prince Charles and Camila (the future king and queen) visit BBC radio

beorhthelm · Feb 15, 2014

hybrid_x said:
I can research it for you help cure your cognitive dissonance.

funny how you speak of cognative dissonance, yet cant even interpret the information you present or search a little further. the *crown* has legal title to vast parts of the old colonial territories. they are in the most part held in this state of ownership though local constitution, to bond the country to the crown. they are operated independently by local "crown" (government) representitives, any revenues or taxes go to that state, not the crown. or Queen Elizabeth II. but you carry on thinking its significant if it suits your world view.

beorhthelm · Feb 15, 2014

Westdene Seagull said:
...Included in the ridiculous 6600m acres calculation is the UK I would imagine. I suggest you pop down to land registry and see who really owns what in this country - she may own some land here but a vast majority is owned by other people.

its Canada and Australia mostly. UK ironically is owned by those people who hold title (or their banks, before he says it :glare:

), crown only owns the seabed, foreshore and various estates that dont even add upto 1m acres. maybe the mineral rights underground too.

WATFORD zero · Feb 15, 2014

Westdene Seagull said:
I think your basing this entirely on Edwards abdication which required a specific act of parliament and the act written ONLY for his abdication.

Should the Queen ( or indeed Charles ) abdicate another, new, act of parliament will be required and it will specify the terms of that abdication which are likely to differ to Edwards.

So in other words - nobody will really know until it happens although it is likely just to go to the next in line for the throne.

So no Andrew ? Just when i was thinking that his penchant for fart jokes may pep up the Kings speech on Xmas day :down:

hybrid_x · Feb 15, 2014

Queen is possible the other (secret) owner of the Bank of England....which is a private entity and not owned by the gov as the media want people to believe.

Therefore, this also adds weight to her owning much land in mortgages.

jakarta · Feb 15, 2014

hybrid_x said:
Queen is possible the other (secret) owner of the Bank of England....which is a private entity and not owned by the gov as the media want people to believe.

Therefore, this also adds weight to her owning much land in mortgages.

Am I right in thinking English is not your first language? :lolol:

Please carry on with your fascinating facts, by the way.....

pastafarian · Feb 15, 2014

hybrid_x said:
http://www.whoownstheworld.com/about-the-book/largest-landowner/

http://www.infowars.com/token-royalty-queen-elizabeth-ii-the-largest-landowner-on-earth/

i see how you work now.

have you ever thought about fact checking the articles you believe in?

"Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories"

can you name the other 31........go on give it a go!

Westdene Seagull · Feb 15, 2014

hybrid_x said:
Queen is possible the other (secret) owner of the Bank of England....which is a private entity and not owned by the gov as the media want people to believe.

Therefore, this also adds weight to her owning much land in mortgages.

Hmmmm .... "In 1998, it became an independent public organisation, wholly owned by the Treasury Solicitor[SUP] [/SUP]on behalf of the government, with independence in setting monetary policy"

Comedy Steve · Feb 15, 2014

Thunder Bolt said:
She was beheaded by Elizabeth.

Yes, but before then she abdicated in favour of her son.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary,_Queen_of_Scots#Imprisonment_in_Scotland_and_abdication

Thunder Bolt · Feb 15, 2014

Comedy Steve said:
Yes, but before then she abdicated in favour of her son.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary,_Queen_of_Scots#Imprisonment_in_Scotland_and_abdication

That was the throne of Scotland, not England. James, her son, was the first to combine the two which was why he was James VI of Scotland and James 1 of England.

Comedy Steve · Feb 15, 2014

Thunder Bolt said:
That was the throne of Scotland, not England. James, her son, was the first to combine the two which was why he was James VI of Scotland and James 1 of England.

OK... so you're saying that abdication precludes the descendant(s) of the abdicating monarch from inheriting the throne in the English monarchy, but not elsewhere? You're certain this is a rule and not just an option for the person abdicating?

Lord Bracknell · Feb 15, 2014

Thunder Bolt said:
IF he abdicated, the crown would go to Andrew as you abdicate for your line, not just yourself.

Since when?

Abdication is in the hands of the abdicator. The Divine Right of Kings allows them to do what the hell they want with the succession.

Besides which, the only way anyone can abdicate is by achieving the position in the first place.

Thunder Bolt · Feb 15, 2014

Comedy Steve said:
OK... so you're saying that abdication precludes the descendant(s) of the abdicating monarch from inheriting the throne in the English monarchy, but not elsewhere? You're certain this is a rule and not just an option for the person abdicating?

As someone else pointed out, there has only been one abdication in recent history where the constitution allowed it. It did preclude any descendants (the Duke of Windsor didn't even have any descendants at that point)
The Divine Right of Kings went when King Charles 1st was beheaded, and Cromwell took over.

Comedy Steve · Feb 15, 2014

Thunder Bolt said:
As someone else pointed out, there has only been one abdication in recent history where the constitution allowed it. It did preclude any descendants (the Duke of Windsor didn't even have any descendants at that point)
The Divine Right of Kings went when King Charles 1st was beheaded, and Cromwell took over.

So if the Divine Right of Kings has gone, the removal of their lineal succession is enforced when they abdicate? Because that's what you originally said and I can't find a single document anywhere that backs that up. Not saying you're wrong, just saying it's a very little known rule.

Thunder Bolt · Feb 15, 2014

Comedy Steve said:
So if the Divine Right of Kings has gone, the removal of their lineal succession is enforced when they abdicate? Because that's what you originally said and I can't find a single document anywhere that backs that up. Not saying you're wrong, just saying it's a very little known rule.

As I said before, there's only been one abdication, to my knowledge, and the Duke of Windsor signed it. As far as I know, that is the constitutional situation. Maybe it would be open to negotiation in the future, after all the right of accession has changed in favour of daughters now.

Lord Bracknell · Feb 15, 2014

Thunder Bolt said:
The Divine Right of Kings went when King Charles 1st was beheaded, and Cromwell took over.

I was hoping someone would point this out.

Once the Divine Right of Kings has gone, the door is open for the people to decide.

I nominate Paul Barber.

beorhthelm · Feb 15, 2014

Thunder Bolt said:
As someone else pointed out, there has only been one abdication in recent history where the constitution allowed it. It did preclude any descendants (the Duke of Windsor didn't even have any descendants at that point)
The Divine Right of Kings went when King Charles 1st was beheaded, and Cromwell took over.

right, and that was down to an act of parliament to that event, as it was out of the ordinary. any new abdication would be treated the same, with parliament deciding who would be next and its pretty obvious it would follow Charles, William, George etc.

Thunder Bolt · Feb 15, 2014

beorhthelm said:
right, and that was down to an act of parliament to that event, as it was out of the ordinary. any new abdication would be treated the same, with parliament deciding who would be next and its pretty obvious it would follow Charles, William, George etc.

Why make the Duke of Windsor abdicate for his descendants when he didn't have any?

beorhthelm · Feb 15, 2014

Thunder Bolt said:
Why make the Duke of Windsor abdicate for his descendants when he didn't have any?

to prevent future complications. you remember the circumstances of the abdication right? wars have been fought over more tenuous claims than his children would have. Liz or Charlie abdicating in the foreseeable wouldnt be remotly controversial.

pastafarian · Feb 16, 2014

hybrid_x said:
how i'm glad we have a queen that owns 1/6th of the planet and we pay her tax.

how you getting on with finding the other 31 states and territories that the Queen owns? Your struggling arnt you.There is no shame in admitting your were hoodwinked into believing a false claim,you cant be expected to check all the information you are told to believe.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

prince Charles and Camila (the future king and queen) visit BBC radio

A. Virgo, Football Genius

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch

We're f'ing brilliant

Silly old bat

We're f'ing brilliant

On fire

Silly old bat

We're f'ing brilliant

Silly old bat

On fire

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Silly old bat

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Well-known member

Share this page