Posted on 04/29/2011 12:22:43 AM PDT by naturalman1975
There was a Henry IX who made a claim... from Scotland...
No. Until recently, it did give a person the right to sit in the House of Lords (the upper House of the British Parliament) but 'reforms' under Blair's Labor government removed that right. The members of the House of Lords are now nearly all 'Life Peers' chosen by the government for life, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes... well, let's not go there.
For example, William is now the Duke of Cambridge. What does that imply? Does William now have any control over Cambridge? Does he have a veto power on who becomes the next mayor of Cambridge?
No. There are a couple of titles in Britain that still convey some powers for historical reason, but only a few. Most are simply traditional honours.
Or is “Duke of Cambridge” nothing more than an empty honorary title?
It can't be called an honourary title, because that term actually has another meaning (ie, Generals Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley, etc, Admiral Nimitz, and quite a few other senior US officers before and since were all honourary Knights - Britain honoured them for their service as allies, but US law meant they could not, of course, bear foreign titles), but it is symbolic, rather than meaning anything concrete.
I would say the situation requires the monarchy to act, parliament is doing nothing about the Islamic invasion of Britain and the lawlessness.
Britain has become a Monty Python script... and it isn't funny anymore...
Henry Benedict Stuart did style himself Henry IX, but he was never acknowledged in any way (even the Catholic Church would not acknowledge him, though they did acknowledge his father and brother, and he was a Cardinal), and so he would not affect the numbering of actual monarchs.
Even if that was true (and personally, I don't believe it is), the Crown would still not have the power to intervene. Parliament is supposed to deal with those issues. The Monarch can only interfere with Parliament in certain particular cases.
The Queen has the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn - even if she shared your concerns, all she can do is tell the Prime Minister in private that they shared them.
This is British constitutional law and convention, and the Monarch must follow it. She cannot interfere just because she thinks there's a problem.
Not to mention the Duke of Paducah...
The Prince of Wales has never said any such thing. If a magazine article said he did, it was lying.
Besides anything else, he would not have the power to do that. A King of the United Kingdom can abdicate - in which case somebody else would become King (William, if Charles abdicated). He cannot dissolve the monarchy. Parliament has that power - the King does not.
I have been watching this beautiful wedding. It was stunning.
My only question is why FOX sent that crude clod, Shempherd Smith over their to mock and behave like a hilljack.
They might both be deposed shortly, either by Britons themselves, Muslims or the E.U... by their own inactions...
I'm still hunting for the article, but I did read that. It was an interview with him; IIRC it was an organic gardening magazine. He did say that he would disolve the monarchy because it had outlived its purpose. The main focus of the article was on HRH's green views of things and his farming practices. The monarchy quote may have been a throw away, but it was in the piece. I'll send the link once I find it; like I said, it was 10-15 years ago.
I am looking forward to watching it. My seat was on the wrong side of the screen in the middle of the Abbey. I saw everybody walk past, and I could hear what was going on, but could see nothing of the actual ceremony.
I have believed for a long time that the next King will be William, not Charles.
Not sure why exactly, just a feeling...
Britain endured terrorist attack after terrorist attack after terrorist attack from Irish Republican terrorists. It just deals with them when it has to. The Islamists are still rank amateurs in comparison.
The scene inside the Abbey was gorgeous. A great event and done to perfection.
It was not overdone. Bravo.
“Baron Carrickfergus”
Sounds like something the Monty Python folks would have had fun with.
It certainly isn’t impossible. Just nowhere near as simple as some people seem to think. Nor likely.
If the Queen reaches much over 100 - as her mother did - Charles would be very close to, or over 80 and William would be in his mid-40s. In that type of situation, Charles might well abdicate. But he is not likely to do it unless he is very old - and more importantly, unless William has already had a decent chance to have his own life.
I have believed for a long time that the next King will be William, not Charles.
Not sure why exactly, just a feeling...
**********************
Because Charles is always snakebit perhaps?
Does not the Queen herself actually have the power to control succession?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.