If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Sun)   British gay marriage law means 'there could be two Queens' on the throne   (thesun.co.uk) divider line 143
    More: Amusing, planned changes, Stonewall, Ed Balls, Church of England, monarchy  
•       •       •

1738 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Mar 2012 at 3:23 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



143 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-18 04:25:46 PM
Two words: bisexual and Mormon. Two three four straight guys, two three four straight women, two three four gay guys and two three four gay women. That a big royal couple.

//some combinations void where prohibited by law, good taste or space.
 
2012-03-18 04:28:32 PM
He said it would mean a lesbian Queen having a Queen consort or a gay King having a King consort.

Basically happened already with James I and the Duke of Buckingham, George Villiers.

Mr Bone has demanded an emergency summit of Commonwealth leaders to discuss the planned changes.

The major Commonwealth realms are okay with the gays. Canada is the most significant and we have equality for gay people. If we had a gay monarch it would probably make the monarchy more popular and relevant here. I can't see the Aussies or Kiwis getting all bent out of shape either, and all the small island countries and British dependencies aren't about to abandon the Crown over this.

Mr Bone believes this would make it impossible for the monarch to continue as supreme governor of the Church of England.

The Catholics have been letting gays run the church for centuries... But actually this isn't an issue, despite the Edward VIII history, thanks to subsequent changes in the UK's marriage laws. The marriage of Prince Charles demonstrates this quite nicely. He married Camilla in a civil ceremony, but he will be the head of the Church of England if/when he succeeds the throne, and she will be the Princess Consort. So, there's already precedent if there is ever a LGBT monarch.

And he wants to know if it is the Government's plan to change the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 to allow a same-sex union.

They wouldn't need to, since there's nothing in there about the royal descendent in question having to marry someone of the opposite sex.

And a gay monarch who conceived a child either by sperm donor or surrogate would raise wider questions, he warns.

The donor would have a right to a peerage and could gain regal rights.


Now, hang on. Someone who has a child with a monarch does not get regal rights. The number of royal bastards in English history proves that several hundred times over. Now, having a child who was considered legitimate and in the line of succession is different. I don't even want to delve into the several centuries-old acts governing the succession today... In any case, it's not like England is terribly lacking in people in the line of succession, so worst case scenario, the offspring of a royal gay parent might be passed over.
 
2012-03-18 04:28:34 PM

alternative girlfriend: DarwiOdrade: alternative girlfriend: And prince as quoted still has nothing to do with Hebrew. It's, culturally, a European estate, coming from Roman culture, dealing with the state of having power/sovereignty.

You realize, don't you, that Isaiah was not written in Latin, right?

You do realize that medieval Latin derived European terms don't often completely square with Bronze age Hebrew words, right?

You're an idiot and not actually reading anything I've written.


You're correct about one thing - I haven't read anything you've written. I was responding to ox45tallboy's question about the origin of the term "prince of peace" from Isaiah, not to anything you posted. Get over yourself.
 
2012-03-18 04:29:25 PM

ox45tallboy: But the dedication reads as "King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the Faith, etc."


That's what I said. James, while king, may have also held the title Prince of Wales, in some sort of custodial role until Charles was old enough. I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm just positing it as an explanation.
 
2012-03-18 04:31:01 PM

ImpendingCynic: ox45tallboy: But the dedication reads as "King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the Faith, etc."

That's what I said. James, while king, may have also held the title Prince of Wales, in some sort of custodial role until Charles was old enough. I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm just positing it as an explanation.


For fark's sake...

fark it. I forgot how stupid people on Fark are.
 
2012-03-18 04:31:02 PM

alternative girlfriend: What is not making sense here?


Slow your roll, chick. Please be patient with someone that doesn't know as much as you do about this subject.

Obviously the words "king" and "prince" did not exist in Hebrew; I was wondering why those words were chosen as translations for words when the English concept of royalty and heredity did not match up to the system the Jews used. A question which, by the way, you didn't answer.

What I'm understanding from what you are saying is that the title "prince" refers to one who is sovereign over a domain. You say that a Duke can be a prince; does this mean he is automatically one, or only when he doesn't have a king above him (compare today's Duke of Edinborough - has a Queen above him - with Polish Dukes of the 12th and 13th centuries who had no king)? If I understand you correctly, the Polish Dukes would be princes, but not the current Duke of Edinborough.

