Discussion:
Royal Family Tree - free with The Times (UK)
(too old to reply)
cecilia
2006-11-07 10:03:58 UTC
Permalink
With my copy of today's Times came a poster sized royal family tree -
a rather better production than most sold in tourist shops etc.

I'm not suggesting anyone rush out and buy a copy, but if you know
your neighbours take the newspaper and are likely not to be interested
in the tree, it's the sort of thing primary schools might appreciate,
if you don't know any other "good home".
Oxymel of Squill
2006-11-07 11:49:48 UTC
Permalink
is it in German? Is there an English transation?
Post by cecilia
With my copy of today's Times came a poster sized royal family tree -
a rather better production than most sold in tourist shops etc.
I'm not suggesting anyone rush out and buy a copy, but if you know
your neighbours take the newspaper and are likely not to be interested
in the tree, it's the sort of thing primary schools might appreciate,
if you don't know any other "good home".
Peter
2006-11-07 12:43:10 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 11:49:48 -0000, "Oxymel of Squill"
Post by Oxymel of Squill
is it in German? Is there an English transation?
Yes, it's in German with a full English translation - do rush out and
buy a copy.
--
Cheers

Peter

Please remove the invalid to reply
cecilia
2006-11-07 14:02:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oxymel of Squill
With my copy of today's Times came a poster sized royal family tree [...]
is it in German? Is there an English transation?
It is in English. It is titled (I should have said) "Kings and
Queens of England". It does include some rulers from elsewhere
(including Hanover, Romania, Holy Roman Empire, Scotland, Denmark,
Norway, Castile & Leon.)
Brian Austin
2006-11-07 17:21:42 UTC
Permalink
I think he's trying (and failing) to be clever.

Brian Austin
Post by cecilia
Post by Oxymel of Squill
With my copy of today's Times came a poster sized royal family tree [...]
is it in German? Is there an English transation?
It is in English. It is titled (I should have said) "Kings and
Queens of England". It does include some rulers from elsewhere
(including Hanover, Romania, Holy Roman Empire, Scotland, Denmark,
Norway, Castile & Leon.)
Oxymel of Squill
2006-11-08 11:14:55 UTC
Permalink
come come, it's a fair point. Norman Davies reckons the Diana was the losest
an English person has ever come to the throne. Has there ever been an
English King (or Queen) of England?
Post by Brian Austin
I think he's trying (and failing) to be clever.
Brian Austin
Post by cecilia
Post by Oxymel of Squill
With my copy of today's Times came a poster sized royal family tree [...]
is it in German? Is there an English transation?
It is in English. It is titled (I should have said) "Kings and
Queens of England". It does include some rulers from elsewhere
(including Hanover, Romania, Holy Roman Empire, Scotland, Denmark,
Norway, Castile & Leon.)
John Cartmell
2006-11-08 11:37:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oxymel of Squill
come come, it's a fair point. Norman Davies reckons the Diana was the
losest an English person has ever come to the throne.
The assumptions are badly thought out.
Post by Oxymel of Squill
Has there ever been an English King (or Queen) of England?
Define English.
--
John
Graeme Wall
2006-11-08 12:12:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oxymel of Squill
come come, it's a fair point. Norman Davies reckons the Diana was the
losest an English person has ever come to the throne. Has there ever been
an English King (or Queen) of England?
This one's been done to death, first define your terms.

For practical purposes the current Monarch is an English born person on the
throne of England (and other places). As have the last 7 monarchs, and if we
are not careful, at least the next 2.

Going back further we have 2 born in Germany, 1 in England jointly with 1
born in the Netherlands, 2 more born in England and 2 born in Scotland. That
takes you back to Elizabeth I who was the last monarch solely of England.
For the record she was born in England.

So out of 15 contenders we have 10 English monarchs since 1603

Norman Davies is a pillock, Diana would never have come to the throne.
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Andrew Sellon
2006-11-08 13:05:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
This one's been done to death, first define your terms.
<SNIP>
Norman Davies is a pillock, Diana would never have come to the throne.
Graeme -

Once again we have an inane thread running that is cross posted from
another list / group. Although in principal I believe it bad policy to
be sucked into them, at times one's blood temperature reaches such a
point that one has to from a self preservation position, otherwise one
would burst.

It so happens I agree with you on both the above points. Norman Davies
shows his degree of pilockism by apparently believing that Diana would
have come to the throne which, however rosy her marriage might have been
she manifestly could not do. My previously expressed views on this young
woman have nothing to do with this, constitutionally it could not have
happened.

