Discussion:
Prince of Wales OT
(too old to reply)
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-16 13:01:33 UTC
Permalink
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of the UK?
The Doctor
2018-05-16 13:14:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Mistakes are the portals of discovery. -James Joyce
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-16 13:29:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
Wouter Valentijn
2018-05-16 16:53:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
--
Wouter Valentijn www.j3v.net

http://www.zeppodunsel.nl/tijdlijnen-timelines.html

liam=mail
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-16 17:18:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
But wouldn't William be next in line to WELSH Throne?
Wouter Valentijn
2018-05-16 18:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
But wouldn't William be next in line to WELSH Throne?
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...

Anne?
--
Wouter Valentijn www.j3v.net

http://www.zeppodunsel.nl/tijdlijnen-timelines.html

liam=mail
The Other Doctor
2018-05-16 19:45:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
But wouldn't William be next in line to WELSH Throne?
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
Anne?
Doesn't work that way. Charles might be the "Prince of Wales" but that's
just a title. He will never be the King of Wales - he will become the King
of the UK.

If Wales ever declared independence, none of the existing royal family would
be involved. They are not Welsh. Wales would not have a king and it would
ditch the monarchy altogether.

However Wales is not likely to declare independence. So barring some major
upset in the next few years, Charles will become King of the UK and William
will become the next Prince of Wales. Simple.
The Doctor
2018-05-16 21:35:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
But wouldn't William be next in line to WELSH Throne?
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
Anne?
Doesn't work that way. Charles might be the "Prince of Wales" but that's
just a title. He will never be the King of Wales - he will become the King
of the UK.
If Wales ever declared independence, none of the existing royal family would
be involved. They are not Welsh. Wales would not have a king and it would
ditch the monarchy altogether.
IIRC Scotland said they would keep the Queen if they broke from the UK.
Post by The Other Doctor
However Wales is not likely to declare independence. So barring some major
upset in the next few years, Charles will become King of the UK and William
will become the next Prince of Wales. Simple.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Mistakes are the portals of discovery. -James Joyce
Daniel60
2018-05-17 13:43:46 UTC
Permalink
<Snip>
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
Anne?
Doesn't work that way. Charles might be the "Prince of Wales" but that's
just a title. He will never be the King of Wales - he will become the King
of the UK.
If Wales ever declared independence, none of the existing royal family would
be involved. They are not Welsh. Wales would not have a king and it would
ditch the monarchy altogether.
However Wales is not likely to declare independence. So barring some major
upset in the next few years, Charles will become King of the UK and William
will become the next Prince of Wales. Simple.
But isn't Elizabeth Queen of England, Wales, Scotland, Nth Ireland,
Australia, Canada, etc., etc.?

Not Queen of U.K.!!
--
Daniel
The Doctor
2018-05-17 20:50:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
Anne?
Doesn't work that way. Charles might be the "Prince of Wales" but that's
just a title. He will never be the King of Wales - he will become the King
of the UK.
If Wales ever declared independence, none of the existing royal family would
be involved. They are not Welsh. Wales would not have a king and it would
ditch the monarchy altogether.
However Wales is not likely to declare independence. So barring some major
upset in the next few years, Charles will become King of the UK and William
will become the next Prince of Wales. Simple.
But isn't Elizabeth Queen of England, Wales, Scotland, Nth Ireland,
Australia, Canada, etc., etc.?
Not Queen of U.K.!!
--
Daniel
THE UK of GB and NI !
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
He will live ill who does not know how to die well. -Seneca
Daniel60
2018-05-18 07:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
Anne?
Doesn't work that way. Charles might be the "Prince of Wales" but that's
just a title. He will never be the King of Wales - he will become the King
of the UK.
If Wales ever declared independence, none of the existing royal family would
be involved. They are not Welsh. Wales would not have a king and it would
ditch the monarchy altogether.
However Wales is not likely to declare independence. So barring some major
upset in the next few years, Charles will become King of the UK and William
will become the next Prince of Wales. Simple.
But isn't Elizabeth Queen of England, Wales, Scotland, Nth Ireland,
Australia, Canada, etc., etc.?
Not Queen of U.K.!!
THE UK of GB and NI !
Is she, idiot?? Or is she Queen of England, Wales, Scotland, Nth
Ireland, Australia, Canada, etc., etc.?
--
Daniel
Daniel60
2018-05-18 07:13:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
Anne?
Doesn't work that way. Charles might be the "Prince of Wales" but that's
just a title. He will never be the King of Wales - he will become the King
of the UK.
If Wales ever declared independence, none of the existing royal family would
be involved. They are not Welsh. Wales would not have a king and it would
ditch the monarchy altogether.
However Wales is not likely to declare independence. So barring some major
upset in the next few years, Charles will become King of the UK and William
will become the next Prince of Wales. Simple.
But isn't Elizabeth Queen of England, Wales, Scotland, Nth Ireland,
Australia, Canada, etc., etc.?
Not Queen of U.K.!!
THE UK of GB and NI !
Is she, idiot?? Or is she Queen of England, Wales, Scotland, Nth
Ireland, Australia, Canada, etc., etc.?
As a side-point, ... we've recently had The Commonwealth Games here in
Australia!

Did Great Britain compete in those Commonwealth Games??