Am I getting it?

If I got that correctly, why are William and Harry referred to as "Prince" when they've got Grandma ruling above them, and Dad is the heir apparent? Does the title have different connotations?
 
2012-03-18 04:31:21 PM
That MP wants an emergency commonwealth meeting over gay marriage?! well most of those countries are anti gay anyway.. in fact I think the only country in the commonwealth with gay marriage is Canada
 
2012-03-18 04:32:50 PM

Forty-Two: RminusQ: ArkAngel: No, there would be a queen and a princess consort

No, a woman who is married to the monarch is a queen consort.

This is pretty much the only problem here, and it's a matter of semantics. The Queen's husband is a prince. Should a queen's wife follow the convention of being married to a female monarch (bumping her down to princess), or the convention of being a female married to a monarch (so, queen consort)? I'd opt for princess consort, just so that there's more of a distinction. But then, for a long time there was the Queen and the Queen Mum, and no one seemed to have a problem with that.


The Queen Regnant's husband could theoretically be a King Consort, there's just no precedent for it because King, unlike Queen, implies supremacy. Prince Philip didn't even become a Prince until a few years after he married the Queen. Because of historical male primogeniture and all that, I imagine if a Queen Regnant married a woman the woman would become a Queen Consort, whereas the husband of a King would be just a Duke or Prince. And technically the Queen Mother was a Dowager Queen.
 
2012-03-18 04:33:04 PM

alternative girlfriend: ox45tallboy: DarwiOdrade: The Hebrew word is שר. According to Google Translate it means: minister, secretary, chief, prince, captain, ruler, chancellor, commander, head, vizier, poet. That's modern Hebrew, mind you.

So, it was one of those words that could be translated different ways depending on context, and this was what the translators determined was the best English word?

Oh my god....reading comprehension, you do not has it.

I explained above that it DOES NOT come from the Bible or Hebrew. It's from the Latin. Princeps, first citizen.

I also explained that it has two meanings, as a title and as an estate of rulership. What about that are you not understanding? A prince is a level of sovereign, below a king. But all sovereigns are princes, when it refers the estate of rulership/sovereignty.

The Pope is a prince, an emperor is a prince, a duke is a prince, etc. Heck, a queen is a prince, if she's the sovereign.

What is not making sense here?


Queen Elizabeth I was frequently and formally referred to as a Prince in the writings of her ministers. It makes for amusing gender-bending reading at times.
 
2012-03-18 04:35:43 PM

alternative girlfriend: DarwiOdrade: alternative girlfriend: And prince as quoted still has nothing to do with Hebrew. It's, culturally, a European estate, coming from Roman culture, dealing with the state of having power/sovereignty.

You realize, don't you, that Isaiah was not written in Latin, right?

You do realize that medieval Latin derived European terms don't often completely square with Bronze age Hebrew words, right?

You're an idiot and not actually reading anything I've written.


Wow, are you always this mean when people are trying to learn something you know and they don't? I don't think anyone here is an idiot, but you obviously know more about this than at least I do, and perhaps some others. Please be patient and not so mean.

My questions stemmed from the fact that the systems of progression to the throne were different for the Jews of a couple thousand years ago than the system in place when the KJV was translated. I was wondering why whatever word was translated as "prince", when the Jews did not always go from father to son.

You don't have to call names.
 
2012-03-18 04:36:41 PM
www.techdigest.tv
 
2012-03-18 04:36:46 PM

alternative girlfriend: ImpendingCynic: ox45tallboy: But the dedication reads as "King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the Faith, etc."

That's what I said. James, while king, may have also held the title Prince of Wales, in some sort of custodial role until Charles was old enough. I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm just positing it as an explanation.

For fark's sake...

fark it. I forgot how stupid people on Fark are.


Gee, I'd think someone so obviously superior could explain themselves better than you have.
 
2012-03-18 04:37:37 PM
Has parliament outlawed divorce yet?
 
2012-03-18 04:38:07 PM

ox45tallboy: alternative girlfriend: What is not making sense here?

Slow your roll, chick. Please be patient with someone that doesn't know as much as you do about this subject.

Obviously the words "king" and "prince" did not exist in Hebrew; I was wondering why those words were chosen as translations for words when the English concept of royalty and heredity did not match up to the system the Jews used. A question which, by the way, you didn't answer.