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
Graeme Wall
2006-11-08 13:37:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Sellon
Post by Graeme Wall
This one's been done to death, first define your terms.
<SNIP>
Norman Davies is a pillock, Diana would never have come to the throne.
Graeme -
Once again we have an inane thread running that is cross posted from
another list / group. Although in principal I believe it bad policy to
be sucked into them, at times one's blood temperature reaches such a
point that one has to from a self preservation position, otherwise one
would burst.
This time it came up as I, coincidentally, was looking up details of certain
royal births (for non-genealogical reasons).

Mind you I really should check for cross-postings.
Post by Andrew Sellon
It so happens I agree with you on both the above points. Norman Davies
shows his degree of pilockism by apparently believing that Diana would
have come to the throne which, however rosy her marriage might have been
she manifestly could not do. My previously expressed views on this young
woman have nothing to do with this, constitutionally it could not have
happened.
Precisely!

NB Have you ever managed to recover the info from your crashed hard drive?
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
CWatters
2006-11-08 16:32:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
For practical purposes the current Monarch is an English born person on the
throne of England (and other places). As have the last 7 monarchs, and if we
are not careful, at least the next 2.
Humm.. way back we married off our royals to the heads of other countries in
the hope that we could avoid being invaded... I wonder if it would still
work. Do many of the new EEC countries have royal families :-)
Roy Stockdill
2006-11-08 18:08:59 UTC
Permalink
From: "CWatters"
Post by CWatters
Humm.. way back we married off our royals to the heads of other
countries in the hope that we could avoid being invaded... I wonder if
it would still work. Do many of the new EEC countries have royal
families :-)>
I don't believe Albania is yet in the EEC but King LEKA I and his wife
Queen Susan (she was an Australian) apparently had a son called LEKA
ANWAR ZOG, Crown Prince of the Albanians, who is 24 and appears to
be unmarried. Queen Susan died in 2004 and it occurs to me that Cilla
Black is widowed. She'd be a good match for King Leka. Then perhaps
we could get Victoria Beckham to divorce David and marry her off to
Crown Prince Leka. I bet Posh would enjoy being Queen of the Albanians
one day!

--
Roy Stockdill
Guild of One-Name Studies: www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:
www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Doc Aay
2006-11-08 19:07:31 UTC
Permalink
From: "CWatters"
Post by CWatters
Humm.. way back we married off our royals to the heads of other
countries in the hope that we could avoid being invaded... I wonder if
it would still work. Do many of the new EEC countries have royal
families :-)>
I don't believe Albania is yet in the EEC but King LEKA I and his wife
Queen Susan (she was an Australian) apparently had a son called LEKA
ANWAR ZOG, Crown Prince of the Albanians, who is 24 and appears to
be unmarried. Queen Susan died in 2004 and it occurs to me that Cilla
Black is widowed. She'd be a good match for King Leka. Then perhaps
we could get Victoria Beckham to divorce David and marry her off to
Crown Prince Leka. I bet Posh would enjoy being Queen of the Albanians
one day!
--
Roy Stockdill
Guild of One-Name Studies: www.one-name.org
www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Cilla Leka and Vickie Leka?

Doc
CWatters
2006-11-08 21:09:08 UTC
Permalink
From: "CWatters"
Post by CWatters
Humm.. way back we married off our royals to the heads of other
countries in the hope that we could avoid being invaded... I wonder if
it would still work. Do many of the new EEC countries have royal
families :-)>
I don't believe Albania is yet in the EEC but King LEKA I and his wife
Queen Susan (she was an Australian) apparently had a son called LEKA
ANWAR ZOG, Crown Prince of the Albanians, who is 24 and appears to
be unmarried. Queen Susan died in 2004 and it occurs to me that Cilla
Black is widowed. She'd be a good match for King Leka. Then perhaps
we could get Victoria Beckham to divorce David and marry her off to
Crown Prince Leka. I bet Posh would enjoy being Queen of the Albanians
one day!
I was thinking more about marrying off William and Harry to someone far far
away.
Fenny
2006-11-08 21:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Previously on Studio 60 ^W^W soc.genealogy.britain, CWatters said ...
Post by CWatters
I was thinking more about marrying off William and Harry to someone far far
away.
Princess Leia?
--
Fenny

