Posted on 10/31/2013 4:10:43 PM PDT by onyx
Edited on 10/31/2013 4:21:42 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The heir to the British throne is blaming the Syrian civil war that’s claimed more than 100,000 lives on global warming.
In remarks to the World Islamic Economic Forum meeting in London this week, Prince Charles described the bloody Syria conflict as a “terrifyingly graphic” example of the negative effects of climate change.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
His ears are very sensitive to changes in temperature.
You do know that a senior head of this administration has publicly stated that America is an Islamic state?
Stupidity abounds...
Ok....sorry about the error. As I said it was mentioned on some other thread here and I thought it was true.
That’s all right - I’ve just had to study all this to a fairly ridiculous degree over the years, so I thought I’d try and give an accurate summary.
It really can be quite fascinating once you get into the mechanics of how the monarchy functions, but it didn’t seem that way when they made me learn about it as a kid :)
Gee.... And here, all this time, I thought it was because one group of radical moslem lunatics just can’t get along with another group of radical moslem lunatics (or anybody else for that matter)!!!
Thanks for clearing that up, Chuckie!
I believe we ALL need to thank the good Prince for his sound, astute, and absolutely BRILLIANT grasp of the Middle Eastern political situation as it currently stands...
Way to go, Chuck... stellar! (Psst.... Churchill, you AIN’T, bro.... But I won’t tell anyone... Shh!)
Let’s hope the crown can pass him up for one of his sons...
We had a representative from one of our customers in Ireland visiting some years back and he and I got to talking politics. He was very definitely conservative and at one point referred to Tony Blair and Bill Clinton as a “Pair of smarmy gits.” I got quite a kick out of that.
Oh yes it can. And it has in the past.And it will again
because of succession laws.Camella is a closet Roman Catholic.
Succession is governed by the Act of Union 1800, which restates the provisions of the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Bill of Rights 1689. These laws restrict the succession to legitimate descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and debar those who are Roman Catholics or who have married Roman Catholics
(Camilla Parker Bowles is supposed to be Anglican and not Catholic. She is however regarded as a Catholic because she married her first husband in a Catholic Church.)
Charles is easily disposable, the way to do it is readily available should the need arise.
Even if she was (and I don't believe she is), this is no longer relevant.
Succession is governed by the Act of Union 1800, which restates the provisions of the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Bill of Rights 1689. These laws restrict the succession to legitimate descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and debar those who are Roman Catholics or who have married Roman Catholics.
You're missing a law - that's OK, it's a new one.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013
It hasn't taken affect yet, but it has passed the United Kingdom Parliament and been agreed to in principle by the Parliaments of the other Commonwealth Realms (who, under the Statute of Westminster, must be involved in decisions to change the law governing succession). The most publicised provision of this new law (and the main reason it occurred) is that it changes the principle of male-preference primogeniture, where a male took precedence over a female sibling - it was passed so the first child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge would become Heir whether male or female. But one of the other provisions removes the disqualification for those who marry Catholics - a person is still disqualified from the line of succession if they become a Catholic themselves, but not by marrying a Catholic. And the law does restore anybody who was previously disqualified by marriage to a Catholic to their place in the line (the first person for whom this is relevant is George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews, who was disqualified in 1988 by his marriage to Sylvana Tomaselli, but will now be 33rd in line to the throne).
(Camilla Parker Bowles is supposed to be Anglican and not Catholic. She is however regarded as a Catholic because she married her first husband in a Catholic Church.)
No, she didn't. She married Andrew Parker Bowles at the Guards Chapel, Wellington Barracks - also known as the Royal Military Chapel. It's certainly not a Catholic Church.
It may have been a Catholic ceremony (I don't know for certain - but while regular Sunday services at the RMC are Church of England, they do allow its use by other Christian faiths for baptisms, weddings, and funerals) but being married in a Catholic Church to a Catholic does not make somebody a Catholic themselves.
Charles is easily disposable, the way to do it is readily available should the need arise.
Parliament could always alter the line of succession - that's in their purview. But without a very good reason, there'd be widespread outrage.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013.................?
Has no effect yet.
The provision of the Act of Settlement requiring the monarch to be a Protestant continues unrepealed.
.
The provision of the Act of Settlement requiring the monarch to be a Protestant continues unrepealed.
and will continue to do so after the Succession of the Crown Act 2013 takes effect. However, the provision that disqualifies a person because they are married to a Catholic has been repealed - the Monarch must be Protestant - but who they are married to, no longer matters (Section 2, Subsection 1 of the Act: A person is not disqualified from succeeding to the Crown or from possessing it as a result of marrying a person of the Roman Catholic faith.
Succession of the Crown Act 2013 is not in effect, period.
And the fact us that as it now rests, if the succession were to be necessary now or within the next several years, Charles could easily be excluded from the line under to old laws, because he has in fact married a Roman Catholic , who was married to a Roman Catholic spouse in a Roman Catholic Church, and act of renunciation of her Anglican faith.
Until the Succession Act of 2013 is in effect, there is every possibility that Charles will be skipped, and I can see why , in fact. I do not believe Charles is suited to be a Monarch of the Realm, for many reasons. Charles would much diminish the role of the Crown in the workings of government, a very bad thing IMHO, in this age of coercive utopianism.
But it almost certainly will be before the Queen dies, and certainly will be before a new King's Accession Council.