What I'm understanding from what you are saying is that the title "prince" refers to one who is sovereign over a domain. You say that a Duke can be a prince; does this mean he is automatically one, or only when he doesn't have a king above him (compare today's Duke of Edinborough - has a Queen above him - with Polish Dukes of the 12th and 13th centuries who had no king)? If I understand you correctly, the Polish Dukes would be princes, but not the current Duke of Edinborough.

Am I getting it?

If I got that correctly, why are William and Harry referred to as "Prince" when they've got Grandma ruling above them, and Dad is the heir apparent? Does the title have different connotations?


As has been stated, there are two categories of Princes. There are Princes by title alone, people like Harry and William, who do not have sovereignty over a domain, who are not "first" in their country. Then there are Princes who may not go by that title, but who are Princes de facto because they are rulers of their domain. In the UK, any descendants to the second generation from a monarch are given the title Prince or Princess by right of birth, but the monarch is also a Prince by right of being the sovereign of their nation.
 
2012-03-18 04:38:39 PM

ontariolightning: That MP wants an emergency commonwealth meeting over gay marriage?! well most of those countries are anti gay anyway.. in fact I think the only country in the commonwealth with gay marriage is Canada


You're confusing the Commonwealth with the Commonwealth Realms, which are the 15 other countries that share a sovereign with the UK. There are Commonwealth countries who even have other royalty.

The Commonwealth is an organization sort of like the Francophonie, it wouldn't matter who the head of it was married to.
 
2012-03-18 04:38:40 PM

NobleHam: The Queen Regnant's husband could theoretically be a King Consort, there's just no precedent for it because King, unlike Queen, implies supremacy. Prince Philip didn't even become a Prince until a few years after he married the Queen. Because of historical male primogeniture and all that, I imagine if a Queen Regnant married a woman the woman would become a Queen Consort, whereas the husband of a King would be just a Duke or Prince. And technically the Queen Mother was a Dowager Queen.


Yes, but "Queen Mum" sounds so much more happy. Like she's going to bake cookies for the little princes and their friends when they get tired of playing outside with wooden swords or something.
 
2012-03-18 04:39:38 PM

Forty-Two: This is pretty much the only problem here, and it's a matter of semantics. The Queen's husband is a prince. Should a queen's wife follow the convention of being married to a female monarch (bumping her down to princess), or the convention of being a female married to a monarch (so, queen consort)? I'd opt for princess consort, just so that there's more of a distinction. But then, for a long time there was the Queen and the Queen Mum, and no one seemed to have a problem with tha


Well no - not semantics

The Queen mother, was Three times the Queen She was Queen consort ( since the line of succession did not come from her ) when her husband the King was alive , Then she became both the Queen Mother - Mother to the Regent elevates you and a Dowager Queen ( the woman who was Queen )

So my take on it would be -- Queen Regent and Queen Consort -- Vs -- King and Prince consort

yeah the guys get cheated
 
2012-03-18 04:39:56 PM
Some of you are feeding either a troll or a tard. You might consider that you're wasting your time either way.
 
2012-03-18 04:44:16 PM

bobbette: Some of you are feeding either a troll or a tard. You might consider that you're wasting your time either way.


True. The whole article was trolling. The MP is in a big tizzy about this but the article says "he wants to know if it is the Government's plan to change the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 to allow a same-sex union." So, the government has said nothing about changing the rules that specify how royals can marry - rules that are different than for everyone else - but he's freaking out over whether they might.

There's a bit of win that the MP freaking out over gay succession is named Bone.
 
2012-03-18 04:46:19 PM
It's even worse than we feared. Since the rules of succession have recently changed, a British monarch can even marry a *gasp* Catholic! Link (new window)

I keed, but it's interesting to note that they have nixed the rule of male succession. Hopefully the marriage equality thing isn't far behind.
 
2012-03-18 04:46:27 PM

NobleHam: As has been stated, there are two categories of Princes. There are Princes by title alone, people like Harry and William, who do not have sovereignty over a domain, who are not "first" in their country. Then there are Princes who may not go by that title, but who are Princes de facto because they are rulers of their domain. In the UK, any descendants to the second generation from a monarch are given the title Prince or Princess by right of birth, but the monarch is also a Prince by right of being the sovereign of their nation.