Fred: Well, I had to extrapolate a new variation on interdimensional
plasma dynamics on the fly, but if the math holds...
CWatters
2006-11-09 12:58:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fenny
Previously on Studio 60 ^W^W soc.genealogy.britain, CWatters said ...
Post by CWatters
I was thinking more about marrying off William and Harry to someone far far
away.
Princess Leia?
:-)

May the force be with you.
dodgybrit
2006-11-09 08:41:07 UTC
Permalink
This lot are pretenders. The real King lives in Australia. There was a
TV programmes about it some time ago, something to do with the line of
succession not being followed, Matilda in France having an heir to the
throne?
Lesley Robertson
2006-11-09 10:17:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by dodgybrit
This lot are pretenders. The real King lives in Australia. There was a
TV programmes about it some time ago, something to do with the line of
succession not being followed, Matilda in France having an heir to the
throne?
Well, if there was a TV prog about it, it must be true.
If you're talking about the Matilda that fought Stephen for the throne, that
was just one case where the crown passed by right of conquest. There have
been others.
And it would only affect the English throne.
Lesley Robertson
Andrew Sellon
2006-11-09 11:25:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesley Robertson
Well, if there was a TV prog about it, it must be true.
If you're talking about the Matilda that fought Stephen for the throne, that
was just one case where the crown passed by right of conquest. There have
been others.
And it would only affect the English throne.
I would suggest that the OP watches that old Tv series, Brother Cadfael
(sp?), to gain some insight into the ramifications of English / Welsh
history in the time of Stephen and Matilda. Jacobi is always worth watching.

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
Don Aitken
2006-11-09 12:23:59 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 11:17:09 +0100, "Lesley Robertson"
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by dodgybrit
This lot are pretenders. The real King lives in Australia. There was a
TV programmes about it some time ago, something to do with the line of
succession not being followed, Matilda in France having an heir to the
throne?
Well, if there was a TV prog about it, it must be true.
If you're talking about the Matilda that fought Stephen for the throne, that
was just one case where the crown passed by right of conquest. There have
been others.
The line of succession has been changed by Parliament on more than
twenty occasions. It was made treason to deny the Parliament has this
power as long ago as 1571.
Post by Lesley Robertson
And it would only affect the English throne.
Good point, especially since the kingdom of England no longer exists.
The Treaty of Union provides (Article II) "the the succession to the
crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain ... be, remain and
continue to the most excellent princess Sophia, electress and duchess
dowager of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being protestants ... "
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Brian Pears
2006-11-09 11:09:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by dodgybrit
This lot are pretenders. The real King lives in Australia. There was a
TV programmes about it some time ago, something to do with the line of
succession not being followed, Matilda in France having an heir to the
throne?
It was just the usual junk TV designed to amuse the unthinking and
barely literate masses. Don't confuse the content of such programmes
with history or fact, they rarely bear much resemblance to either.

The succession to the throne is governed by the Act of Settlement
of 1701. This stared that, after the death of Queen Anne, the
throne would pass to the Electress Sophia of Hanover and her
Protestant descendants. So, whatever came before that, this Act
of Parliament determined what happened thereafter.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,,407239,00.html
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
Charles Ellson
2006-11-09 20:38:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Pears
Post by dodgybrit
This lot are pretenders. The real King lives in Australia. There was a
TV programmes about it some time ago, something to do with the line of
succession not being followed, Matilda in France having an heir to the
throne?
It was just the usual junk TV designed to amuse the unthinking and
barely literate masses. Don't confuse the content of such programmes
with history or fact, they rarely bear much resemblance to either.
The succession to the throne is governed by the Act of Settlement
of 1701. This stared that, after the death of Queen Anne, the
throne would pass to the Electress Sophia of Hanover and her
Protestant descendants. So, whatever came before that, this Act
of Parliament determined what happened thereafter.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,,407239,00.html
But only until the next relevant Act. Is the succession outwith the
scope of the Human Rights Act ?
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: charles_AT_ellson.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|
Brian Pears
2006-11-09 21:21:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Ellson
But only until the next relevant Act. Is the succession outwith the
scope of the Human Rights Act ?
As far as I can see, only one of the articles or protocols in the
ECHR has any bearing on the monarchy or the succession. That is
Protocol 12 on discrimination - a catholic omitted from the
succession might argue that this was discrimination. But if they
did, they would fail because Protocol 12 has not been ratified by
the UK - and given the virtually unlimited scope of Protocol 12,
it seems highly unlikely that it ever will be.

