch of Liberal peers into the House of Lords to swing political votes.

Whilst we cannot know whether Her Maj 'restricted Boris in any way' I am quite sure she pulled strings, just as she did with Thatcher, whom she hated. No.
Click to expand...

FTFY.
 
... or: Diana was histerical, demanding and toxic person as far as personal relationships are concerned, while Camilla is pretty easy-going ....
 
What happens if the official line of succession is done in? Does England go monarchless? Is there a point at which I -- a random dufus on the internet -- have a shot? Or am I warming up my Death Nozzle in vain?
 
Ryan O'Dine said:
What happens if the official line of succession is done in? Does England go monarchless? Is there a point at which I -- a random dufus on the internet -- have a shot? Or am I warming up my Death Nozzle in vain?
Click to expand...

The line is huge. If there were (say) a huge explosion that did for most of them then someone like Prince Andrew (not invited to the explosion) would be next in line.
 
GlennB said:
The line is huge. If there were (say) a huge explosion that did for most of them then someone like Prince Andrew (not invited to the explosion) would be next in line.
Click to expand...

I think someone did a chain that had something like 3000 people on it.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/culture...ronation-as-he-is-not-grounded-in-our-culture

Aka Numpty cannot stop saying pretty much racist things.

So, how does Starkey explain thoroughly British born and bred white boys like me, coming from long lines of whey-faced Brits going back into the mists of time (OK some ancestry from elsewhere, but closer than Germany) being somewhat less than uninterested in the coronating of Chucky W? Let alone active hostility?
 
GlennB said:
The line is huge. If there were (say) a huge explosion that did for most of them then someone like Prince Andrew (not invited to the explosion) would be next in line.
Click to expand...

Wiki shows the main 62 people in line (Andrew is number 8).

"No official, complete version of the line of succession is maintained. The exact number, in more remote collateral lines, of the people who would be eligible is uncertain. In 2001, American genealogist William Addams Reitwiesner compiled a list of 4,973 living descendants of the Electress Sophia in order of succession without omitting Roman Catholics.[3] When updated in January 2011, the list included 5,753.[4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_British_throne
 
Carrot Flower King said:
it's Monarchist Apologist Argument 2A: if you don't want the royals you MUST want President Whoeverisunpopularnow (it was Tony Blair for ages).

But so many steps, as you say, are missing, beginning with why do we need a head of state? And ignores voting for someone else...

Odd how across the Irish Sea they seem to manage to have a whole bunch of presidents who are viewed positively and are not in any way unpopular ex-politicians...
Click to expand...

Sometimes they happen to be politicians that were unpopular at some stage prior to their election. The only real scandal we've had with a President was when the then Minister for Defence, that scrote Donegan, lambasted Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh and Cosgrove, the then Taoiseach failed to do his duty in not sacking Donegan.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...h-of-loyalty-abhorrent-says-jonathan-dimbleby

So, if, as Dimbleby says, Chucky finds the oath of allegiance "abhorrent" why hasn't he told Welby to shut the **** up?

And this bit - A Lambeth Palace spokesperson told reporters earlier this week: “Oaths and commitments of allegiance are very much commonplace all over the country, from parliaments and assemblies to the church, police, armed forces, citizenship ceremonies and even in scouts and guiding.” - is purest bovine faecal matter. I'm in my mid-60s and have never, ever at any point been asked to spout any oath of allegiance to Brenda or anyone in the clan. Mebbe my dad did during his National Service. May happen sometimes, but "very much commonplace" - just no.
 
Carrot Flower King said:
https://www.theguardian.com/culture...ronation-as-he-is-not-grounded-in-our-culture

Aka Numpty cannot stop saying pretty much racist things.

So, how does Starkey explain thoroughly British born and bred white boys like me, coming from long lines of whey-faced Brits going back into the mists of time (OK some ancestry from elsewhere, but closer than Germany) being somewhat less than uninterested in the coronating of Chucky W? Let alone active hostility?
Click to expand...

Pah - I call a pox on all these newcomers to our shores.
 
My coronation tat has arrived. The faint-hearted, look away now.


52872271151_92ed1d19d2_n.jpg
 
Another fuss brewing! It's now reported that the Dalek Supreme will not be attending because security concerns over its laser arm. It maintains its arm is a cultural and religious expression and that being asked to remove it for the ceremony is a hate crime on level with extermination. Charles's Red Guards say it's simply security to ban weaponry in the temple, but critics have pointed out Charles has long been a close friend of Davros since they roomed together at ballet school. Davros and the Dalek Supreme have been enemies since their highly contentious, highly public divorce in 1975. Charles is clearly being influenced and playing favorites despite the risk of international incidents and unpopularity backlash. The Dalek Supreme is beloved in its home country and the Dalek media is blasting Charles.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Another fuss brewing! It's now reported that the Dalek Supreme will not be attending because security concerns over its laser arm. It maintains its arm is a cultural and religious expression and that being asked to remove it for the ceremony is a hate crime on level with extermination. Charles's Red Guards say it's simply security to ban weaponry in the temple, but critics have pointed out Charles has long been a close friend of Davros since they roomed together at ballet school. Davros and the Dalek Supreme have been enemies since their highly contentious, highly public divorce in 1975. Charles is clearly being influenced and playing favorites despite the risk of international incidents and unpopularity backlash. The Dalek Supreme is beloved in its home country and the Dalek media is blasting Charles.
Click to expand...

This is probably a good time for the Cyberleader to capitalise on the controversy to arrange a deal to import Cybermat meat to he UK tariff free. Talks broke down when Liz Truss was in charge of negotiations because she apparently found the Cyberleader "too emotional".
 
TragicMonkey said:
What's the point? The US has a written one that's hard to alter, but that doesn't matter because whoever's in power at the moment can simply interpret it to mean whatever they like.
Click to expand...

The US is something of an exception. It's the only country with a constitution that's not a dictatorship which doesn't abide by its clauses.

To be honest, that's largely because it didn't stray far enough from 18th century English jurisprudence.
 
Darat said:
I think being in a country that has a non-codified constitution it gives us a different outlook and I think a more realistic outlook. There is no state that is governed by their codified constituion, they are all governed by the laws that are passed, the court decisions, the parliamentary procedures and so on.

When you talk about a country's constitution you are (unless in an academic setting) more than likely talking about how a country is governed, which isn't by the text of the constitution.
Click to expand...

Given the last number of decades of governmental lawlessness, realistic isn't exactly the right word.
 
Carrot Flower King said:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...h-of-loyalty-abhorrent-says-jonathan-dimbleby

So, if, as Dimbleby says, Chucky finds the oath of allegiance "abhorrent" why hasn't he told Welby to shut the **** up?

And this bit - A Lambeth Palace spokesperson told reporters earlier this week: “Oaths and commitments of allegiance are very much commonplace all over the country, from parliaments and assemblies to the church, police, armed forces, citizenship ceremonies and even in scouts and guiding.” - is purest bovine faecal matter. I'm in my mid-60s and have never, ever at any point been asked to spout any oath of allegiance to Brenda or anyone in the clan. Mebbe my dad did during his National Service. May happen sometimes, but "very much commonplace" - just no.
Click to expand...

Apparently people applying for naturalisation as British citizens do have to take the oath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom