I don't understand. I have always paid by check in the past. . .
Posted on 07/23/2013 8:34:21 AM PDT by Perdogg
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's newborn son will 'suck the blood' of Russia in the mid-21st century and should therefore not be celebrated, a controversial Russian politician declared today. Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the leader of the nationalist Liberal Democrat Party, declared 'I don't care about the heir' before accusing the British monarchy of 'destroying our state'. The outspoken politician made his attention-grabbing comments in an interview with the state-run newspaper Rio Novosti.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Exactly! We’re going to avenge poor old Tsar Nicky and take all the furs!
I dunno, seems like it needs more bath salts, zombie apolcalypse or Zhirinovsky eating someone's face.
Is it tomorrow, yet?
I remember that in Last of the Mohicans (the 90s version), the evil Indian (can't remember the character) called the English the yeng-eez at one point. I thought they might be claiming that that was the derivation of Yankees, but I have not checked the etymology of that word. I have heard all kinds of silly explanations for Yankee, from Dutch and Cheese and others. None seemed convincing. l'anglais makes more sense than the others I have heard.
Yankees have been pretty independent minded throughout their history, in my opinion. After the revolution, they drove the tories out. They have always believed themselves superior morally to the rest of the country, though, whether it was in their strict calvinism, or their current total abandonment of Christianity. That comes through in a lot of Yankees, no matter what their politics.
Is it tomorrow, yet?
It is where i am, but not where T-C is located. :)
Where is Darks? I thought he had the keys to the Flying Castle.
Yeah, it’s tomorrow here, too. :)
I was so saddened by that; UK freeper naturalman1974 went to a lot of trouble to inform me of the differences in their law, which requires the Queen to go along with whatever Parliament decides except in very narrow circumstances.
I agree that legalizing gay marriage removes the entire rationale supporting a ruling class based on bloodlines; it's a crazy move. But like this nation, which has gone totally schizoid, nations can run along a parallel track for a long time before the halves fall apart or start shooting each other. I think the recent birth of a new baby and the positive image generated by William, Catherine and Harry has injected new life into the Brit monarchy; although all could be lost depending on how well Charles handles his reign before William has his shot.
There is always the chance that Britain will find ways to limit the excesses of gay propaganda in schools, in view of the presence of muslim pressure groups.
As for the Queen's actual point of view; it could go either way. European courts are very familiar with homosexuals because there are so many in service at the courts. On the other hand, Cameron could have siezed a chance to ram this through when the Queen is not just getting very old, but also has been very distracted in the past year by an exhausting schedule for her Jubilee.
And lastly, her Anglican advisors may have tried to convince her that gay marriage would be good for society based on the corrupt relativist fads in the Reformed churches. She doesn't strike me as the kind of gal who would whip out her iPad and start researching for herself the deleterious effects of homosexual activism and gay marriage in the various places it has been tried.
If there is anything I've learned about God in my long life, it's that the life force is inborn and very powerful, defying attempts to kill it off. It shouldn't take much longer for the West to realize the utter failure of socialism and its handmaid, cultural Marxism. When the tide starts to turn, it will be up to us to re-educate the low information hordes infesting us.
I'm going to have to ask you fellows to pay cash.
I don't understand. I have always paid by check in the past. . .
“Time Travelers Strictly Cash”
It’s a written rule.
There is indeed a distinction between 'assent' and 'approval', albeit a nice one (in the old sense of 'nice'). The constitutional position of the Queen on this was authoritatively set out by naturalman1975 in the course of some lengthy threads on the subject of the gay marriage legislation last week, and I have no wish to revisit that debate. But for the etymological, as distinct from the constitutional history of 'assent', and its gradual replacement in modern usage by 'consent', the full historical edition of the Oxford English Dictionary is instructive. The connotation of 'assent' has consistently been agreement that such-and-such a thing should happen, without the necessary implication that that thing is desirable or morally right: an implication which is, however, carried by 'approval'. The now rather old-fashioned notion of 'parental consent' to, say, a marriage, comes very close to this historical distinction. My daughter might persuade me to give my consent to her marriage with Mr X, but that wouldn't necessarily mean that I think Mr X would make a good husband or that it would be a happy marriage - implications which would be present if I gave my 'approval' to the marriage.
But when it comes to reflections on the Queen's character in relation to this action, the question whether she did or did not have a choice, to sign or not to sign, is rather beside the point. What is beyond doubt, for reasons lucidly set out by naturalman1975, is that she believed herself to have no choice, and that not to sign would have been a breach of her duty enshrined in her coronation oath. It's furthermore not in doubt that she would have received no advice to the contrary. That being the case, she cannot be personally criticised on moral grounds for taking what she believed to be an unavoidable action. Still less if, at the same time, she had also fulfilled her constitutional duty to advise and to warn, by warning in the strongest terms available to her of the grievous consequences of this Act. Since that advice and those warnings are only ever given in private to her Prime Minister, that can only be a matter of speculation: although I believe it to be highly probable.
They (we) don't, I can assure you. Don't jump to conclusions from the breathless improvisation of a single reporter. The term 'subject' has long disappeared from general use, is no longer applied to the status of British citizens, and has no meaning in law. The only context you will ever hear it used nowadays is in the pantomime flummery of some formal state occasions, where the language used is as archaic and irrelevant to modern Britain as the fancy-dress costumes.
Incidentally, it's curious that the notion that the royal family is 'inbred' seems so persistent among American commentators. In fact the British royal family has practised exogamy more consistently and for longer than many, perhaps most ordinary families. It's a very long time since a British monarch married anybody as close as a first cousin.
I understand the quandry—I just find it abhorrent. The homosexual agenda is not tolerance, nor even legitimacy; they want to make it illegal to disagree. This action goes a long way along that path.
I pray that the young family experiences good health, prosperity and, most of all, moral clarity.
I agree. It was a sad day, but hope springs eternal and every life is sacred. I pray that sanity and moral clarity will return to all our shores. I also pray that it won’t be prefaced by a complete collapse of society.
The British Royals own a ton of land. Prime real estate. They donate the money from that land to the British people. If they were to be deposed they would ask for that revenue to be transferred back to them - and the Brits would lose a lot of money.
That’s assuming the deposing allowed them to keep the land, most of which they bought with tax revenue in the dictatorship days (if they even bothered to buy it, being dictators they might have just declared it theirs). In general deposed dictators don’t get to keep their holdings.
They were given the land by Nobles over the centuries in exchange for services provided. It’s still their land. The only way they would lose it is if Britain abolished private property laws.
Nobles only had land to give because the king allowed it, and allowed them to be nobles when you get down to it. They wouldn’t have to abolish private property laws, they’d just point out it was all part of a dictatorial system of mutual reward and that system is gone and it’s rewards are forfeit. We have similar laws here to take away the items purchased with money from criminal enterprises, I wouldn’t be surprised if England has them too. Declare the whole dictatorship a criminal enterprise, which frankly it was, and bang, they don’t own anything, which frankly they shouldn’t.
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.