The Act of Settlement has lasted 305 years and is unlikely to be
scrapped in the next 305 - though I would not be at all surprised to
see the requirement that monarchs be Protestant, or even Christian,
removed in the not too distant future.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
Graeme Wall
2006-11-10 08:47:13 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Brian Pears
The succession to the throne is governed by the Act of Settlement
of 1701. This stared that, after the death of Queen Anne, the
throne would pass to the Electress Sophia of Hanover and her
Protestant descendants. So, whatever came before that, this Act
of Parliament determined what happened thereafter.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,,407239,00.html
But only until the next relevant Act. Is the succession outwith the
scope of the Human Rights Act ?
That's an interesting question. Certainly some aspects already breaches
current legislation, the anti-Catholic provisions for a start.
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Brian Pears
2006-11-10 15:43:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
That's an interesting question. Certainly some aspects already
breaches current legislation, the anti-Catholic provisions for a start.
Not so - surprising, perhaps, but there is no such legislation
except in the field of employment.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
Graeme Wall
2006-11-10 16:12:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Graeme Wall
That's an interesting question. Certainly some aspects already
breaches current legislation, the anti-Catholic provisions for a start.
Not so - surprising, perhaps, but there is no such legislation
except in the field of employment.
Well he wants the job of King...
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Fenny
2006-11-10 16:51:20 UTC
Permalink
Previously on Studio 60 ^W^W soc.genealogy.britain, Graeme Wall said ...
Post by Graeme Wall
Well he wants the job of King...
I'm not entirely sure he *wants* it, anymore than his grandfather wanted
it.
--
Fenny

Giles: Once again I teeter at the precipice of the generation gap.
cecilia
2006-11-09 11:33:50 UTC
Permalink
I apologise to all for starting this thread. A few free trees given
to primary schools aren't worth it.
Anne Chambers
2006-11-09 11:49:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by cecilia
I apologise to all for starting this thread. A few free trees given
to primary schools aren't worth it.
LOL - you've been around long enough to know how things on sgb get taken
up and run away with ;)

At least it hasn't got personal yet... :)
--
Anne Chambers, South Australia
Lesley Robertson
2006-11-09 13:17:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by cecilia
I apologise to all for starting this thread. A few free trees given
to primary schools aren't worth it.
This thread has been a source of innocent merriment at times - please don't
apologise.
Lesley Robertson
Fenny
2006-11-09 13:36:06 UTC
Permalink
Previously on Studio 60 ^W^W soc.genealogy.britain, Lesley Robertson said
...
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by cecilia
I apologise to all for starting this thread. A few free trees given
to primary schools aren't worth it.
This thread has been a source of innocent merriment at times - please don't
apologise.
Does the Mikado appear in the line of succession anywhere?

You've got me singing to myself now.
--
Fenny

Dr House: Read less, more TV.
Lesley Robertson
2006-11-09 16:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fenny
Previously on Studio 60 ^W^W soc.genealogy.britain, Lesley Robertson said
...
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by cecilia
I apologise to all for starting this thread. A few free trees given
to primary schools aren't worth it.
This thread has been a source of innocent merriment at times - please don't
apologise.
Does the Mikado appear in the line of succession anywhere?
You've got me singing to myself now.
--
I do like people who pick up on references!
Lesley Robertson
Fenny
2006-11-09 22:11:40 UTC
Permalink
Previously on Studio 60 ^W^W soc.genealogy.britain, Lesley Robertson said
...
Post by Lesley Robertson
--
I do like people who pick up on references!
When Stern Duty calls, I must obey!

(We're going to see Pirates in a couple of weeks)
--
Fenny

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss
on your computer." - Bruce Graham
Alison Kilpatrick
2006-11-10 02:22:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fenny
Previously on Studio 60 ^W^W soc.genealogy.britain, Lesley
Robertson said
...
Post by Lesley Robertson
--
I do like people who pick up on references!
When Stern Duty calls, I must obey!
(We're going to see Pirates in a couple of weeks)
--
Fenny
...

And we're going to see the Halifax NS production of "Trial by Jury"
in three weeks. Next spring the company will present Pirates.

"Let us gaily tread the measure..."

Alison
Peter Goodey
2006-11-10 07:46:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alison Kilpatrick
Next spring the company will present Pirates.
I haven't the faintest idea how this thread drifted but...

Trivia time - did you know that the character Sir Joseph Porter ("Ruler
of the Queen's Navee") was based on W H Smith (he of the bookseller
chain), an MP who was subject to much derision for his lack of naval
experience when he was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty.