And the fact us that as it now rests, if the succession were to be necessary now or within the next several years, Charles could easily be excluded from the line under to old laws, because he has in fact married a Roman Catholic , who was married to a Roman Catholic spouse in a Roman Catholic Church, and act of renunciation of her Anglican faith.
I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but it doesn't match the facts, nor Canon law of either the Anglican or Catholic churches.
First of all, one basic fact is that the Duchess of Cornwall's first marriage was not in a Catholic Church. It is a matter of public record that the marriage of Andrew Parker Bowles to Camilla Shand (as she then was) took place in the Royal Military Chapel, Wellington Barracks (also known as the Guards Chapel). Note the name - Royal Military Chapel. Do you think the British Royal Military Chapel of the Household Division (Household refers to the Royal Household) is a Catholic Church? It isn't. It's a Church of England chapel, and the regular Sunday services are Church of England services. I've attended a couple.
The RMC does allow services such as weddings conducted by other Christian Churches to be held within its walls, when they involve members of the Household Regiments, and I've now checked - the wedding was a Catholic service, even though it wasn't in a Catholic church. But marrying a Catholic in a Catholic service doesn't make somebody a Catholic. The Catholic Church allows Catholics to marry baptised members of other Christian Churches, with the permission of the local Bishop. It happens a lot. There is no requirement, nor assumption that the person becomes a Catholic. And a person does not renounce or lose their membership of the Church of England by marrying a Catholic, or marrying in a Catholic service.
Until the Succession Act of 2013 is in effect, there is every possibility that Charles will be skipped, and I can see why , in fact.
No, there isn't. There's no possibility at all. If the Duchess of Cornwall was a Catholic, he would already be disqualified. He would be legally dead in terms of the line of succession (the term used in law is, actually, "naturally dead" and he would no longer be Prince of Wales.) The fact that this has not happened, means he is not considered by either Church or State to be married to a Catholic, because he isn't.
I do not believe Charles is suited to be a Monarch of the Realm, for many reasons. Charles would much diminish the role of the Crown in the workings of government, a very bad thing IMHO, in this age of coercive utopianism.
Knowing the Prince of Wales, I don't agree. I don't think he will necessarily be a great King, but he will do his duty.
But even if he was totally unsuitable, that doesn't actually matter, as far as the law of succession is concerned. Edward VIII was incredibly unsuitable and he couldn't be skipped. He could be - and was - pressured into abdicating, but he was still King from the moment his father died and he was proclaimed, until the instrument of abdication took effect nearly a year later, and during that time he exercised the powers and prerogatives of the King - assenting to legislation, opening Parliament etc. Because he was King.
The system of constitutional monarchy that operates in the United Kingdom doesn't guarantee that a Monarch will be suitable. Nor does it require it. You get what you get by an accident of birth. They do their best to train the person and to instil in them the sense of duty that the role requires, but if somebody is unsuitable, then that is what will happen.
I don't believe the Prince of Wales will be in any way, unsuitable. But even if he was, he would still be King to the detriment of his country, to the Commonwealth, and to the monarchy.
People had doubts about Edward VIII - doubts that proved entirely justified - but he still became King. People had doubts about George VI (during the Abdication Crisis, there was serious consideration as to asking him to immediately abdicate as well, because his younger brother, Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, was seen by many as a better choice - he was a serving Army officer). People had doubts about Elizabeth II - they were worried she was too young and would be dominated by her husband, as a power behind the throne, to the extent that some people actually wanted to bring back Edward VIII, or have a series of abdications (Elizabeth, Charles, Anne, Margaret) that would have (again) put the Duke of Gloucester on the throne (or less dramatically, have the very young Charles on the throne with Gloucester as Regent (and possibly Lord Protector)). None of these doubts lead to any changes.
You get who you get.
Unless he predeceases his mother, or he himself becomes a Catholic, or Parliament expressly passes and Act changing the order of succession (something they would probably only do if he and the Queen requested it - which could happen, if, say, for example, she lives to over 100 and he'd be over 80), he will become King. The Duchess of Cornwall is not a Catholic by either English law, Church of England canon law, or Roman Catholic canon law - or that would currently disqualify him (and he'd no longer be Prince of Wales either), but that would only do so until the 2013 Act is proclaimed - which literally takes a stroke of the pen from one politician at this point (the only reason it hasn't happened is that the Statute of Westminster of 1931 means the Commonwealth Realms have a say over the laws of succession as well, and while all have agreed in principle to the changes (Perth Agreement 2011), not all have yet decided exactly how they want to do it, and London is giving them the chance to formalise things (Canada has already done so, New Zealand has legislation going through its Parliament now, the Caribbean and Pacific Realms have constitutions that don't seem to require anything more than the Perth Agreement. Australia complicates things because our Constitution requires each state to consent separately - New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, and Queensland have formally done so, Western Australia and South Australia haven't yet))
But it almost certainly will be before the Queen dies, and certainly will be before a new King’s Accession Council>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Very doubtful.
Not at all. It is expected to take effect by the end of next year at the latest. Unless you know something about the Queen's health that nobody else knows, she'd be expected to still be alive.
And if she did die before that, if there was a problem, it only requires Nick Clegg (as Lord President of the Council) to sign one piece of paper to instantly put the law into effect (that is expressly built into the Act). And as Lord President of the Council and a Privy Counsellor, he's on the Accession Council.
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.