Or did England, Wales and Scotland compete in those Commonwealth Games??
--
Daniel
The Doctor
2018-05-18 14:47:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
Anne?
Doesn't work that way. Charles might be the "Prince of Wales" but that's
just a title. He will never be the King of Wales - he will become the King
of the UK.
If Wales ever declared independence, none of the existing royal family would
be involved. They are not Welsh. Wales would not have a king and it would
ditch the monarchy altogether.
However Wales is not likely to declare independence. So barring some major
upset in the next few years, Charles will become King of the UK and William
will become the next Prince of Wales. Simple.
But isn't Elizabeth Queen of England, Wales, Scotland, Nth Ireland,
Australia, Canada, etc., etc.?
Not Queen of U.K.!!
THE UK of GB and NI !
Is she, idiot?? Or is she Queen of England, Wales, Scotland, Nth
Ireland, Australia, Canada, etc., etc.?
As a side-point, ... we've recently had The Commonwealth Games here in
Australia!
Did Great Britain compete in those Commonwealth Games??
Or did England, Wales and Scotland compete in those Commonwealth Games??
Don't forget NI, Guersey, Jersay, Isle of Man ...
Post by Daniel60
--
Daniel
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Originality is simply a pair of fresh eyes. -Thomas Wentworth Higginson
Daniel60
2018-05-19 11:58:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
Anne?
Doesn't work that way. Charles might be the "Prince of
Wales" but that's just a title. He will never be the King
of Wales - he will become the King of the UK.
If Wales ever declared independence, none of the existing
royal family would be involved. They are not Welsh. Wales
would not have a king and it would ditch the monarchy
altogether.
However Wales is not likely to declare independence. So
barring some major upset in the next few years, Charles
will become King of the UK and William will become the next
Prince of Wales. Simple.
But isn't Elizabeth Queen of England, Wales, Scotland, Nth
Ireland, Australia, Canada, etc., etc.?
Not Queen of U.K.!!
THE UK of GB and NI !
Is she, idiot?? Or is she Queen of England, Wales, Scotland, Nth
Ireland, Australia, Canada, etc., etc.?
As a side-point, ... we've recently had The Commonwealth Games here
in Australia!
Did Great Britain compete in those Commonwealth Games??
Or did England, Wales and Scotland compete in those Commonwealth Games??
Don't forget NI, Guersey, Jersay, Isle of Man ...
When did I forget them, idiot??
--
Daniel
The Doctor
2018-05-19 12:46:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
Anne?
Doesn't work that way. Charles might be the "Prince of
Wales" but that's just a title. He will never be the King
of Wales - he will become the King of the UK.
If Wales ever declared independence, none of the existing
royal family would be involved. They are not Welsh. Wales
would not have a king and it would ditch the monarchy
altogether.
However Wales is not likely to declare independence. So
barring some major upset in the next few years, Charles
will become King of the UK and William will become the next
Prince of Wales. Simple.
But isn't Elizabeth Queen of England, Wales, Scotland, Nth
Ireland, Australia, Canada, etc., etc.?
Not Queen of U.K.!!
THE UK of GB and NI !
Is she, idiot?? Or is she Queen of England, Wales, Scotland, Nth
Ireland, Australia, Canada, etc., etc.?
As a side-point, ... we've recently had The Commonwealth Games here
in Australia!
Did Great Britain compete in those Commonwealth Games??
Or did England, Wales and Scotland compete in those Commonwealth Games??
Don't forget NI, Guersey, Jersay, Isle of Man ...
When did I forget them, idiot??
--
Daniel
They are also part of the UK!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Furious activity is no substitute for understanding. -H. H. Williams
solar penguin
2018-05-18 07:48:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Other Doctor
Doesn't work that way. Charles might be the "Prince of Wales"
but that's just a title. He will never be the King of Wales -
he will become the King of the UK.
If Wales ever declared independence, none of the existing
royal family would be involved. They are not Welsh. Wales would
not have a king and it would ditch the monarchy altogether.
However Wales is not likely to declare independence. So
barring some major upset in the next few years, Charles will
become King of the UK and William will become the next Prince
of Wales. Simple.
But isn't Elizabeth Queen of England, Wales, Scotland, Nth
Ireland, Australia, Canada, etc., etc.?
Not Queen of U.K.!!
THE UK of GB and NI !
Is she, idiot?? Or is she Queen of England, Wales, Scotland, Nth
Ireland, Australia, Canada, etc., etc.?
For once Yads is actually right. (I know, miracles will never cease!)
Her official title is Queen of the UK, not "Queen of England, Wales,
Scotland and NI". The last monarch to officially be titled as Queen of
all those places separately was Queen Anne, over 300 years ago.
The Doctor
2018-05-18 14:50:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by solar penguin
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Other Doctor
Doesn't work that way. Charles might be the "Prince of Wales"
but that's just a title. He will never be the King of Wales -
he will become the King of the UK.
If Wales ever declared independence, none of the existing
royal family would be involved. They are not Welsh. Wales would
not have a king and it would ditch the monarchy altogether.
However Wales is not likely to declare independence. So
barring some major upset in the next few years, Charles will
become King of the UK and William will become the next Prince
of Wales. Simple.
But isn't Elizabeth Queen of England, Wales, Scotland, Nth
Ireland, Australia, Canada, etc., etc.?
Not Queen of U.K.!!
THE UK of GB and NI !
Is she, idiot?? Or is she Queen of England, Wales, Scotland, Nth
Ireland, Australia, Canada, etc., etc.?
For once Yads is actually right. (I know, miracles will never cease!)
Her official title is Queen of the UK, not "Queen of England, Wales,
Scotland and NI". The last monarch to officially be titled as Queen of
all those places separately was Queen Anne, over 300 years ago.
1707 gae us the official UK.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Originality is simply a pair of fresh eyes. -Thomas Wentworth Higginson
The Doctor
2018-05-18 14:47:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
Anne?
Doesn't work that way. Charles might be the "Prince of Wales" but that's
just a title. He will never be the King of Wales - he will become the King
of the UK.
If Wales ever declared independence, none of the existing royal family would
be involved. They are not Welsh. Wales would not have a king and it would
ditch the monarchy altogether.
However Wales is not likely to declare independence. So barring some major
upset in the next few years, Charles will become King of the UK and William
will become the next Prince of Wales. Simple.
But isn't Elizabeth Queen of England, Wales, Scotland, Nth Ireland,
Australia, Canada, etc., etc.?
Not Queen of U.K.!!
THE UK of GB and NI !
Is she, idiot?? Or is she Queen of England, Wales, Scotland, Nth
Ireland, Australia, Canada, etc., etc.?
--
Daniel
Ever read the coronation oath of 1953?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Originality is simply a pair of fresh eyes. -Thomas Wentworth Higginson
Daniel60
2018-05-19 11:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
Anne?
Doesn't work that way. Charles might be the "Prince of Wales" but that's
just a title. He will never be the King of Wales - he will become the King
of the UK.
If Wales ever declared independence, none of the existing royal family would
be involved. They are not Welsh. Wales would not have a king and it would
ditch the monarchy altogether.
However Wales is not likely to declare independence. So barring some major
upset in the next few years, Charles will become King of the UK and William
will become the next Prince of Wales. Simple.
But isn't Elizabeth Queen of England, Wales, Scotland, Nth Ireland,
Australia, Canada, etc., etc.?
Not Queen of U.K.!!
THE UK of GB and NI !
Is she, idiot?? Or is she Queen of England, Wales, Scotland, Nth
Ireland, Australia, Canada, etc., etc.?
Ever read the coronation oath of 1953?
No, idiot!! Have you??
--
Daniel
The Doctor
2018-05-19 12:47:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
Anne?
Doesn't work that way. Charles might be the "Prince of Wales" but that's
just a title. He will never be the King of Wales - he will become the King
of the UK.
If Wales ever declared independence, none of the existing royal
family would
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Other Doctor
be involved. They are not Welsh. Wales would not have a king and it would
ditch the monarchy altogether.
However Wales is not likely to declare independence. So barring some major
upset in the next few years, Charles will become King of the UK
and William
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Other Doctor
will become the next Prince of Wales. Simple.
But isn't Elizabeth Queen of England, Wales, Scotland, Nth Ireland,
Australia, Canada, etc., etc.?
Not Queen of U.K.!!
THE UK of GB and NI !
Is she, idiot?? Or is she Queen of England, Wales, Scotland, Nth
Ireland, Australia, Canada, etc., etc.?
Ever read the coronation oath of 1953?
No, idiot!! Have you??
--
Daniel
Yes. Look it up online where it is available!!!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Furious activity is no substitute for understanding. -H. H. Williams
Wouter Valentijn
2018-05-17 16:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
But wouldn't William be next in line to WELSH Throne?
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
Anne?
Doesn't work that way. Charles might be the "Prince of Wales" but that's
just a title. He will never be the King of Wales - he will become the King
of the UK.
If Wales ever declared independence, none of the existing royal family would
be involved. They are not Welsh. Wales would not have a king and it would
ditch the monarchy altogether.
However Wales is not likely to declare independence. So barring some major
upset in the next few years, Charles will become King of the UK and William
will become the next Prince of Wales. Simple.
Ah, okay! In all likelihood his reign will be short compared to his mom.
--
Wouter Valentijn www.j3v.net

http://www.zeppodunsel.nl/tijdlijnen-timelines.html

liam=mail
The Doctor
2018-05-16 21:34:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
But wouldn't William be next in line to WELSH Throne?
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
William.
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Anne?
--
Wouter Valentijn www.j3v.net
http://www.zeppodunsel.nl/tijdlijnen-timelines.html
liam=mail
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Mistakes are the portals of discovery. -James Joyce
Daniel60
2018-05-17 13:48:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
But wouldn't William be next in line to WELSH Throne?
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
William.
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of secession,
so is William.

Probably not Anne because she was bypassed under old Secession Rule, but
Andrew would still be available!
--
Daniel
s***@gmail.com
2018-05-17 14:17:38 UTC
Permalink
There has only ever been one King of Wales. That was Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, from 1055 to 1063.

And that's it. Wales will never have another king. The current monarchy is for the UK, not for Wales. And the national party of Wales (Plaid Cymru) is not in favour of retaining the monarchy in general.

There is absolutely no possibility of Charles, or any of his family, becoming monarch of Wales without also being the monarch of the UK.
Daniel60
2018-05-18 07:27:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
There has only ever been one King of Wales. That was Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, from 1055 to 1063.
And that's it. Wales will never have another king. The current monarchy is for the UK, not for Wales. And the national party of Wales (Plaid Cymru) is not in favour of retaining the monarchy in general.
There is absolutely no possibility of Charles, or any of his family, becoming monarch of Wales without also being the monarch of the UK.
Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa!!

Elsewhere in this thread, I have claimed that Elizabeth II was Queen of
England, Scotland and Wales (amongst other regions) where as, by now
reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II I see I was incorrect ...