I claim that to be of genealogical interest because yesterday I had cause
to carry out a bit of genealogical research on W H Smith <g>.
--
Family History Research in Kent
http://www.inertia.demon.co.uk
Kay Robinson
2006-11-10 09:51:27 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 07:46:26 +0000 (UTC), Peter Goodey
Post by Peter Goodey
Post by Alison Kilpatrick
Next spring the company will present Pirates.
I haven't the faintest idea how this thread drifted but...
Trivia time - did you know that the character Sir Joseph Porter ("Ruler
of the Queen's Navee") was based on W H Smith (he of the bookseller
chain), an MP who was subject to much derision for his lack of naval
experience when he was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty.
I thought that was an essential qualification for government posts!
Only recently our government has announced sweeping changes following
a report on global warming written by an economist. Of course these
'sweeping changes' will include ways of taxing us more, that certainly
is in the remit of an economist.

Posts in government have always been jobs for the boys :-(

Kay

- - -

All replies to newsgroup thank you
--------------------------------------------
A good end cannot sanctify evil, nor must
we ever do evil that good may come of it.
Force may subdue, but Love gains, and he
that forgives first wins the laurel.

William Penn 1644-1718
-----------------------------------------
Kay Robinson
Give all you can, Take only what you need
Lesley Robertson
2006-11-10 09:23:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fenny
Previously on Studio 60 ^W^W soc.genealogy.britain, Lesley Robertson said
...
Post by Lesley Robertson
--
I do like people who pick up on references!
When Stern Duty calls, I must obey!
(We're going to see Pirates in a couple of weeks)
--
We're going to Mikado at the start of Dec!
Lesley Robertson
Graeme Wall
2006-11-09 13:31:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by cecilia
I apologise to all for starting this thread. A few free trees given
to primary schools aren't worth it.
Don't apologise. it's been fun, and if some schools benefit, so much the
better.
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Graeme Wall
2006-11-09 11:01:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by dodgybrit
This lot are pretenders. The real King lives in Australia. There was a
TV programmes about it some time ago, something to do with the line of
succession not being followed, Matilda in France having an heir to the
throne?
Insert the word 'alledgedly' several times into the above para, also see the
archives for this group.
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
David H Wild
2006-11-09 12:01:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Insert the word 'alledgedly' several times into the above para, also see
the archives for this group.
But do spell "allegedly" correctly. :-))
--
David Wild using RISC OS on broadband
Graeme Wall
2006-11-09 13:29:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by David H Wild
Post by Graeme Wall
Insert the word 'alledgedly' several times into the above para, also see
the archives for this group.
But do spell "allegedly" correctly. :-))
If you insist :-)
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Hedley Hunnisett
2006-11-09 21:53:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by dodgybrit
This lot are pretenders. The real King lives in Australia.
So you fell for that too?
--
Hedley Hunnisett of Wigston Magna, Leicestershire.
Researching HUNNISETT/HONEYSETT(any) * HIGHWOOD(any) * FULLAGAR(any)
* MARCHANT(SSX) * HARRIS(SSX) * STRANGE(GLS) * TUTT(SSX)
Roy Stockdill
2006-11-10 00:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Pears
The Act of Settlement has lasted 305 years and is unlikely to be
scrapped in the next 305 - though I would not be at all surprised to
see the requirement that monarchs be Protestant, or even Christian,
removed in the not too distant future.>
Well, the way the barmy Charles is going he seems quite likely to convert
to Islam at any moment.

--
Roy Stockdill
Guild of One-Name Studies: www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:
www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Fenny
2006-11-10 00:07:38 UTC
Permalink
Previously on Studio 60 ^W^W soc.genealogy.britain, Roy Stockdill said ...
Post by Roy Stockdill
Well, the way the barmy Charles is going he seems quite likely to convert
to Islam at any moment.
Just as long as he doesn't convert to RCism, that's allowed.
--
Fenny

Fred: Well, I had to extrapolate a new variation on interdimensional
plasma dynamics on the fly, but if the math holds...
Richard van Schaik
2006-11-10 00:13:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fenny
Previously on Studio 60 ^W^W soc.genealogy.britain, Roy Stockdill said ...
Post by Roy Stockdill
Well, the way the barmy Charles is going he seems quite likely to convert
to Islam at any moment.
Just as long as he doesn't convert to RCism, that's allowed.
Playing dumb .......... Roman Catholicism?