I checked over the KJV dedication and noticed that "prince" is not capitalized, while "King" is,

After looking over the wiki article (btw, much, much more helpful than alternative girlfriend), it seems "prince" as a title is kind of passed around to anyone in the royal family, or, like AG said, anyone who claims sovereignty would claim the title as well. It's capitalized when it refers to a particular person, i.e., "Prince Harry", but not when used as a generic description (King James was also a prince).
 
2012-03-18 04:47:31 PM

bobbette: ontariolightning: That MP wants an emergency commonwealth meeting over gay marriage?! well most of those countries are anti gay anyway.. in fact I think the only country in the commonwealth with gay marriage is Canada

You're confusing the Commonwealth with the Commonwealth Realms, which are the 15 other countries that share a sovereign with the UK. There are Commonwealth countries who even have other royalty.

The Commonwealth is an organization sort of like the Francophonie, it wouldn't matter who the head of it was married to.


No. The Act of Settlement (new window) is law for ALL Commonwealth members, as it is a shared throne.

Many countries, include the UK and Canada has fought for an amendment to allow Roman Catholics in the line of succession but to no success.
 
2012-03-18 04:48:28 PM

Ned Stark: whidbey: 21st farking century and we're still having to put up with homophobia in the civilized world.

Oh well. So much for that "enlightened age" you hear about.


i was ore offput by the monarchism


I don't think there's any strong monarchism in the UK, and the royal family is purely ornamental. Not to mention a nice source of income for the British state.
 
2012-03-18 04:48:49 PM

Jamdug!: [www.techdigest.tv image 326x252]


I'm not sure what that is, but I would love to have one installed in a guest bathroom just to freak houseguests out.
 
2012-03-18 04:49:16 PM

ImpendingCynic: There's a bit of win that the MP freaking out over gay succession is named Bone.


If you think that's good, you should check out this guy Santorum. Now there's really bad luck in names!

I know
 
2012-03-18 04:50:43 PM
A Queen consort is not the same as a Queen. Hell, Prince Philip didn't even have a title until he was named the Duke of Edinburgh when he married Elizabeth (he had to give up his Greek and Danish royal titles). He wasn't even made into a prince until 1957, 10 years after he married Elizabeth.
 
2012-03-18 04:51:51 PM
gay people are people who are gay. they are not "gays" who must be legally treated as people, however grudgingly.

get over it, conservatives.

Aziz Ansari on gay marriage and the Bible (new window)
From:
azizisbored.com
 
2012-03-18 04:52:20 PM

Mantour: No. The Act of Settlement (new window) is law for ALL Commonwealth members, as it is a shared throne.

Many countries, include the UK and Canada has fought for an amendment to allow Roman Catholics in the line of succession but to no success.


I'm just curious, but doesn't the monarch retain some sort of authority within the Anglican Church? Why then, would someone not convert to Anglicanism if they ascended to the throne? I'd rather be the boss over bodies and spirit than have to answer to the Holy See. I mean, first thing I did that they didn't like and I'd be excommunicated anyways, so why not let them come to me as equals?
 
2012-03-18 04:54:49 PM

CapnBlues: gay people are people who are gay. they are not "gays" who must be legally treated as people, however grudgingly.


Usually.

fashionindie.com
 
2012-03-18 04:57:39 PM

ImpendingCynic: bobbette: Some of you are feeding either a troll or a tard. You might consider that you're wasting your time either way.

True. The whole article was trolling. The MP is in a big tizzy about this but the article says "he wants to know if it is the Government's plan to change the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 to allow a same-sex union." So, the government has said nothing about changing the rules that specify how royals can marry - rules that are different than for everyone else - but he's freaking out over whether they might.

There's a bit of win that the MP freaking out over gay succession is named Bone.


Actually the marriage rules aren't that much different, the people getting married just have to have their weddings approved if they're in the top tier of the succession, in order to keep out Catholics. That's it. I read the Royal Marriages Act and there's nothing in it that would prevent a gay marriage - it's conveniently gender-neutral.

The only thing I'm unsure of is how succession would work if there was a gayby in this scenario. But childless monarchs and royal bastards have all happened before.
 
2012-03-18 05:03:07 PM

Dansker: Ned Stark: whidbey: 21st farking century and we're still having to put up with homophobia in the civilized world.

Oh well. So much for that "enlightened age" you hear about.


i was ore offput by the monarchism

I don't think there's any strong monarchism in the UK, and the royal family is purely ornamental. Not to mention a nice source of income for the British state.


FTA: Mr Bone has demanded an emergency summit of Commonwealth leaders to discuss the planned changes.

Are there summits of Commonwealth leaders to discuss changes to other purely ornamental British things, like London Bridge, or other nice sources of income, like the Olympics?
 
2012-03-18 05:05:39 PM

ox45tallboy: CapnBlues: gay people are people who are gay. they are not "gays" who must be legally treated as people, however grudgingly.

Usually.

[fashionindie.com image 367x550]


Nope. Furry gay people are people. They are not "furry gays" who must be legally treated as people, however grudgingly. Unless you're aware of any law that keeps straight furry people from getting married, inheriting property, sharing adoption, and other things.

/I know it was supposed to be a joke, but no exceptions
 
2012-03-18 05:06:26 PM
omg what if the queen decides to marry a dog?! the dog would be king of england!
 
2012-03-18 05:06:38 PM

wellreadneck: Dansker: Ned Stark: whidbey: 21st farking century and we're still having to put up with homophobia in the civilized world.

Oh well. So much for that "enlightened age" you hear about.


i was ore offput by the monarchism

I don't think there's any strong monarchism in the UK, and the royal family is purely ornamental. Not to mention a nice source of income for the British state.

FTA: Mr Bone has demanded an emergency summit of Commonwealth leaders to discuss the planned changes.

Are there summits of Commonwealth leaders to discuss changes to other purely ornamental British things, like London Bridge, or other nice sources of income, like the Olympics?


I would say since London Bridge can actually be used to cross the Thames, it is more useful than the current iteration of the monarchy...

But an "emergency summit"?
 
2012-03-18 05:06:44 PM

ox45tallboy: Mantour: No. The Act of Settlement (new window) is law for ALL Commonwealth members, as it is a shared throne.

Many countries, include the UK and Canada has fought for an amendment to allow Roman Catholics in the line of succession but to no success.

I'm just curious, but doesn't the monarch retain some sort of authority within the Anglican Church? Why then, would someone not convert to Anglicanism if they ascended to the throne? I'd rather be the boss over bodies and spirit than have to answer to the Holy See. I mean, first thing I did that they didn't like and I'd be excommunicated anyways, so why not let them come to me as equals?


Yes, the Monarch of the Commonwealth is the defender of the Anglican Faith (see Henry VIII)

Because religion was a tool used to wages wars. During the Reign of Elizabeth I, England was once the ONLY Protestant Realm in Europe was almost invaded for that reason. (See Spanish Armada).
 
2012-03-18 05:08:06 PM

Mantour: bobbette: ontariolightning: That MP wants an emergency commonwealth meeting over gay marriage?! well most of those countries are anti gay anyway.. in fact I think the only country in the commonwealth with gay marriage is Canada

You're confusing the Commonwealth with the Commonwealth Realms, which are the 15 other countries that share a sovereign with the UK. There are Commonwealth countries who even have other royalty.

The Commonwealth is an organization sort of like the Francophonie, it wouldn't matter who the head of it was married to.

No. The Act of Settlement (new window) is law for ALL Commonwealth members, as it is a shared throne.

Many countries, include the UK and Canada has fought for an amendment to allow Roman Catholics in the line of succession but to no success.


No.

There is the Commonwealth which is an international non-governmental organization which elects the Queen as its leader. They're the people who put on the Games. Most Commonwealth members do not have the Queen as head of state.

The Commonwealth Realms are the 16 countries where the Queen is the head of state. It is distinct from the Commonwealth.

The Crown is not a "shared throne". In each country, the Crown is distinct, and Canada was actually the most instrumental country in pushing the distinction between the British, and Canadian Crown. What is shared is the person of the monarch.
 
2012-03-18 05:09:33 PM

Mantour: ox45tallboy: Mantour: No. The Act of Settlement (new window) is law for ALL Commonwealth members, as it is a shared throne.

Many countries, include the UK and Canada has fought for an amendment to allow Roman Catholics in the line of succession but to no success.

I'm just curious, but doesn't the monarch retain some sort of authority within the Anglican Church? Why then, would someone not convert to Anglicanism if they ascended to the throne? I'd rather be the boss over bodies and spirit than have to answer to the Holy See. I mean, first thing I did that they didn't like and I'd be excommunicated anyways, so why not let them come to me as equals?