Quote
When her father died in February 1952, she became Head of the
Commonwealth and queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth
countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South
Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon. She has reigned through major
constitutional changes, *such as devolution in the United Kingdom*,
End Quote (Note: emphasis mine!!)
--
Daniel
Daniel60
2018-05-18 07:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
Post by s***@gmail.com
There has only ever been one King of Wales. That was Gruffydd ap
Llywelyn, from 1055 to 1063.
And that's it. Wales will never have another king. The current
monarchy is for the UK, not for Wales. And the national party of Wales
(Plaid Cymru) is not in favour of retaining the monarchy in general.
There is absolutely no possibility of Charles, or any of his family,
becoming monarch of Wales without also being the monarch of the UK.
Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa!!
Elsewhere in this thread, I have claimed that Elizabeth II was Queen of
England, Scotland and Wales (amongst other regions) where as, by now
reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II I see I was incorrect ...
Quote
When her father died in February 1952, she became Head of the
Commonwealth and queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth
countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South
Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon. She has reigned through major
constitutional changes, *such as devolution in the United Kingdom*,
End Quote (Note: emphasis mine!!)
Mea Culpa!! Mea Culpa!! Of course, "devolution" means the break-up of
U.K. into it's bits!!
--
Daniel
The Doctor
2018-05-18 14:51:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
Post by Daniel60
Post by s***@gmail.com
There has only ever been one King of Wales. That was Gruffydd ap
Llywelyn, from 1055 to 1063.
And that's it. Wales will never have another king. The current
monarchy is for the UK, not for Wales. And the national party of Wales
(Plaid Cymru) is not in favour of retaining the monarchy in general.
There is absolutely no possibility of Charles, or any of his family,
becoming monarch of Wales without also being the monarch of the UK.
Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa!!
Elsewhere in this thread, I have claimed that Elizabeth II was Queen of
England, Scotland and Wales (amongst other regions) where as, by now
reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II I see I was incorrect ...
Quote
When her father died in February 1952, she became Head of the
Commonwealth and queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth
countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South
Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon. She has reigned through major
constitutional changes, *such as devolution in the United Kingdom*,
End Quote (Note: emphasis mine!!)
Mea Culpa!! Mea Culpa!! Of course, "devolution" means the break-up of
U.K. into it's bits!!
--
Daniel
Not really. Responsiblitis ofthe UK Parliament are given to the Welsh
Assembly and the Scots Parliament and the NI assembly accordingly!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Originality is simply a pair of fresh eyes. -Thomas Wentworth Higginson
Daniel60
2018-05-19 12:02:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by Daniel60
Post by s***@gmail.com
There has only ever been one King of Wales. That was Gruffydd ap
Llywelyn, from 1055 to 1063.
And that's it. Wales will never have another king. The current
monarchy is for the UK, not for Wales. And the national party of Wales
(Plaid Cymru) is not in favour of retaining the monarchy in general.
There is absolutely no possibility of Charles, or any of his family,
becoming monarch of Wales without also being the monarch of the UK.
Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa!!
Elsewhere in this thread, I have claimed that Elizabeth II was Queen of
England, Scotland and Wales (amongst other regions) where as, by now
reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II I see I was incorrect ...
Quote
When her father died in February 1952, she became Head of the
Commonwealth and queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth
countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South
Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon. She has reigned through major
constitutional changes, *such as devolution in the United Kingdom*,
End Quote (Note: emphasis mine!!)
Mea Culpa!! Mea Culpa!! Of course, "devolution" means the break-up of
U.K. into it's bits!!
Not really. Responsiblitis ofthe UK Parliament are given to the Welsh
Assembly and the Scots Parliament and the NI assembly accordingly!
Yes, idiot, because they, along with England, were the bits of U.K.!!
--
Daniel
The Doctor
2018-05-19 12:47:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by Daniel60
Post by s***@gmail.com
There has only ever been one King of Wales. That was Gruffydd ap
Llywelyn, from 1055 to 1063.
And that's it. Wales will never have another king. The current
monarchy is for the UK, not for Wales. And the national party of Wales
(Plaid Cymru) is not in favour of retaining the monarchy in general.
There is absolutely no possibility of Charles, or any of his family,
becoming monarch of Wales without also being the monarch of the UK.
Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa!!
Elsewhere in this thread, I have claimed that Elizabeth II was Queen of
England, Scotland and Wales (amongst other regions) where as, by now
reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II I see I was incorrect ...
Quote
When her father died in February 1952, she became Head of the
Commonwealth and queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth
countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South
Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon. She has reigned through major
constitutional changes, *such as devolution in the United Kingdom*,
End Quote (Note: emphasis mine!!)
Mea Culpa!! Mea Culpa!! Of course, "devolution" means the break-up of
U.K. into it's bits!!
Not really. Responsiblitis ofthe UK Parliament are given to the Welsh
Assembly and the Scots Parliament and the NI assembly accordingly!
Yes, idiot, because they, along with England, were the bits of U.K.!!
--
Daniel
Bits? Typical Ausalien!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Furious activity is no substitute for understanding. -H. H. Williams
The Doctor
2018-05-18 14:48:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
There has only ever been one King of Wales. That was Gruffydd ap
Llywelyn, from 1055 to 1063.
Post by s***@gmail.com
And that's it. Wales will never have another king. The current
monarchy is for the UK, not for Wales. And the national party of Wales
(Plaid Cymru) is not in favour of retaining the monarchy in general.
Post by s***@gmail.com
There is absolutely no possibility of Charles, or any of his family,
becoming monarch of Wales without also being the monarch of the UK.
Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa!!
Elsewhere in this thread, I have claimed that Elizabeth II was Queen of
England, Scotland and Wales (amongst other regions) where as, by now
reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II I see I was incorrect ...
Quote
When her father died in February 1952, she became Head of the
Commonwealth and queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth
countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South
Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon. She has reigned through major
constitutional changes, *such as devolution in the United Kingdom*,
End Quote (Note: emphasis mine!!)
--
Daniel
Accepted!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Originality is simply a pair of fresh eyes. -Thomas Wentworth Higginson
Wouter Valentijn
2018-05-17 16:48:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
But wouldn't William be next in line to WELSH Throne?
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
William.
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of secession,
so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.

But English is not my first language, so I could be wrong.
Post by Daniel60
Probably not Anne because she was bypassed under old Secession Rule, but
Andrew would still be available!
Why was she bypassed? Ah, wait, because she was a woman and other,
younger, siblings were not! :-(
--
Wouter Valentijn www.j3v.net

http://www.zeppodunsel.nl/tijdlijnen-timelines.html

liam=mail
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-17 17:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
But wouldn't William be next in line to WELSH Throne?
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
William.
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of secession,
so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
How would secession of Wales affect UK succession?
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-17 17:19:10 UTC
Permalink
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently Camila adopt last name of George?
The Doctor
2018-05-17 20:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently Camila
adopt last name of George?
House of Windsor soon to be House of Mountbatten Windsor!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
He will live ill who does not know how to die well. -Seneca
The Other Doctor
2018-05-17 21:28:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently Camila adopt last name of George?
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-17 21:58:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently Camila adopt last name of George?
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during his wedding ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last name!
The Other Doctor
2018-05-17 23:01:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently Camila adopt last name of George?
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during his wedding ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
The Doctor
2018-05-18 00:15:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during his wedding
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
He will live ill who does not know how to die well. -Seneca
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-18 01:12:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during his wedding
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
The Doctor
2018-05-18 01:23:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during his wedding
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
The vows were planeed that way!!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Originality is simply a pair of fresh eyes. -Thomas Wentworth Higginson
Daniel60
2018-05-18 13:29:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by The Other Doctor
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 2:28:08 PM UTC-7, The Other
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more
recently Camila adopt last name of George?
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not
"Camila") should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during
his wedding ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that
"George" was his last name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
The vows were planeed that way!!
Who "planeed" them that way, idiot??
--
Daniel
The Last Doctor
2018-05-18 05:51:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during his wedding
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at all, and our royals don’t
use their surname by tradition (it’s Windsor, changed from Saxe-Coburg
Gotha during World War I to distance our current royal family from its
German origins).
--
There are some corners of the universe which have bred the most terrible
things. Things which act against everything we believe in. They must be
fought.
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-18 05:57:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during his wedding
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at all, and our royals don’t
use their surname by tradition (it’s Windsor, changed from Saxe-Coburg
Gotha during World War I to distance our current royal family from its
German origins).
So am I right that last names of Diana & Camilla would be George after they married Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George?
The Other Doctor
2018-05-18 07:02:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during his wedding
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at all, and our royals don’t
use their surname by tradition (it’s Windsor, changed from Saxe-Coburg
Gotha during World War I to distance our current royal family from its
German origins).
So am I right that last names of Diana & Camilla would be George after they married Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George?
Did you not understand the last response? George is Charles' last name.
It's not his surname.

Members of the royal family are not required to use a surname. However,
for the sake of legal documentation the Queen has stated that her
children would use "Mountbatten-Windsor" as a surname.
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-18 09:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during his wedding
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at all, and our royals don’t
use their surname by tradition (it’s Windsor, changed from Saxe-Coburg
Gotha during World War I to distance our current royal family from its
German origins).
So am I right that last names of Diana & Camilla would be George after they married Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George?
Did you not understand the last response? George is Charles' last name.
It's not his surname.
Members of the royal family are not required to use a surname. However,
for the sake of legal documentation the Queen has stated that her
children would use "Mountbatten-Windsor" as a surname.
Why then didn't the Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie use "Mountbatten-Windsor" when addressing Charles during the wedding ceremony?
Daniel60
2018-05-18 13:38:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during his wedding
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at all, and our royals don’t
use their surname by tradition (it’s Windsor, changed from Saxe-Coburg
Gotha during World War I to distance our current royal family from its
German origins).
So am I right that last names of Diana & Camilla would be George after they married Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George?
Did you not understand the last response? George is Charles' last name.
It's not his surname.
Members of the royal family are not required to use a surname. However,
for the sake of legal documentation the Queen has stated that her
children would use "Mountbatten-Windsor" as a surname.
Why then didn't the Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie use "Mountbatten-Windsor" when addressing Charles during the wedding ceremony?
Tim, have you ever been to a wedding ceremony??

If John David Smith were to marry Mary Alice Davis, would the Minister
mention their Surnames?? ....

Or would he, more likely ask the husband "Do you, John, take Mary to be
your .........?" and then ask the wife "Do you, Mary, take John to be
your .....?"?

