Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 41
Thanks Tree76Thanks

Thread: Fucking Royal Wedding

  1. #31
    One
    One is offline
    10 Year Survivor One's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    10,304
    Thanks
    7993

    From
    ----> X <----
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo2 View Post
    Lol - do you? Well, I find the following statement offensive in the extreme - not only because it shows monumental ignorance, but because it is obviously meant to be gratuitously offensive.



    There is no such thing today as a British Subject - historically, a British subject was any person either born or naturalised within the United Kingdom or British Empire colonies and dominions, and the British Nationality Act of 1948 enabled the Empire's dominions to adopt their own separate citizenship while retaining the common status of a British subject. After January 1982, the term became officially redundant.

    But the UK has been a Parliamentary Democracy with a Constitutional Monarchy providing the Head of State since the Restoration of 1660, so not since the days of the Absolute Monarchy of Charles I, have British citizens been subjects. And even then Magna Carta kept the worst Royal excesses at bay.

    I am a British Citizen who wouldn't dream of demeaning the status of US Citizens - or those of any other nation.

    Your posts appear to be those of an ill-mannered, ill-educated, and poorly-informed nationalistic buffoon, and I am not entirely surprised that they indicate support for what passes for your Head of State.
    Leo2 laying the smack down.
    I love it
    Thanks from Tedminator, PACE, Friday13 and 2 others

  2. #32
    Veteran Member Dr.Knuckles's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    100,703
    Thanks
    8658

    From
    Vancouver
    I’m not comfortable with how William allows himself to be portrayed as a celebrity. They are not celebrities. They are future heads of state. Their role may someday involve telling voters to stuff it, dissolving a government, or otherwise pissing odd millions of people. At that time you don’t want to be confused with a Kardashian.

    Now Harry’s marrying an actual celebrity. Her job is being a celebrity.

    I wonder what will happen when they are middle aged and grey and ugly. When Kate is frumpy and they’re not sexy and energetic.

    Deep down people don’t want a “fun”boss. Not when suddenly shit gets hairy.

    I think they’re playing with fire.
    Thanks from Madeline

  3. #33
    Member tnbskts's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    3,497
    Thanks
    4577

    From
    British expat in USA
    Quote Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
    But havinG presidents means we are CITIZENS and you guys are SUBJECTS.
    Not according to my passport.
    Thanks from PACE, Friday13, Madeline and 2 others

  4. #34
    Veteran Member Micro Machines Champion, Race Against Time Champion Tedminator's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    25,244
    Thanks
    15415

    From
    South Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    I am so sick of hearing about this event. Today's N.Y. Daily News has an article about how the bride's sister is willing to do "anything" in order to be allowed to attend.

    Why is the bride's dysfunctional family relations "news"? It's all so superficial and absurd.

    Get married, don't get married, IDGAF.
    Haven’t been watching the news lately sooooo... who is getting royally married? Harry?

    edit probably is harry. Best of luck to him and the bride. I’m curious tho.. did they ever do a paternity test to confirm if prince chuckles is his bio dad?
    Last edited by Tedminator; 13th January 2018 at 10:27 PM.

  5. #35
    Veteran Member Micro Machines Champion, Race Against Time Champion Tedminator's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    25,244
    Thanks
    15415

    From
    South Florida
    Mmmm can’t sleep but yay just found two slices of leftover pizza and nitrogen bottled Guinness in fridge! That’ll put me to sleep ASAP.
    Last edited by Tedminator; 13th January 2018 at 10:39 PM.

  6. #36
    New Member LuvMyPups's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    619
    Thanks
    135

    From
    California
    I hope the happy couple have a wonderful wedding. May none of the press and filthiness of publicity ruin their day.

  7. #37
    Veteran Member PACE's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    24,579
    Thanks
    20685

    From
    None of your business
    Quote Originally Posted by The Man View Post
    What's wrong with the Iron Lady?

    She even kicked Argentina's ass for the Falklands! lol
    For ratings, the Brita were starving due to her austerity programs, she needed the boost.
    Thanks from Madeline and Dangermouse

  8. #38
    Veteran Member Southern Dad's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    38,349
    Thanks
    7835

    From
    Shady Dale, Georgia
    Quote Originally Posted by Otto Throttle View Post
    Understanding of this phenomenon eludes me entirely. Why do they still have a "queen", for a seemingly modern and rational country it's a weird anachronism, a fetish perhaps.
    I asked Alexa what powers the queen of England had and she gave this reply. That is not just a figurehead.

    “The monarch holds a weekly audience with the Prime Minister. ... The Royal Prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements.”


    Sent from my iPhone X using Tapatalk

  9. #39
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    69,102
    Thanks
    51322

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
    I asked Alexa what powers the queen of England had and she gave this reply. That is not just a figurehead.

    “The monarch holds a weekly audience with the Prime Minister. ... The Royal Prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements.”


    Sent from my iPhone X using Tapatalk
    The queen has no actual power. She is the head of state not the head of government. If she were to do anything against the government's wishes in relation to anything political, the monarchy would end in a heartbeat.
    Thanks from Leo2

  10. #40
    Vexatious Correspondent Leo2's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    3,007
    Thanks
    4059

    From
    UK/Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
    I asked Alexa what powers the queen of England had and she gave this reply. That is not just a figurehead.

    “The monarch holds a weekly audience with the Prime Minister. ... The Royal Prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements.”


    Sent from my iPhone X using Tapatalk
    Whilst in no way questioning Alexa's authority upon this subject, I would not disregard Babba's input upon this matter.

    I would suggest Alexa's reply (upon which I am not commenting as I have only your version,) be viewed in the light of this information -

    The Royal Prerogative is one of the most significant elements of the UK’s constitution. The concept of prerogative powers stems from the medieval King acting as head of the kingdom, but it is by no means a medieval device. The prerogative enables Ministers, among many other things, to deploy the armed forces, make and unmake international treaties and to grant honours. In modern times, Government Ministers exercise the majority of the prerogative powers either in their own right or through the advice they provide to the Queen which she is bound constitutionally to follow.

    Three fundamental principles of the prerogative are:

    The supremacy of statute law. Where there is a conflict between the prerogative and statute, statute prevails. Statute law cannot be altered by use of the prerogative;

    Use of the prerogative remains subject to the common law duties of fairness and reason. It is therefore possible to challenge use of the prerogative by judicial review in most cases;

    While the prerogative can be abolished or abrogated by statute, it can never be broadened. However, Parliament could create powers by statute that are similar to prerogative powers in their nature.

    - The power to award honours, including appointing members of the House of Lords. There is now an Independent Appointments Commission which looks at the Prime Minister’s proposed candidates for peerages.
    The Royal Prerogative - Commons Library briefing - UK Parliament

    These, as with other important constitutional matters, are in a constant state of evolution, but the Monarch enjoys no real power other than the ability to dissolve Parliament and send the people to the polls - in the event the executive government acts unconstitutionally. This is as it should be.

    PS: Lol, I thought Alexa might be another poster on this board - it seems as though it is an electronic personal assistant.
    Last edited by Leo2; 14th January 2018 at 03:51 PM.
    Thanks from Babba, tnbskts, Madeline and 1 others

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 87
    Last Post: 28th December 2017, 08:33 AM
  2. All things Royal Wedding thread...
    By (R)IGHTeous 1 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 13th May 2011, 11:36 AM
  3. Royal Wedding Gender Survey
    By The Voice of Reason in forum Opinion Polls
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 28th April 2011, 10:58 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed