From the Mountains...
Sign up to donate monthly
and a sponsoring FReeper will donate $10
Urgent: Save Lazamataz! Donate today
Posted on 04/16/2011 8:21:29 PM PDT by TheDingoAteMyBaby
LONDON - Britain's government has begun the process of reviewing the ancient, discriminatory rules of royal succession, so that if Prince William and Kate Middleton's first child is a girl she would eventually become queen.
The current rule that puts boys ahead of their sisters "would strike most people as a little old-fashioned," Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said Saturday.
It is just two weeks until the prince and Middleton get married at London's Westminster Abbey, and Clegg said many people may agree that the rules should be changed so that if the couple's first child were a girl, she would eventually inherit the throne — even if she had a younger brother.
(Excerpt) Read more at ca.news.yahoo.com ...
Royals don’t run for office because they are strictly prohibited from entering the Commons.
There is no doubt in my mind, or the mind of anyone in the country of the supremacy of Parliament.
I can see you’re slightly thrown-off by the pomp and pageantry. That’s ok, it’s what makes us British. We love a good pantomime, and a good bit of ceremony. Lovely stuff.
I directly blame the Brit ruling class, monarchial imperialistic attitude and the extremist revenge-minded IRA for both causing the Troubles.
Having been raised and living as a free American patriot, my blood boils when I listen to the queens speech and her constant references to "my government".
Nice moral equivalence between those who pursued policies detrimental to a population and those revenge minded members of that population who seek to correct this wrong through terrorism and the deliberate targeting of innocents.
Yep, you sound EXACTLY like the Muslim world after 9-11 who said that America was to blame.
Tell me about that supremacy when the House of Lords is sitting at the feet of the queen on her throne with her crown on, lecturing them about their responsibilities.
I appreciate pomp and ceremony, when it's just for fun. When Obama bowed to the Saudi king, that was not funny or respectful to America, we bow to no one. The most beat down American has a better concept and access to justice and freedom than the most powerful royalty, that is what makes America exceptional.
Tell me more about moral equivalence.
America was to blame for not seeing the growing threat, we were warned many times and didn't act against jihadists. 9/11 could have been prevented.
“Why? You operate a hereditary allocation of wealth system in the US. You die, your earthly goods and chattels pass to your blood relatives. It’s the same principle.”
It wouldn’t be worth fighting another war with the UK, but we long ago parted ways, with respect to this “principle,” that being rolyalty.
I find it sort of humorous that Canadians, Australians, Indians hold the King or Queen of England and Northern Ireland, to be their divinely selected leader.
Much more hilarious are Nigeria, Pakistan and Belize. Why doesn’t the Queen pull Nigeria and Pakistan at least into the 18th or 19th centuries?
You don't sound like those who said America was to blame for not seeing it coming; no, you sound like those who said America was to blame for conducting a campaign against innocent Muslims.
I'm afraid that statement demonstrates that you completely fail to understand the nature of the British constitution, which contains no 'subjugation', symbolic or actual.
Well, then you simply misunderstood my statement.
I can only speak from my perspective and the symbolic subjugation and egalitarianism and royal class system is clearly very active in Britain, in practice and in perception by Brits.
Clearly there are a lot of Americans fawning and drooling over the royals too. I won't be joining them at 0300 to watch the wedding.
My family and friends, except for one kooky aunt, think the whole thing is just plain weird.
Yes, the common terrorist refrain, the victims of terrorism have NO ONE but themselves to blame.
“they have no one but themselves to blame if London gets bombed” gandalftb
“it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women,” Osama bin Laden
Interesting. Are you a member of Parliament?
Pre-1640?
Doubt it.
They carried out a genocide to remove people to make it a pasture for animals; hold your head up high.
“How does Britain find itself a heartbeat away from verstehen und sprechen sie deutch and can’t get its Irish neighbor to help?”
Ireland didn’t just not help, they helped the Germans by refusing to black out. They remembered that in 1916 the guns for their symbolic uprising came from U-boats, and always (for obvious reasons) regarded Britain as a worse enemy than Germany).
Yes, absolutely pre-1640. It would seem you lack a historical perspective for your reductivism, my friend
I dont think this was meant to be directed to me...
True, but the overall consensus was secession. So the USA was fighting to support the unionist minority in the slave states. I'm glad we agree on doing something like that.
Most in the South knew they had no chance, especially without foreign help.
And yet they still did it anyway. They must have believed in it very strongly.
The bottom line is that imperial monarchy-driven colonial attitudes and greed brought the Brits to Ireland, created the oppression there and they have no one but themselves to blame if London gets bombed.
Colonial attitudes are not neccesarily monarchy-driven. Rome was a republic when it conquered most of Europe. The Netherlands was a republic when it colonised America, the East Indies and South Africa. France was a republic when it warred on its neighbours in the late 18th Century. Sorry, you don't get away with laying all the ills of the world on monarchism.
The British came to Ireland primarily to forestall a descent on the country by the French. The English before that because they feared a similar descent by the Spanish. The primary motivation was Ireland's strategic position, not its ingrained value (approximately zero).
How does Britain find itself a heartbeat away from verstehen und sprechen sie deutch and can't get its Irish neighbor to help?
Because Irish nationalism is innately inward-looking and backward-looking. It is indescribably selfish with a chronic and childish martyr complex. Bluntly.
Perhaps being a better neighbor and America wouldn't have had to bail them out twice with our blood and treasure that would never have been created in a monarchy.
Hand on heart. Do you really, truly, honestly believe that Nazi Germany would not ultimately have made war on the US?
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.