I'm betting he would ask those two questions, without mentioning the
Surnames ... especially, now-a-days, when it is becoming more common for
the woman to keep her own Surname!!
--
Daniel
The Doctor
2018-05-18 14:59:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during his wedding
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at all, and our
royals don’t
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
use their surname by tradition (it’s Windsor, changed from Saxe-Coburg
Gotha during World War I to distance our current royal family from its
German origins).
So am I right that last names of Diana & Camilla would be George
after they married Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George?
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Did you not understand the last response? George is Charles' last name.
It's not his surname.
Members of the royal family are not required to use a surname. However,
for the sake of legal documentation the Queen has stated that her
children would use "Mountbatten-Windsor" as a surname.
Why then didn't the Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie use
"Mountbatten-Windsor" when addressing Charles during the wedding
ceremony?
Tim, have you ever been to a wedding ceremony??
If John David Smith were to marry Mary Alice Davis, would the Minister
mention their Surnames?? ....
Or would he, more likely ask the husband "Do you, John, take Mary to be
your .........?" and then ask the wife "Do you, Mary, take John to be
your .....?"?
I'm betting he would ask those two questions, without mentioning the
Surnames ... especially, now-a-days, when it is becoming more common for
the woman to keep her own Surname!!
--
Daniel
A few times in North America.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Originality is simply a pair of fresh eyes. -Thomas Wentworth Higginson
Daniel60
2018-05-19 12:03:45 UTC
Permalink
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Why then didn't the Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie use
"Mountbatten-Windsor" when addressing Charles during the wedding
ceremony?
Tim, have you ever been to a wedding ceremony??
If John David Smith were to marry Mary Alice Davis, would the Minister
mention their Surnames?? ....
Or would he, more likely ask the husband "Do you, John, take Mary to be
your .........?" and then ask the wife "Do you, Mary, take John to be
your .....?"?
I'm betting he would ask those two questions, without mentioning the
Surnames ... especially, now-a-days, when it is becoming more common for
the woman to keep her own Surname!!
A few times in North America.
When were we talking about North America, idiot??
--
Daniel
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-18 17:46:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during his wedding
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at all, and our royals don’t
use their surname by tradition (it’s Windsor, changed from Saxe-Coburg
Gotha during World War I to distance our current royal family from its
German origins).
So am I right that last names of Diana & Camilla would be George after they married Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George?
Did you not understand the last response? George is Charles' last name.
It's not his surname.
Members of the royal family are not required to use a surname. However,
for the sake of legal documentation the Queen has stated that her
children would use "Mountbatten-Windsor" as a surname.
Why then didn't the Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie use "Mountbatten-Windsor" when addressing Charles during the wedding ceremony?
Tim, have you ever been to a wedding ceremony??
If John David Smith were to marry Mary Alice Davis, would the Minister
mention their Surnames?? ....
Or would he, more likely ask the husband "Do you, John, take Mary to be
your .........?" and then ask the wife "Do you, Mary, take John to be
your .....?"?
I'm betting he would ask those two questions, without mentioning the
Surnames ... especially, now-a-days, when it is becoming more common for
the woman to keep her own Surname!!
The officiator stated Charles' 4 names. I had assumed that he was reciting Charles' FULL name, including the surname!
The Doctor
2018-05-18 21:38:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 2:28:08 PM UTC-7, The Other
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during his wedding
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at all, and our
royals don’t
Post by Daniel60
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
use their surname by tradition (it’s Windsor, changed from Saxe-Coburg
Gotha during World War I to distance our current royal family from its
German origins).
So am I right that last names of Diana & Camilla would be George
after they married Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George?
Post by Daniel60
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Did you not understand the last response? George is Charles' last name.
It's not his surname.
Members of the royal family are not required to use a surname. However,
for the sake of legal documentation the Queen has stated that her
children would use "Mountbatten-Windsor" as a surname.
Why then didn't the Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie use
"Mountbatten-Windsor" when addressing Charles during the wedding
ceremony?
Post by Daniel60
Tim, have you ever been to a wedding ceremony??
If John David Smith were to marry Mary Alice Davis, would the Minister
mention their Surnames?? ....
Or would he, more likely ask the husband "Do you, John, take Mary to be
your .........?" and then ask the wife "Do you, Mary, take John to be
your .....?"?
I'm betting he would ask those two questions, without mentioning the
Surnames ... especially, now-a-days, when it is becoming more common for
the woman to keep her own Surname!!
The officiator stated Charles' 4 names. I had assumed that he was
reciting Charles' FULL name, including the surname!
NO!!!!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Originality is simply a pair of fresh eyes. -Thomas Wentworth Higginson
Wouter Valentijn
2018-05-19 11:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 2:28:08 PM UTC-7, The Other
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during his wedding
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at all, and our
royals don’t
Post by Daniel60
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
use their surname by tradition (it’s Windsor, changed from Saxe-Coburg
Gotha during World War I to distance our current royal family from its
German origins).
So am I right that last names of Diana & Camilla would be George
after they married Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George?
Post by Daniel60
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Did you not understand the last response? George is Charles' last name.
It's not his surname.
Members of the royal family are not required to use a surname. However,
for the sake of legal documentation the Queen has stated that her
children would use "Mountbatten-Windsor" as a surname.
Why then didn't the Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie use
"Mountbatten-Windsor" when addressing Charles during the wedding
ceremony?
Post by Daniel60
Tim, have you ever been to a wedding ceremony??
If John David Smith were to marry Mary Alice Davis, would the Minister
mention their Surnames?? ....
Or would he, more likely ask the husband "Do you, John, take Mary to be
your .........?" and then ask the wife "Do you, Mary, take John to be
your .....?"?
I'm betting he would ask those two questions, without mentioning the
Surnames ... especially, now-a-days, when it is becoming more common for
the woman to keep her own Surname!!
The officiator stated Charles' 4 names. I had assumed that he was
reciting Charles' FULL name, including the surname!
NO!!!!
Watching it right NOW!

Surnames were *not* mentioned.
--
Wouter Valentijn www.j3v.net

http://www.zeppodunsel.nl/tijdlijnen-timelines.html

liam=mail
Wouter Valentijn
2018-05-19 11:34:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 2:28:08 PM UTC-7, The Other
Post by The Other Doctor
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George.  Did Diana & more
recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not
"Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during his wedding
ceremony in 1981.  I had therefore assumed that "George" was
his last
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at all, and our
royals don’t
Post by Daniel60
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
use their surname by tradition  (it’s Windsor, changed from
Saxe-Coburg
Gotha during World War I to distance our current royal family from its
German origins).
So am I right that last names of Diana & Camilla would be George
after they married Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George?
Post by Daniel60
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Did you not understand the last response? George is Charles' last name.
It's not his surname.
Members of the royal family are not required to use a surname. However,
for the sake of legal documentation the Queen has stated that her
children would use "Mountbatten-Windsor" as a surname.
Why then didn't the Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie use
"Mountbatten-Windsor" when addressing Charles during the wedding
ceremony?
Post by Daniel60
Tim, have you ever been to a wedding ceremony??
If John David Smith were to marry Mary Alice Davis, would the Minister
mention their Surnames?? ....
Or would he, more likely ask the husband "Do you, John, take Mary to be
your .........?" and then ask the wife "Do you, Mary, take John to be
your .....?"?
I'm betting he would ask those two questions, without mentioning the
Surnames ... especially, now-a-days, when it is becoming more common for
the woman to keep her own Surname!!
The officiator stated Charles' 4 names.  I had assumed that he was
reciting Charles' FULL name, including the surname!
NO!!!!
The wedding of Harry and Meghan....
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Watching it right NOW!
Surnames were *not* mentioned.
Past the "I will" from Harry and Meghan and the "We will" from the families.

The Archbishop of Canterbury performing Justin Welby and Bishop Michael
Bruce Curry addressing at the ceremony.

Modern ceremony I'd say. Including a gospel version of Ben E. King's
"Stand by Me".
--
Wouter Valentijn www.j3v.net