Yes, the Monarch of the Commonwealth is the defender of the Anglican Faith (see Henry VIII)

Because religion was a tool used to wages wars. During the Reign of Elizabeth I, England was once the ONLY Protestant Realm in Europe was almost invaded for that reason. (See Spanish Armada).


Did you hear about the sailor who went AWOL so he wouldn't have to go with the Spanish Armada? He said he had a sinking feeling about it.
 
2012-03-18 05:11:48 PM

ox45tallboy: I would say since London Bridge can actually be used to cross the Thames, it is more useful than the current iteration of the monarchy...

But an "emergency summit"?


It would be hard to cross the Thames by way of London Bridge now a days -- since it is in Arizona

Tower bridge is what you might be thinking of
 
2012-03-18 05:12:42 PM

DeaH: ox45tallboy: CapnBlues: gay people are people who are gay. they are not "gays" who must be legally treated as people, however grudgingly.

Usually.

[fashionindie.com image 367x550]

Nope. Furry gay people are people. They are not "furry gays" who must be legally treated as people, however grudgingly. Unless you're aware of any law that keeps straight furry people from getting married, inheriting property, sharing adoption, and other things.

/I know it was supposed to be a joke, but no exceptions


Yeah, it was supposed to be a joke. Thanks for making me feel like a big meanie.
 
2012-03-18 05:15:25 PM

Mantour: Because religion was a tool used to wages wars. During the Reign of Elizabeth I, England was once the ONLY Protestant Realm in Europe was almost invaded for that reason. (See Spanish Armada).


I know the story goes that Henry VIII wanted a divorce which the Pope wouldn't grant, but wasn't it more about Peter's Pence, and the fact that he thought he could get away with it because the Holy See didn't have the funds to field an army to keep him from breaking away?
 
2012-03-18 05:17:30 PM

ox45tallboy: I know the story goes that Henry VIII wanted a divorce which the Pope wouldn't grant, but wasn't it more about Peter's Pence, and the fact that he thought he could get away with it because the Holy See didn't have the funds to field an army to keep him from breaking away?


It was more about the Holy Roman Emperor being Catherine of Aragon's nephew. He basically put the pope under his thumb. The papal legate sent to preside over the question of their divorce might as well have written his decision on the voyage to England.
 
2012-03-18 05:18:02 PM

ox45tallboy: wellreadneck: Dansker: Ned Stark: whidbey: 21st farking century and we're still having to put up with homophobia in the civilized world.

Oh well. So much for that "enlightened age" you hear about.


i was ore offput by the monarchism

I don't think there's any strong monarchism in the UK, and the royal family is purely ornamental. Not to mention a nice source of income for the British state.

FTA: Mr Bone has demanded an emergency summit of Commonwealth leaders to discuss the planned changes.

Are there summits of Commonwealth leaders to discuss changes to other purely ornamental British things, like London Bridge, or other nice sources of income, like the Olympics?

I would say since London Bridge can actually be used to cross the Thames, it is more useful than the current iteration of the monarchy...

But an "emergency summit"?


Because in four generations, this might come up. If that isn't urgent when it comes to hysteria over "the gay," I don't know what is.

/To be fair, this could at some point conceivably be an issue for Great Britain. Not a pressing one. Not one that cannot be dealt with fairly easily, but a real issue nonetheless. This is in comparison to the general hysteria over "the gay marriage," which, no matter how hard it's spun, will never be a threat to straight people's marriages.
 
2012-03-18 05:21:28 PM

Magic_Button: ox45tallboy: I would say since London Bridge can actually be used to cross the Thames, it is more useful than the current iteration of the monarchy...

But an "emergency summit"?

It would be hard to cross the Thames by way of London Bridge now a days -- since it is in Arizona

Tower bridge is what you might be thinking of


Nope, I was thinking of the A3 Bridge, which is currently called "London Bridge." (I've been there). Yes, a former "London Bridge" is in Arizona, but the current one over the Thames is the third to hold that designation.

Tower Bridge is the next one downstream.

/pet peave
 
2012-03-18 05:21:36 PM
Chess games are going to get more confusing in the future.
 