(You're correct that nobody should ever convert to RCism, but they did
and probably still do and will do in future regretfully).

Richard
--
Richard van Schaik
***@THISwanadoo.nl
http://www.fmavanschaik.nl/
Brian Pears
2006-11-10 00:23:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fenny
Post by Roy Stockdill
Well, the way the barmy Charles is going he seems quite likely to convert
to Islam at any moment.
Just as long as he doesn't convert to RCism, that's allowed.
It isn't - the Act of Settlement includes:

That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this
Crown, shall join in communion with the Church of England,
as by law established.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
Richard van Schaik
2006-11-10 00:56:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fenny
Post by Roy Stockdill
Well, the way the barmy Charles is going he seems quite likely to
convert to Islam at any moment.
Just as long as he doesn't convert to RCism, that's allowed.
That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown,
shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law
established.
If I understood Fenny's meaning well then her option has less to do with
religion (unless the religion in question "promotes" this).

Richard
--
Richard van Schaik
***@THISwanadoo.nl
http://www.fmavanschaik.nl/
Brian Pears
2006-11-10 01:36:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard van Schaik
Post by Fenny
Post by Roy Stockdill
Well, the way the barmy Charles is going he seems quite likely to
convert to Islam at any moment.
Just as long as he doesn't convert to RCism, that's allowed.
That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown,
shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law
established.
If I understood Fenny's meaning well then her option has less to do
with religion (unless the religion in question "promotes" this).
Fenny's meaning was clear - she was under the impression that
Charles could convert to any religion except Roman Catholicism
and it wouldn't affect his role as a future king.

What Roy and I have pointed out is that this is incorrect - the
Act of Settlement states that, on reaching the throne, a monarch
must belong to the CofE.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
Richard van Schaik
2006-11-10 01:53:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Richard van Schaik
Post by Fenny
Post by Roy Stockdill
Well, the way the barmy Charles is going he seems quite likely to
convert to Islam at any moment.
Just as long as he doesn't convert to RCism, that's allowed.
That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown,
shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law
established.
If I understood Fenny's meaning well then her option has less to do
with religion (unless the religion in question "promotes" this).
Fenny's meaning was clear - she was under the impression that
Charles could convert to any religion except Roman Catholicism
and it wouldn't affect his role as a future king.
What Roy and I have pointed out is that this is incorrect - the
Act of Settlement states that, on reaching the throne, a monarch
must belong to the CofE.
Thought of Racism as possibility for this "cryptograph" ....... Not
isolated to any religion but still persistant.

Greetings,
Richard
--
Richard van Schaik
***@THISwanadoo.nl
http://www.fmavanschaik.nl/
Dave Mayall
2006-11-10 10:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Richard van Schaik
Post by Fenny
Post by Roy Stockdill
Well, the way the barmy Charles is going he seems quite likely to
convert to Islam at any moment.
Just as long as he doesn't convert to RCism, that's allowed.
That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown,
shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law
established.
If I understood Fenny's meaning well then her option has less to do with
religion (unless the religion in question "promotes" this).
Fenny's meaning was clear - she was under the impression that
Charles could convert to any religion except Roman Catholicism
and it wouldn't affect his role as a future king.
What Roy and I have pointed out is that this is incorrect - the
Act of Settlement states that, on reaching the throne, a monarch
must belong to the CofE.
As I see it, there are two separate requirements;

1) A Catholic cannot come to the throne.
2) Anybody who is not disbarred by (1) must become a communicant member of
the CofE upon accession.

There is a subtle difference.

Should Charles become a Catholic, he would not become King.

Should he become a Muslim, he would be required to convert back to CofE when
he becomes King.
Brian Pears
2006-11-10 15:36:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Mayall
As I see it, there are two separate requirements;
1) A Catholic cannot come to the throne.
2) Anybody who is not disbarred by (1) must become a communicant member
of the CofE upon accession.
There is a subtle difference.
Should Charles become a Catholic, he would not become King.
Should he become a Muslim, he would be required to convert back to CofE
when he becomes King.
Yes, that is how I read it too.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
singhals
2006-11-10 16:41:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Richard van Schaik
Post by Fenny
Post by Roy Stockdill
Well, the way the barmy Charles is going he seems quite likely to
convert to Islam at any moment.
Just as long as he doesn't convert to RCism, that's allowed.
That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown,
shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law
established.
If I understood Fenny's meaning well then her option has less to do
with religion (unless the religion in question "promotes" this).
Fenny's meaning was clear - she was under the impression that
Charles could convert to any religion except Roman Catholicism
and it wouldn't affect his role as a future king.
What Roy and I have pointed out is that this is incorrect - the
Act of Settlement states that, on reaching the throne, a monarch
must belong to the CofE.
But, as quoted (by you, I think?) "That whosoever shall
hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall join
in communion with the Church of England, as by law
established. "

"Shall Join" and "Shall Be" are slightly different concepts
and requirements...even in 17whatever. Since the "Shall"
clause _follows_ "the possession of this Crown", it sounds
like he can GET it without being CofE, he just can't KEEP it
legally without becoming CofE.