http://www.zeppodunsel.nl/tijdlijnen-timelines.html

liam=mail
The Doctor
2018-05-19 12:45:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 2:28:08 PM UTC-7, The Other
Post by The Other Doctor
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George.  Did Diana & more
recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not
"Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during
his wedding
ceremony in 1981.  I had therefore assumed that "George" was
his last
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at
all, and our
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by The Doctor
royals don’t
Post by Daniel60
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
use their surname by tradition  (it’s Windsor, changed from
Saxe-Coburg
Gotha during World War I to distance our current royal family from its
German origins).
So am I right that last names of Diana & Camilla would be George
after they married Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George?
Post by Daniel60
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Did you not understand the last response? George is Charles' last name.
It's not his surname.
Members of the royal family are not required to use a surname. However,
for the sake of legal documentation the Queen has stated that her
children would use "Mountbatten-Windsor" as a surname.
Why then didn't the Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie use
"Mountbatten-Windsor" when addressing Charles during the wedding
ceremony?
Post by Daniel60
Tim, have you ever been to a wedding ceremony??
If John David Smith were to marry Mary Alice Davis, would the Minister
mention their Surnames?? ....
Or would he, more likely ask the husband "Do you, John, take Mary to be
your .........?" and then ask the wife "Do you, Mary, take John to be
your .....?"?
I'm betting he would ask those two questions, without mentioning the
Surnames ... especially, now-a-days, when it is becoming more common for
the woman to keep her own Surname!!
The officiator stated Charles' 4 names.  I had assumed that he was
reciting Charles' FULL name, including the surname!
NO!!!!
The wedding of Harry and Meghan....
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Watching it right NOW!
Surnames were *not* mentioned.
Past the "I will" from Harry and Meghan and the "We will" from the families.
The Archbishop of Canterbury performing Justin Welby and Bishop Michael
Bruce Curry addressing at the ceremony.
Modern ceremony I'd say. Including a gospel version of Ben E. King's
"Stand by Me".
I got the BC 1 London feed.
Post by The Last Doctor
--
Wouter Valentijn www.j3v.net
http://www.zeppodunsel.nl/tijdlijnen-timelines.html
liam=mail
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Furious activity is no substitute for understanding. -H. H. Williams
The Doctor
2018-05-19 12:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 2:28:08 PM UTC-7, The Other
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not
"Camila")
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during
his wedding
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at
all, and our
Post by The Doctor
royals don’t
Post by Daniel60
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
use their surname by tradition (it’s Windsor, changed
from Saxe-Coburg
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Gotha during World War I to distance our current royal family from its
German origins).
So am I right that last names of Diana & Camilla would be George
after they married Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George?
Post by Daniel60
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Did you not understand the last response? George is Charles' last name.
It's not his surname.
Members of the royal family are not required to use a surname. However,
for the sake of legal documentation the Queen has stated that her
children would use "Mountbatten-Windsor" as a surname.
Why then didn't the Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie use
"Mountbatten-Windsor" when addressing Charles during the wedding
ceremony?
Post by Daniel60
Tim, have you ever been to a wedding ceremony??
If John David Smith were to marry Mary Alice Davis, would the Minister
mention their Surnames?? ....
Or would he, more likely ask the husband "Do you, John, take Mary to be
your .........?" and then ask the wife "Do you, Mary, take John to be
your .....?"?
I'm betting he would ask those two questions, without mentioning the
Surnames ... especially, now-a-days, when it is becoming more common for
the woman to keep her own Surname!!
The officiator stated Charles' 4 names. I had assumed that he was
reciting Charles' FULL name, including the surname!
NO!!!!
Watching it right NOW!
Surnames were *not* mentioned.
Exactly!
Post by The Other Doctor
--
Wouter Valentijn www.j3v.net
http://www.zeppodunsel.nl/tijdlijnen-timelines.html
liam=mail
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Furious activity is no substitute for understanding. -H. H. Williams
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-19 06:11:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during his wedding
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at all, and our royals don’t
use their surname by tradition (it’s Windsor, changed from Saxe-Coburg
Gotha during World War I to distance our current royal family from its
German origins).
So am I right that last names of Diana & Camilla would be George after they married Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George?
Did you not understand the last response? George is Charles' last name.
It's not his surname.
Members of the royal family are not required to use a surname. However,
for the sake of legal documentation the Queen has stated that her
children would use
Wedding of Prince William Arthur Phillip Louis to Catherine Middleton: "Mountbatten-Windsor" not used either! Why don't British Royals need to surname?
Daniel60
2018-05-19 12:09:52 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 10:46:06 AM UTC-7, Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:51:57 PM UTC-7, The Last
Post by The Last Doctor
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 5:15:16 PM UTC-7, The
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 2:28:08 PM UTC-7,
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did
Diana & more recently Camila adopt last
name of George?
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or
Camilla (not "Camila") should "adopt" one of
Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur
George" during his wedding ceremony in 1981.
I had therefore assumed that "George" was
his last name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his
surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last
two names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at all, and
our royals don’t use their surname by tradition (it’s
Windsor, changed from Saxe-Coburg Gotha during World War
I to distance our current royal family from its German
origins).
So am I right that last names of Diana & Camilla would be
George after they married Prince Charles Phillip Arthur
George?
Did you not understand the last response? George is Charles'
last name. It's not his surname.
Members of the royal family are not required to use a
surname. However, for the sake of legal documentation the
Queen has stated that her children would use
Wedding of Prince William Arthur Phillip Louis to Catherine
Middleton: "Mountbatten-Windsor" not used either! Why don't British
Royals need to surname?
because Surnames are rarely used at any Western Church Wedding
ceremonies, as far as I know??

I don't know if Surnames are used in Registry Wedding Ceremonies,
though I doubt it!
--
Daniel
The Doctor
2018-05-19 12:42:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 2:28:08 PM UTC-7, The Other
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not
"Camila")
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during
his wedding
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was
his last
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at all, and
our royals don’t
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
use their surname by tradition (it’s Windsor, changed from
Saxe-Coburg
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Gotha during World War I to distance our current royal family from its
German origins).
So am I right that last names of Diana & Camilla would be George
after they married Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George?
Post by The Other Doctor
Did you not understand the last response? George is Charles' last name.
It's not his surname.
Members of the royal family are not required to use a surname. However,
for the sake of legal documentation the Queen has stated that her
children would use
"Mountbatten-Windsor" not used either! Why don't British Royals need to
surname?
How thick are you?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Furious activity is no substitute for understanding. -H. H. Williams
The Doctor
2018-05-18 14:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during his wedding
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at all, and our
royals don’t
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
use their surname by tradition (it’s Windsor, changed from Saxe-Coburg
Gotha during World War I to distance our current royal family from its
German origins).
So am I right that last names of Diana & Camilla would be George
after they married Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George?
Post by The Other Doctor
Did you not understand the last response? George is Charles' last name.
It's not his surname.
Members of the royal family are not required to use a surname. However,
for the sake of legal documentation the Queen has stated that her
children would use "Mountbatten-Windsor" as a surname.
Why then didn't the Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie use
"Mountbatten-Windsor" when addressing Charles during the wedding
ceremony?
How thick are you?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Originality is simply a pair of fresh eyes. -Thomas Wentworth Higginson
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-18 17:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during his wedding
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at all, and our
royals don’t
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Last Doctor
use their surname by tradition (it’s Windsor, changed from Saxe-Coburg
Gotha during World War I to distance our current royal family from its
German origins).
So am I right that last names of Diana & Camilla would be George
after they married Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George?
Post by The Other Doctor
Did you not understand the last response? George is Charles' last name.
It's not his surname.
Members of the royal family are not required to use a surname. However,
for the sake of legal documentation the Queen has stated that her
children would use "Mountbatten-Windsor" as a surname.
Why then didn't the Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie use
"Mountbatten-Windsor" when addressing Charles during the wedding
ceremony?
How thick are you?
Don't weddings & marriages generally involve some legal documentation (i.e. the marriage license, a pre-nup...).
The Doctor
2018-05-18 21:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by The Doctor
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 2:28:08 PM UTC-7, The Other
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not
"Camila")
Post by The Doctor
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during
his wedding
Post by The Doctor
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at all, and our
royals don’t
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
use their surname by tradition (it’s Windsor, changed from
Saxe-Coburg
Post by The Doctor
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Gotha during World War I to distance our current royal family from its
German origins).
So am I right that last names of Diana & Camilla would be George
after they married Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George?
Post by The Other Doctor
Did you not understand the last response? George is Charles' last name.
It's not his surname.
Members of the royal family are not required to use a surname. However,
for the sake of legal documentation the Queen has stated that her
children would use "Mountbatten-Windsor" as a surname.
Why then didn't the Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie use
"Mountbatten-Windsor" when addressing Charles during the wedding
ceremony?
How thick are you?
Don't weddings & marriages generally involve some legal documentation
(i.e. the marriage license, a pre-nup...).
Not in royalty!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Originality is simply a pair of fresh eyes. -Thomas Wentworth Higginson
Daniel60
2018-05-19 12:18:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
In article
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:51:57 PM UTC-7, The Last
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 5:15:16 PM UTC-7, The
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 2:28:08 PM UTC-7,
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did
Diana & more recently Camila adopt last name
of George?
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or
Camilla (not "Camila") should "adopt" one
of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur
George" during his wedding ceremony in
1981. I had therefore assumed that "George"
was his last name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his
surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last
two names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at all,
and our royals don’t use their surname by tradition
(it’s Windsor, changed from Saxe-Coburg Gotha
during World War I to distance our current royal
family from its German origins).
So am I right that last names of Diana & Camilla would be
George after they married Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George?
Did you not understand the last response? George is Charles'
last name. It's not his surname.
Members of the royal family are not required to use a
surname. However, for the sake of legal documentation the
Queen has stated that her children would use
"Mountbatten-Windsor" as a surname.
Why then didn't the Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie use
"Mountbatten-Windsor" when addressing Charles during the
wedding ceremony?
How thick are you?
Don't weddings & marriages generally involve some legal
documentation (i.e. the marriage license, a pre-nup...).
Not in royalty!
Tim, on the "legal documentation (i.e. the marriage license, a
pre-nup...)" the full names including the Surnames would be used, Tim,
in part, so that people later reading the paperwork would know whom the
paperwork refers to.