2012-03-18 05:23:07 PM

Mantour: ox45tallboy: Mantour: No. The Act of Settlement (new window) is law for ALL Commonwealth members, as it is a shared throne.

Many countries, include the UK and Canada has fought for an amendment to allow Roman Catholics in the line of succession but to no success.

I'm just curious, but doesn't the monarch retain some sort of authority within the Anglican Church? Why then, would someone not convert to Anglicanism if they ascended to the throne? I'd rather be the boss over bodies and spirit than have to answer to the Holy See. I mean, first thing I did that they didn't like and I'd be excommunicated anyways, so why not let them come to me as equals?

Yes, the Monarch of the Commonwealth is the defender of the Anglican Faith (see Henry VIII)

Because religion was a tool used to wages wars. During the Reign of Elizabeth I, England was once the ONLY Protestant Realm in Europe was almost invaded for that reason. (See Spanish Armada).


That's not right. There were other Protestant countries in Europe at the time, mainly in Germany. The attempted Spanish invasions of England were the culmination of a long-simmering conflict between England and Spain over the Netherlands (England was supporting the independence/Protestant cause of the Netherlands) and rampant English privateering.
 
2012-03-18 05:23:33 PM

DeaH: Because in four generations, this might come up. If that isn't urgent when it comes to hysteria over "the gay," I don't know what is.

/To be fair, this could at some point conceivably be an issue for Great Britain. Not a pressing one. Not one that cannot be dealt with fairly easily, but a real issue nonetheless. This is in comparison to the general hysteria over "the gay marriage," which, no matter how hard it's spun, will never be a threat to straight people's marriages.


Right, because otherwise, who knows...

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-03-18 05:25:20 PM

Ken VeryBigLiar: It was more about the Holy Roman Emperor being Catherine of Aragon's nephew. He basically put the pope under his thumb. The papal legate sent to preside over the question of their divorce might as well have written his decision on the voyage to England.


This sounds pretty interesting. I think I'll read up on it.
 
2012-03-18 05:27:10 PM

ox45tallboy: DeaH: ox45tallboy: CapnBlues: gay people are people who are gay. they are not "gays" who must be legally treated as people, however grudgingly.

Usually.

[fashionindie.com image 367x550]

Nope. Furry gay people are people. They are not "furry gays" who must be legally treated as people, however grudgingly. Unless you're aware of any law that keeps straight furry people from getting married, inheriting property, sharing adoption, and other things.

/I know it was supposed to be a joke, but no exceptions

Yeah, it was supposed to be a joke. Thanks for making me feel like a big meanie.


Glad to be there for you.
 
2012-03-18 05:28:24 PM

bobbette: Mantour: bobbette: ontariolightning: That MP wants an emergency commonwealth meeting over gay marriage?! well most of those countries are anti gay anyway.. in fact I think the only country in the commonwealth with gay marriage is Canada

You're confusing the Commonwealth with the Commonwealth Realms, which are the 15 other countries that share a sovereign with the UK. There are Commonwealth countries who even have other royalty.

The Commonwealth is an organization sort of like the Francophonie, it wouldn't matter who the head of it was married to.

No. The Act of Settlement (new window) is law for ALL Commonwealth members, as it is a shared throne.

Many countries, include the UK and Canada has fought for an amendment to allow Roman Catholics in the line of succession but to no success.

No.

There is the Commonwealth which is an international non-governmental organization which elects the Queen as its leader. They're the people who put on the Games. Most Commonwealth members do not have the Queen as head of state.

The Commonwealth Realms are the 16 countries where the Queen is the head of state. It is distinct from the Commonwealth.

The Crown is not a "shared throne". In each country, the Crown is distinct, and Canada was actually the most instrumental country in pushing the distinction between the British, and Canadian Crown. What is shared is the person of the monarch.


"...and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom...":

Statute of Westminster, 1931 (new window)
 
2012-03-18 05:28:29 PM

ox45tallboy: Nope, I was thinking of the A3 Bridge, which is currently called "London Bridge." (I've been there). Yes, a former "London Bridge" is in Arizona, but the current one over the Thames is the third to hold that designation.

Tower Bridge is the next one downstream.

/pet peave


=======================

Ok -- thought that was Pool bridge -- The more you know !

Damn you History Channel, You have failed me for the last time !!
( not saying it was aliens ------- but it was totally aliens )
 
Displayed 50 of 143 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report