Cheryl
Hugh Watkins
2006-11-10 20:11:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Brian Pears
The Act of Settlement has lasted 305 years and is unlikely to be
scrapped in the next 305 - though I would not be at all surprised to
see the requirement that monarchs be Protestant, or even Christian,
removed in the not too distant future.>
Well, the way the barmy Charles is going he seems quite likely to convert
to Islam at any moment.
no chance Roy
he could never be teetotal

Hugh W
--
new computer = new blog
http://mac-on-intel.blogspot.com/

daily blogs with new photos
http://snaps2006.blogspot.com/
http://slim2005.blogspot.com/

family history
http://hughw36.blogspot.com
Roy Stockdill
2006-11-10 00:23:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fenny
Previously on Studio 60 ^W^W soc.genealogy.britain, Roy Stockdill said
... > > Well, the way the barmy Charles is going he seems quite likely
to convert > to Islam at any moment. > Just as long as he doesn't
convert to RCism, that's allowed. -- Fenny>
I don't think so somehow. Charles when he becomes king will have to
promise to be "defender of the faith", as I understand it, meaning the
Church of England and nothing else. Whether he wants, as has been
rumoured, to be the defender of all faiths is something that simply won't
happen.

Being both a republican and opposed to all religions, the prospect of a
monarch being either Catholic or Islamic fills me with horror, since at
least the Church of England is relatively harmless and irrelevant,
whereas RC and Islam I regard as the greatest twin evils and major
barriers to human advancement facing the human race today.

--
Roy Stockdill
Guild of One-Name Studies: www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:
www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Roy Stockdill
2006-11-10 00:41:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Fenny
Post by Roy Stockdill
Well, the way the barmy Charles is going he seems quite likely to
convert to Islam at any moment.
Just as long as he doesn't convert to RCism, that's allowed.
That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this
Crown, shall join in communion with the Church of England,
as by law established.>
That has always been my understanding, too. I thought the whole world
knew that when the British monarch swore to "defend the faith" he or she
was talking about the Church of England. As you rightly say, that has
been the situation ever since the Act of Settlement.

Whether we all think that is right is another matter, and personally I am in
favour of disestablishment of the Church and state altogether but that's a
strictly private view.

BTW, meandering (yet again!) down a bypath, did you know that
antidisestablishmentarianism (28 letters) is supposedly the longest word
in the English language? What does it mean? It means the movement of
being opposed to disestablishing the Church and state, in other words
someone who wants to keep the status quo.

--
Roy Stockdill
Guild of One-Name Studies: www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:
www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Don Aitken
2006-11-10 01:44:40 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:41:41 -0000, "Roy Stockdill"
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Fenny
Post by Roy Stockdill
Well, the way the barmy Charles is going he seems quite likely to
convert to Islam at any moment.
Just as long as he doesn't convert to RCism, that's allowed.
That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this
Crown, shall join in communion with the Church of England,
as by law established.>
That has always been my understanding, too. I thought the whole world
knew that when the British monarch swore to "defend the faith" he or she
was talking about the Church of England.
And the Church of Scotland. the Queen is only an Anglican *south* of
the border.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Charles Ellson
2006-11-10 05:19:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:41:41 -0000, "Roy Stockdill"
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Fenny
Post by Roy Stockdill
Well, the way the barmy Charles is going he seems quite likely to
convert to Islam at any moment.
Just as long as he doesn't convert to RCism, that's allowed.
That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this
Crown, shall join in communion with the Church of England,
as by law established.>
That has always been my understanding, too. I thought the whole world
knew that when the British monarch swore to "defend the faith" he or she
was talking about the Church of England.
And the Church of Scotland. the Queen is only an Anglican *south* of
the border.
And a mere member of the Church of Scotland, albeit with the power to
appoint a Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: charles_AT_ellson.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|
Andrew Sellon
2006-11-10 13:18:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
And the Church of Scotland. the Queen is only an Anglican *south* of
the border.
And where might the Church of Ireland come into this tour around the UK?
I suppose, being Anglican, for this purpose it is regarded as an
offshoot of Canterbury.

