Chris_Sleeps Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Actually if William and Harry were to die before him, Charles could still father another child, who would inherit the throne after his own death. I'd be interested to know how that would work in law. Henry VIII is the only monarch to father an heir outside of 1 single marriage. Constitutionally it'd be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spotty dog Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 You could have done this anytime, why do need an excuse? Don't you know that your taxes are paying for it? Your children will only remember the party not what it was for. Why are my taxs paying for it?and of course the kids will remember what it was for,my friend had one for Charles n di and said it was great,so she remembered it!...as for have a street party anytime??eh?what,just get the rd closed for a laugh?I'm sure the council would agree to that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spotty dog Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 You could have done this anytime, why do need an excuse? Don't you know that your taxes are paying for it? Your children will only remember the party not what it was for. Of course the kids will remember what it was for,my friend had one for Charles n di and said it was great,so she remembered it!...as for have a street party anytime??eh?what,just get the rd closed for a laugh?I'm sure the council would agree to that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I'd be interested to know how that would work in law. Henry VIII is the only monarch to father an heir outside of 1 single marriage. Constitutionally it'd be interesting. At the end of the day does it really matter anymore, it's not like they have any power or do anything usefull, like in Henry's day. I suppose it will affect who gets the massive amount of money they get from us in rent etc. but thats about all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 The gallant Poles who fought for this country played a highly signifianant part in defeating Hitler, my unlce was attached to a Polish Brigade and broke his leg when he parachuted into occupied territory in 1944. The germans made him a pow because he was British they machine gunned the Poles. When Monte Casino fell it was attacked on one side by a Polish Brigade and on the other by Moroccans and Tunisians fighting under the Free French flag. Men fight and die in other places in which they were born for the sake of freedom. Your freedom was purchased at the price of millions of men from all over the then British Empire, and the USA not forgetting the free French P Poles and others who rallied to us when it would have been safer to fight for the forces of tyranny. Your seem an opinionated lady, that is fine, but make sure you have your facts right. What total and absolute rubbish. Germany invaded Poland in 1939 and a few Polish pilots escaped to the UK and took part in a war against a country with whom their country was at war. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were not attacked by Germany but their governments declared war on germany because the British king was their head of state. This contibuted around 1 million service men to the defence of the realm. Please note that countries like the USA did not declare war on Germany because they didn't have George as head of state. As Canada, New Zealand and Australia were the only countries to willingly join in the conflict against Germany, I would love to hear your made up explanation for why that was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 The USA never declared war on Germany, Germany declared war on the USA. Check your facts. What total and absolute rubbish. Germany invaded Poland in 1939 and a few Polish pilots escaped to the UK and took part in a war against a country with whom their country was at war. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were not attacked by Germany but their governments declared war on germany because the British king was their head of state. This contibuted around 1 million service men to the defence of the realm. Please note that countries like the USA did not declare war on Germany because they didn't have George as head of state. As Canada, New Zealand and Australia were the only countries to willingly join in the conflict against Germany, I would love to hear your made up explanation for why that was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I'm not twisting any words at all. Really? The Queen is not the number one tourist attraction in Britain. That is not true. The article said it was true and it is not. I don't need to twist any words, it is clear as day. This is not me being punctilious it is just a fact. I posted about the monarchy (not 'the Queen') and provided an example article evidencing the popularity of monarchy-themed attractions for tourists (contrary to taxman's earlier impression). 'Monarchy' does not begin and end with 'the Queen'. You then focused upon and relied solely on the article's title (about the Queen) to support your contrarian 'point' (the-Queen-is-not-a-tourist-attraction-her-palaces-are...well done, have a cookie ), conveniently glossing over the fact that the article completely supports my earlier opinion (tourists come over at least partly because of their interest in the British monarchy/royalty...to the tune of £500m annually according to that article). How I am doing so far, for 'facts'? And how is your focusing solely on the article's title (completely missing the context provided by the article) not being 'punctilious'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puisseguin Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I'd be interested to know how that would work in law. Henry VIII is the only monarch to father an heir outside of 1 single marriage. Constitutionally it'd be interesting. You probably need to adapt to the 21st century. I'm not sure that monarchs are allowed to behead their wives any more. Edward 8th for example had to abdicate in order to marry a divorcee. I don't think that has been much of a barrier to Charles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Edward 8th for example had to abdicate in order to marry a divorcee. I'm not sure he had to, it's not illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puisseguin Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 The USA never declared war on Germany, Germany declared war on the USA. Check your facts. I think that is exactly what the poster has said. "Please note that countries like the USA did not declare war on Germany because they didn't have George as head of state." Should have gone to Specsavers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.