But, in the Church, chances are that everyone present knows the
Surnames, so using the Surnames would be a waste of time, Tim!
--
Daniel
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-18 12:16:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during his wedding
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at all, and our royals don’t
use their surname by tradition (it’s Windsor, changed from Saxe-Coburg
Gotha during World War I to distance our current royal family from its
German origins).
So am I right that last names of Diana & Camilla would be George after they married Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George?
Did you not understand the last response? George is Charles' last name.
It's not his surname.
Members of the royal family are not required to use a surname. However,
for the sake of legal documentation the Queen has stated that her
children would use "Mountbatten-Windsor" as a surname.
Would Charles have used "Mountbatten-Windsor" when he signed the marriage licences?
The Doctor
2018-05-18 14:56:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during his wedding
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at all, and our
royals don’t
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
use their surname by tradition (it’s Windsor, changed from Saxe-Coburg
Gotha during World War I to distance our current royal family from its
German origins).
So am I right that last names of Diana & Camilla would be George
after they married Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George?
Post by The Other Doctor
Did you not understand the last response? George is Charles' last name.
It's not his surname.
Members of the royal family are not required to use a surname. However,
for the sake of legal documentation the Queen has stated that her
children would use "Mountbatten-Windsor" as a surname.
Would Charles have used "Mountbatten-Windsor" when he signed the marriage licences?
Yes.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Originality is simply a pair of fresh eyes. -Thomas Wentworth Higginson
Daniel60
2018-05-19 12:23:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 5:15:16 PM UTC-7, The Doctor
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 2:28:08 PM UTC-7, The
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana
& more recently Camila adopt last name of George?
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or
Camilla (not "Camila") should "adopt" one of
Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George"
during his wedding ceremony in 1981. I had
therefore assumed that "George" was his last name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his
surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two
names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at all, and
our royals don’t use their surname by tradition (it’s
Windsor, changed from Saxe-Coburg Gotha during World War I
to distance our current royal family from its German origins).
So am I right that last names of Diana & Camilla would be
George after they married Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George?
Did you not understand the last response? George is Charles' last
name. It's not his surname.
Members of the royal family are not required to use a surname.
However, for the sake of legal documentation the Queen has stated
that her children would use "Mountbatten-Windsor" as a surname.
Would Charles have used "Mountbatten-Windsor" when he signed the marriage licences?
Yes.
Yes, if that was how he signed his name, Tim! No, if that is how he
signs his name!
--
Daniel
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-18 12:21:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Doctor
Members of the royal family are not required to use a surname. However,
for the sake of legal documentation the Queen has stated that her
children would use "Mountbatten-Windsor" as a surname.
Would this include tax returns?
Daniel60
2018-05-18 13:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Members of the royal family are not required to use a surname. However,
for the sake of legal documentation the Queen has stated that her
children would use "Mountbatten-Windsor" as a surname.
Would this include tax returns?
No, Tim! ;-)
--
Daniel
The Doctor
2018-05-18 14:56:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Members of the royal family are not required to use a surname. However,
for the sake of legal documentation the Queen has stated that her
children would use "Mountbatten-Windsor" as a surname.
Would this include tax returns?
Yes, now a days.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Originality is simply a pair of fresh eyes. -Thomas Wentworth Higginson
The Doctor
2018-05-18 14:46:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during his wedding
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at all, and our
royals don’t
Post by Timothy Bruening
use their surname by tradition (it’s Windsor, changed from Saxe-Coburg
Gotha during World War I to distance our current royal family from its
German origins).
So am I right that last names of Diana & Camilla would be George after
they married Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George?
Did you not understand the last response? George is Charles' last name.
It's not his surname.
Members of the royal family are not required to use a surname. However,
for the sake of legal documentation the Queen has stated that her
children would use "Mountbatten-Windsor" as a surname.
Thank you for the honest explanation.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Originality is simply a pair of fresh eyes. -Thomas Wentworth Higginson
The Doctor
2018-05-18 14:41:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during his wedding
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at all, and our
royals don’t
use their surname by tradition (it’s Windsor, changed from Saxe-Coburg
Gotha during World War I to distance our current royal family from its
German origins).
So am I right that last names of Diana & Camilla would be George after
they married Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George?
No!!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Originality is simply a pair of fresh eyes. -Thomas Wentworth Higginson
The Other Doctor
2018-05-18 06:58:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during his wedding
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at all, and our royals don’t
use their surname by tradition (it’s Windsor, changed from Saxe-Coburg
Gotha during World War I to distance our current royal family from its
German origins).
Whilst it's true that the Queen did not take on the name Mountbatten
when she married, she has in fact directed that, when required, her
children should use the name "Mountbatten-Windsor".

Mountbatten-Windsor was first used in 1973 when Princess Anne married
Mark Phillips.
The Last Doctor
2018-05-18 08:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during his wedding
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at all, and our royals don’t
use their surname by tradition (it’s Windsor, changed from Saxe-Coburg
Gotha during World War I to distance our current royal family from its
German origins).
Whilst it's true that the Queen did not take on the name Mountbatten
when she married, she has in fact directed that, when required, her
children should use the name "Mountbatten-Windsor".
Mountbatten-Windsor was first used in 1973 when Princess Anne married
Mark Phillips.
I missed that bit of trivia. One of those compromises to placate Philip, no
doubt. Of course, Mountbatten was ALSO a name change for Phil’s family,
from Battenberg (like the cake).
--
There are some corners of the universe which have bred the most terrible
things. Things which act against everything we believe in. They must be
fought.
The Doctor
2018-05-18 14:52:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during his wedding
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at all, and our
royals don’t
Post by The Other Doctor
use their surname by tradition (it’s Windsor, changed from Saxe-Coburg
Gotha during World War I to distance our current royal family from its
German origins).
Whilst it's true that the Queen did not take on the name Mountbatten
when she married, she has in fact directed that, when required, her
children should use the name "Mountbatten-Windsor".
Mountbatten-Windsor was first used in 1973 when Princess Anne married
Mark Phillips.
I missed that bit of trivia. One of those compromises to placate Philip, no
doubt. Of course, Mountbatten was ALSO a name change for Phil’s family,
from Battenberg (like the cake).
--
There are some corners of the universe which have bred the most terrible
things. Things which act against everything we believe in. They must be
fought.
IF only the UK could hve annexed Greece in the 1960s.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Originality is simply a pair of fresh eyes. -Thomas Wentworth Higginson
The Doctor
2018-05-18 14:40:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during his wedding
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last
name!
Yes. George is his last name. But it's not his surname.
Chrales Phillip Arthur George Mountmatten Winsdor!
Why did the guy officiating at wedding leave out last two names?
He didn’t. Mountbatten isn’t part of his name at all, and our royals don’t
use their surname by tradition (it’s Windsor, changed from Saxe-Coburg
Gotha during World War I to distance our current royal family from its
German origins).
Hanover and Saxes-Cogurg origins you mean.
--
There are some corners of the universe which have bred the most terrible
things. Things which act against everything we believe in. They must be
fought.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Originality is simply a pair of fresh eyes. -Thomas Wentworth Higginson
The Doctor
2018-05-18 00:12:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
Post by The Other Doctor
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during his wedding
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George" was his last
name!
He is of the house of Windsor! Big Clue!!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
He will live ill who does not know how to die well. -Seneca
The Doctor
2018-05-18 00:08:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George. Did Diana & more recently
Camila adopt last name of George?
OK, Tim. I give up. Why do you think Diana or Camilla (not "Camila")
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Tim does not note that the family is Windsor.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
He will live ill who does not know how to die well. -Seneca
Wouter Valentijn
2018-05-17 17:48:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
But wouldn't William be next in line to WELSH Throne?
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
William.
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of secession,
so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
How would secession of Wales affect UK succession?
I don't think it would.

BTW, wasn't the title of 'Prince of Wales' some kind of PR stunt to
appease the Welsh enticing them to be part of the UK?
--
Wouter Valentijn www.j3v.net

http://www.zeppodunsel.nl/tijdlijnen-timelines.html

liam=mail
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-17 21:12:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of
the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
But wouldn't William be next in line to WELSH Throne?
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
William.
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of secession,
so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
How would secession of Wales affect UK succession?
Wales is part of the UK!
I am imagining Wales becoming independent nation.
The Other Doctor
2018-05-17 21:34:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of
the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
But wouldn't William be next in line to WELSH Throne?
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
William.
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of secession,
so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
How would secession of Wales affect UK succession?
Wales is part of the UK!
I am imagining Wales becoming independent nation.
How many times do you need the same answer?

In the extremely unlikely case that Wales became independent of the UK
it would most likely ditch the monarchy. If it chose to keep the
monarchy then it would be in exactly the same way that other members of
the Commonwealth currently do.

Clear?
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-17 21:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of
the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
But wouldn't William be next in line to WELSH Throne?
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
William.
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of secession,
so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
How would secession of Wales affect UK succession?
Wales is part of the UK!
I am imagining Wales becoming independent nation.
How many times do you need the same answer?
In the extremely unlikely case that Wales became independent of the UK
it would most likely ditch the monarchy. If it chose to keep the
monarchy then it would be in exactly the same way that other members of
the Commonwealth currently do.
Clear?
Yes. What would title of Crown Prince be?
The Other Doctor
2018-05-17 21:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of
the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
But wouldn't William be next in line to WELSH Throne?
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
William.
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of secession,
so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
How would secession of Wales affect UK succession?
Wales is part of the UK!
I am imagining Wales becoming independent nation.
How many times do you need the same answer?
In the extremely unlikely case that Wales became independent of the UK
it would most likely ditch the monarchy. If it chose to keep the
monarchy then it would be in exactly the same way that other members of
the Commonwealth currently do.
Clear?
Yes. What would title of Crown Prince be?
There is no such thing, Tim. Not any more in the UK. The heir to the
throne can be male or female.

Not sure if you're aware, but 1st in line to the UK throne is Charles.
His oldest son, William, is next.
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-17 22:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of
the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
But wouldn't William be next in line to WELSH Throne?
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
William.
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of secession,
so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
How would secession of Wales affect UK succession?
Wales is part of the UK!
I am imagining Wales becoming independent nation.
How many times do you need the same answer?
In the extremely unlikely case that Wales became independent of the UK
it would most likely ditch the monarchy. If it chose to keep the
monarchy then it would be in exactly the same way that other members of
the Commonwealth currently do.
Clear?
Yes. What would title of Crown Prince be?
There is no such thing, Tim. Not any more in the UK. The heir to the
throne can be male or female.
Not sure if you're aware, but 1st in line to the UK throne is Charles.
His oldest son, William, is next.
But would Charles still be "Prince of Wales" if Wales were no longer part of UK/Great Britain?
The Other Doctor
2018-05-17 23:05:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of
the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
But wouldn't William be next in line to WELSH Throne?
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
William.
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of secession,
so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
How would secession of Wales affect UK succession?
Wales is part of the UK!
I am imagining Wales becoming independent nation.
How many times do you need the same answer?
In the extremely unlikely case that Wales became independent of the UK
it would most likely ditch the monarchy. If it chose to keep the
monarchy then it would be in exactly the same way that other members of
the Commonwealth currently do.
Clear?
Yes. What would title of Crown Prince be?
There is no such thing, Tim. Not any more in the UK. The heir to the
throne can be male or female.
Not sure if you're aware, but 1st in line to the UK throne is Charles.
His oldest son, William, is next.
But would Charles still be "Prince of Wales" if Wales were no longer part of UK/Great Britain?
As Wales has no plans to leave the UK, there is no need for you to worry
about it.