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
Peter Goodey
2006-11-10 13:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Sellon
And where might the Church of Ireland come into this tour around the
UK? I suppose, being Anglican, for this purpose it is regarded as an
offshoot of Canterbury.
I think the "in communion" bit is crucial. I may well be wrong here but
I have a feeling that being a Lutheran would not be a bar.

If I really cared I'd Google, but I don't.
--
Family History Research in Kent
http://www.inertia.demon.co.uk
Graeme Wall
2006-11-10 13:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Sellon
Post by Don Aitken
And the Church of Scotland. the Queen is only an Anglican *south* of
the border.
And where might the Church of Ireland come into this tour around the UK?
I suppose, being Anglican, for this purpose it is regarded as an
offshoot of Canterbury.
There's a problem with the Church of Ireland in that the seat of the
Archbishop is St Patrick's, Dublin, so the Queen is a foriegner there anyway.
Ironically I believe the RC cathedral for Ireland is in Ulster, Dublin only
having a pro-cathedral.
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Andrew Sellon
2006-11-10 15:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
There's a problem with the Church of Ireland in that the seat of the
Archbishop is St Patrick's, Dublin, so the Queen is a foriegner there anyway.
Ironically I believe the RC cathedral for Ireland is in Ulster, Dublin only
having a pro-cathedral.
Graeme -

If what you say is true, (and I have no reason to doubt it), it sounds
to be no more than a typically Irish situation!

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
Who remembers laying in the heather on a light night at 1.00 am in
Southern Ireland at a location further north than any in Northern Ireland.
Graeme Wall
2006-11-10 16:11:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Sellon
Post by Graeme Wall
There's a problem with the Church of Ireland in that the seat of the
Archbishop is St Patrick's, Dublin, so the Queen is a foriegner there
anyway. Ironically I believe the RC cathedral for Ireland is in Ulster,
Dublin only having a pro-cathedral.
Graeme -
If what you say is true, (and I have no reason to doubt it), it sounds to
be no more than a typically Irish situation!
As you say, typically Irish. Probably dreamt up by my O'Connell forebears.
Post by Andrew Sellon
Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
Who remembers laying in the heather on a light night at 1.00 am in
Southern Ireland at a location further north than any in Northern Ireland.
Who is this girl Heather?
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Don Aitken
2006-11-10 19:58:11 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:18:05 +0000, Andrew Sellon
Post by Andrew Sellon
Post by Don Aitken
And the Church of Scotland. the Queen is only an Anglican *south* of
the border.
And where might the Church of Ireland come into this tour around the UK?
I suppose, being Anglican, for this purpose it is regarded as an
offshoot of Canterbury.
The Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1868, a change to which
Queen Victoria assented with no known qualms, in spite of having sworn
at her coronation to preserve the "United Church of England and
Ireland", as it then was. Goerge V did the same in relation to Wales
in 1914. So this "defending" they are supposed to do seems not to come
to much in practice.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Jenny M Benson
2006-11-10 11:37:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
BTW, meandering (yet again!) down a bypath, did you know that
antidisestablishmentarianism (28 letters) is supposedly the longest
word in the English language?
That was before they came up with floccinaucinihilipilification (29
letters.)
--
Jenny
"I always like to have the morning well-aired before I get up."
(Beau Brummel, 1778-1840)
Roy Stockdill
2006-11-10 11:11:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Mayall
Should Charles become a Catholic, he would not become King.
Should he become a Muslim, he would be required to convert back to
CofE when he becomes King.>
If Charles became a Muslim, would Camilla have to cover her face with a
veil? Now THAT I would be in favour of !

--
Roy Stockdill
Guild of One-Name Studies: www.one-name.org
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History:
www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
Andrew Sellon
2006-11-10 13:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy Stockdill
Post by Brian Pears
The Act of Settlement has lasted 305 years and is unlikely to be
scrapped in the next 305 - though I would not be at all surprised to
see the requirement that monarchs be Protestant, or even Christian,
removed in the not too distant future.>
Well, the way the barmy Charles is going he seems quite likely to convert
to Islam at any moment.
It could be only too easily foreseen that Brian's comment would set off
one of Roy's involuntary spasms!

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...