But let's pretend it did. In which case, Charles would still be "Prince
of Wales" if it was decided he should keep the title. If it was decided
the title was no longer appropriate then he would not keep it.
The Doctor
2018-05-18 00:17:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 9:53:46 AM UTC-7, Wouter
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
In article
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of
the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
But wouldn't William be next in line to WELSH Throne?
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
William.
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of secession,
so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
How would secession of Wales affect UK succession?
Wales is part of the UK!
I am imagining Wales becoming independent nation.
How many times do you need the same answer?
In the extremely unlikely case that Wales became independent of the UK
it would most likely ditch the monarchy. If it chose to keep the
monarchy then it would be in exactly the same way that other members of
the Commonwealth currently do.
Clear?
Yes. What would title of Crown Prince be?
There is no such thing, Tim. Not any more in the UK. The heir to the
throne can be male or female.
Not sure if you're aware, but 1st in line to the UK throne is Charles.
His oldest son, William, is next.
But would Charles still be "Prince of Wales" if Wales were no longer
part of UK/Great Britain?
As Wales has no plans to leave the UK, there is no need for you to worry
about it.
But let's pretend it did. In which case, Charles would still be "Prince
of Wales" if it was decided he should keep the title. If it was decided
the title was no longer appropriate then he would not keep it.
Works for me!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
He will live ill who does not know how to die well. -Seneca
The Doctor
2018-05-18 00:13:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 9:53:46 AM UTC-7, Wouter
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
In article
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of
the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
But wouldn't William be next in line to WELSH Throne?
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
William.
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of secession,
so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
How would secession of Wales affect UK succession?
Wales is part of the UK!
I am imagining Wales becoming independent nation.
How many times do you need the same answer?
In the extremely unlikely case that Wales became independent of the UK
it would most likely ditch the monarchy. If it chose to keep the
monarchy then it would be in exactly the same way that other members of
the Commonwealth currently do.
Clear?
Yes. What would title of Crown Prince be?
There is no such thing, Tim. Not any more in the UK. The heir to the
throne can be male or female.
Not sure if you're aware, but 1st in line to the UK throne is Charles.
His oldest son, William, is next.
But would Charles still be "Prince of Wales" if Wales were no longer
part of UK/Great Britain?
Most likely Duke of Cornwall.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
He will live ill who does not know how to die well. -Seneca
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-18 01:16:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
But would Charles still be "Prince of Wales" if Wales were no longer
part of UK/Great Britain?
Most likely Duke of Cornwall.
How do you make a wall out of corn?
The Doctor
2018-05-18 01:24:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
But would Charles still be "Prince of Wales" if Wales were no longer
part of UK/Great Britain?
Most likely Duke of Cornwall.
How do you make a wall out of corn?
Never had a cornish pastry I see!!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Originality is simply a pair of fresh eyes. -Thomas Wentworth Higginson
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-18 12:26:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
But would Charles still be "Prince of Wales" if Wales were no longer
part of UK/Great Britain?
Most likely Duke of Cornwall.
How do you make a wall out of corn?
Never had a cornish pastry I see!!
I mean a BIG wall!!!!! Big enough to stop illegal immigrants!
The Doctor
2018-05-18 14:57:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
But would Charles still be "Prince of Wales" if Wales were no longer
part of UK/Great Britain?
Most likely Duke of Cornwall.
How do you make a wall out of corn?
Never had a cornish pastry I see!!
I mean a BIG wall!!!!! Big enough to stop illegal immigrants!
The Duke is not amused.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Originality is simply a pair of fresh eyes. -Thomas Wentworth Higginson
The Doctor
2018-05-18 00:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 9:53:46 AM UTC-7, Wouter
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
In article
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of
the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
But wouldn't William be next in line to WELSH Throne?
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
William.
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of secession,
so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
How would secession of Wales affect UK succession?
Wales is part of the UK!
I am imagining Wales becoming independent nation.
How many times do you need the same answer?
In the extremely unlikely case that Wales became independent of the UK
it would most likely ditch the monarchy. If it chose to keep the
monarchy then it would be in exactly the same way that other members of
the Commonwealth currently do.
Clear?
Yes. What would title of Crown Prince be?
There is no such thing, Tim. Not any more in the UK. The heir to the
throne can be male or female.
Not sure if you're aware, but 1st in line to the UK throne is Charles.
His oldest son, William, is next.
THen hid sun George!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
He will live ill who does not know how to die well. -Seneca
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-18 01:17:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 9:53:46 AM UTC-7, Wouter
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
In article
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of
the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
But wouldn't William be next in line to WELSH Throne?
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
William.
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of secession,
so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
How would secession of Wales affect UK succession?
Wales is part of the UK!
I am imagining Wales becoming independent nation.
How many times do you need the same answer?
In the extremely unlikely case that Wales became independent of the UK
it would most likely ditch the monarchy. If it chose to keep the
monarchy then it would be in exactly the same way that other members of
the Commonwealth currently do.
Clear?
Yes. What would title of Crown Prince be?
There is no such thing, Tim. Not any more in the UK. The heir to the
throne can be male or female.
Not sure if you're aware, but 1st in line to the UK throne is Charles.
His oldest son, William, is next.
THen hid sun George!
Why did William hide the sun?
The Doctor
2018-05-18 01:25:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 9:53:46 AM UTC-7, Wouter
Post by Wouter Valentijn
On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 6:14:49 AM UTC-7, The
In article
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales
broke free of
Post by The Doctor
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
But wouldn't William be next in line to WELSH Throne?
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
William.
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of
secession,
Post by The Doctor
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
How would secession of Wales affect UK succession?
Wales is part of the UK!
I am imagining Wales becoming independent nation.
How many times do you need the same answer?
In the extremely unlikely case that Wales became independent of the UK
it would most likely ditch the monarchy. If it chose to keep the
monarchy then it would be in exactly the same way that other members of
the Commonwealth currently do.
Clear?
Yes. What would title of Crown Prince be?
There is no such thing, Tim. Not any more in the UK. The heir to the
throne can be male or female.
Not sure if you're aware, but 1st in line to the UK throne is Charles.
His oldest son, William, is next.
THen hid sun George!
Why did William hide the sun?
So much for spell checkers!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Originality is simply a pair of fresh eyes. -Thomas Wentworth Higginson
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-18 12:28:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
The Other Doctor
Post by The Other Doctor
Not sure if you're aware, but 1st in line to the UK throne is Charles.
His oldest son, William, is next.
THen hid sun George!
Why did William hide the sun?
So much for spell checkers!
Have you tried spell chess?
The Doctor
2018-05-18 14:57:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
The Other Doctor
Post by The Other Doctor
Not sure if you're aware, but 1st in line to the UK throne is Charles.
His oldest son, William, is next.
THen hid sun George!
Why did William hide the sun?
So much for spell checkers!
Have you tried spell chess?
Boo!!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Originality is simply a pair of fresh eyes. -Thomas Wentworth Higginson
Idlehands
2018-05-19 04:27:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 9:53:46 AM UTC-7, Wouter
Post by Wouter Valentijn
On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 6:14:49 AM UTC-7, The
In article
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales
broke free of
Post by The Doctor
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
But wouldn't William be next in line to WELSH Throne?
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
William.
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of
secession,
Post by The Doctor
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
How would secession of Wales affect UK succession?
Wales is part of the UK!
I am imagining Wales becoming independent nation.
How many times do you need the same answer?
In the extremely unlikely case that Wales became independent of the UK
it would most likely ditch the monarchy. If it chose to keep the
monarchy then it would be in exactly the same way that other members of
the Commonwealth currently do.
Clear?
Yes. What would title of Crown Prince be?
There is no such thing, Tim. Not any more in the UK. The heir to the
throne can be male or female.
Not sure if you're aware, but 1st in line to the UK throne is Charles.
His oldest son, William, is next.
THen hid sun George!
Why did William hide the sun?
So much for spell checkers!
You spelled "sun" correctly dumb-ass, it won't think for you but then
you won't think for yourself so it's a moot point.
--
The difference between pizza and your opinion is
I asked for the pizza.
The Doctor
2018-05-18 00:10:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 9:53:46 AM UTC-7, Wouter
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
In article
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of
the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
But wouldn't William be next in line to WELSH Throne?
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
William.
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of secession,
so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
How would secession of Wales affect UK succession?
Wales is part of the UK!
I am imagining Wales becoming independent nation.
How many times do you need the same answer?
In the extremely unlikely case that Wales became independent of the UK
it would most likely ditch the monarchy. If it chose to keep the
monarchy then it would be in exactly the same way that other members of
the Commonwealth currently do.
Clear?
Yes. What would title of Crown Prince be?
eiar Apparent!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
He will live ill who does not know how to die well. -Seneca
The Doctor
2018-05-18 00:09:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of
the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
But wouldn't William be next in line to WELSH Throne?
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
William.
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of secession,
so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
How would secession of Wales affect UK succession?
Wales is part of the UK!
I am imagining Wales becoming independent nation.
How many times do you need the same answer?
In the extremely unlikely case that Wales became independent of the UK
it would most likely ditch the monarchy. If it chose to keep the
monarchy then it would be in exactly the same way that other members of
the Commonwealth currently do.
Clear?
I wonder if he gets it?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
He will live ill who does not know how to die well. -Seneca
The Doctor
2018-05-18 00:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 9:53:46 AM UTC-7, Wouter
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of
the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
But wouldn't William be next in line to WELSH Throne?
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
William.
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of secession,
so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
How would secession of Wales affect UK succession?
Wales is part of the UK!
I am imagining Wales becoming independent nation.
IIRC, if Scotland were to separate, they would retain the Moarchy from
London.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
He will live ill who does not know how to die well. -Seneca
Daniel60
2018-05-18 07:18:33 UTC
Permalink
<Snip>
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of secession,
so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
I'd like to blame it on Spell Check, but, I'm afraid I have to take the
blame!! ;-(
Post by Wouter Valentijn
But English is not my first language, so I could be wrong.
Post by Daniel60
Probably not Anne because she was bypassed under old Secession Rule,
but Andrew would still be available!
Why was she bypassed? Ah, wait, because she was a woman and other,
younger, siblings were not! :-(
Yeap! Back in those Male Chauvinist days!! ;-P
--
Daniel
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-18 12:23:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of secession,
so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
I'd like to blame it on Spell Check, but, I'm afraid I have to take the
blame!! ;-(
How about Spell Slav, or Spell Pole, or Spell Hungarian, or Spell German.....?
The Doctor
2018-05-18 14:57:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of secession,
so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
I'd like to blame it on Spell Check, but, I'm afraid I have to take the
blame!! ;-(
How about Spell Slav, or Spell Pole, or Spell Hungarian, or Spell German.....?
Ha! Ha!!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Originality is simply a pair of fresh eyes. -Thomas Wentworth Higginson
Wouter Valentijn
2018-05-18 16:47:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of
secession, so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
I'd like to blame it on Spell Check, but, I'm afraid I have to take the
blame!! ;-(
Happens to me too sometimes.....
Post by Daniel60
Post by Wouter Valentijn
But English is not my first language, so I could be wrong.
Post by Daniel60
Probably not Anne because she was bypassed under old Secession Rule,
but Andrew would still be available!
Why was she bypassed? Ah, wait, because she was a woman and other,
younger, siblings were not! :-(
Yeap! Back in those Male Chauvinist days!! ;-P
Feared as much.
--
Wouter Valentijn www.j3v.net

http://www.zeppodunsel.nl/tijdlijnen-timelines.html

liam=mail
The Last Doctor
2018-05-18 17:03:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of
secession, so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
I'd like to blame it on Spell Check, but, I'm afraid I have to take the
blame!! ;-(
Happens to me too sometimes.....
Post by Daniel60
Post by Wouter Valentijn
But English is not my first language, so I could be wrong.
Post by Daniel60
Probably not Anne because she was bypassed under old Secession Rule,
but Andrew would still be available!
Why was she bypassed? Ah, wait, because she was a woman and other,
younger, siblings were not! :-(
Yeap! Back in those Male Chauvinist days!! ;-P
Feared as much.
The law was changed though, so now Charlotte is 4th in line after Charles
William and George.
--
There are some corners of the universe which have bred the most terrible
things. Things which act against everything we believe in. They must be
fought.
Wouter Valentijn
2018-05-18 17:52:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of
secession, so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
I'd like to blame it on Spell Check, but, I'm afraid I have to take the
blame!! ;-(
Happens to me too sometimes.....
Post by Daniel60
Post by Wouter Valentijn
But English is not my first language, so I could be wrong.
Post by Daniel60
Probably not Anne because she was bypassed under old Secession Rule,
but Andrew would still be available!
Why was she bypassed? Ah, wait, because she was a woman and other,
younger, siblings were not! :-(
Yeap! Back in those Male Chauvinist days!! ;-P
Feared as much.
The law was changed though, so now Charlotte is 4th in line after Charles
William and George.
That's an improvement.
--
Wouter Valentijn www.j3v.net

http://www.zeppodunsel.nl/tijdlijnen-timelines.html

liam=mail
Adam H. Kerman
2018-05-18 21:20:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of
secession, so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
I'd like to blame it on Spell Check, but, I'm afraid I have to take the
blame!! ;-(
Happens to me too sometimes.....
Post by Daniel60
Post by Wouter Valentijn
But English is not my first language, so I could be wrong.
Post by Daniel60
Probably not Anne because she was bypassed under old Secession Rule,
but Andrew would still be available!
Why was she bypassed? Ah, wait, because she was a woman and other,
younger, siblings were not! :-(
Yeap! Back in those Male Chauvinist days!! ;-P
Feared as much.
The law was changed though, so now Charlotte is 4th in line after Charles
William and George.
That's an improvement.
I guess I don't see how it improves nor detracts from society in any
way. It's still a monarchy.
The Doctor
2018-05-18 21:40:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of
secession, so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
I'd like to blame it on Spell Check, but, I'm afraid I have to take the
blame!! ;-(
Happens to me too sometimes.....
Post by Daniel60
Post by Wouter Valentijn
But English is not my first language, so I could be wrong.
Post by Daniel60
Probably not Anne because she was bypassed under old Secession Rule,
but Andrew would still be available!
Why was she bypassed? Ah, wait, because she was a woman and other,
younger, siblings were not! :-(
Yeap! Back in those Male Chauvinist days!! ;-P
Feared as much.
The law was changed though, so now Charlotte is 4th in line after Charles
William and George.
That's an improvement.
I guess I don't see how it improves nor detracts from society in any
way. It's still a monarchy.
REpublicvs are hell ridden wastes of nation states!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Originality is simply a pair of fresh eyes. -Thomas Wentworth Higginson
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-19 01:32:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of
secession, so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
I'd like to blame it on Spell Check, but, I'm afraid I have to take the
blame!! ;-(
Happens to me too sometimes.....
Post by Daniel60
Post by Wouter Valentijn
But English is not my first language, so I could be wrong.
Post by Daniel60
Probably not Anne because she was bypassed under old Secession Rule,
but Andrew would still be available!
Why was she bypassed? Ah, wait, because she was a woman and other,
younger, siblings were not! :-(
Yeap! Back in those Male Chauvinist days!! ;-P
Feared as much.
The law was changed though, so now Charlotte is 4th in line after Charles
William and George.
That's an improvement.
I guess I don't see how it improves nor detracts from society in any
way. It's still a monarchy.
REpublicvs are hell ridden wastes of nation states!
So defeat Trump in 2020!
The Doctor
2018-05-19 03:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of
secession, so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
I'd like to blame it on Spell Check, but, I'm afraid I have to take the
blame!! ;-(
Happens to me too sometimes.....
Post by Daniel60
Post by Wouter Valentijn
But English is not my first language, so I could be wrong.
Post by Daniel60
Probably not Anne because she was bypassed under old Secession Rule,
but Andrew would still be available!
Why was she bypassed? Ah, wait, because she was a woman and other,
younger, siblings were not! :-(
Yeap! Back in those Male Chauvinist days!! ;-P
Feared as much.
The law was changed though, so now Charlotte is 4th in line after Charles
William and George.
That's an improvement.
I guess I don't see how it improves nor detracts from society in any
way. It's still a monarchy.
REpublicvs are hell ridden wastes of nation states!
So defeat Trump in 2020!
No. Canada to annex the USA!!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Furious activity is no substitute for understanding. -H. H. Williams
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-19 06:13:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of
secession, so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
I'd like to blame it on Spell Check, but, I'm afraid I have to take the
blame!! ;-(
Happens to me too sometimes.....
Post by Daniel60
Post by Wouter Valentijn
But English is not my first language, so I could be wrong.
Post by Daniel60
Probably not Anne because she was bypassed under old Secession Rule,
but Andrew would still be available!
Why was she bypassed? Ah, wait, because she was a woman and other,
younger, siblings were not! :-(
Yeap! Back in those Male Chauvinist days!! ;-P
Feared as much.
The law was changed though, so now Charlotte is 4th in line after Charles
William and George.
That's an improvement.
I guess I don't see how it improves nor detracts from society in any
way. It's still a monarchy.
REpublicvs are hell ridden wastes of nation states!
So defeat Trump in 2020!
No. Canada to annex the USA!!
You seemed to be dissing Republican Party.
The Doctor
2018-05-19 12:42:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of
secession, so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
I'd like to blame it on Spell Check, but, I'm afraid I have
to take the
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
blame!! ;-(
Happens to me too sometimes.....
Post by Daniel60
Post by Wouter Valentijn
But English is not my first language, so I could be wrong.
Post by Daniel60
Probably not Anne because she was bypassed under old
Secession Rule,
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
but Andrew would still be available!
Why was she bypassed? Ah, wait, because she was a woman and other,
younger, siblings were not! :-(
Yeap! Back in those Male Chauvinist days!! ;-P
Feared as much.
The law was changed though, so now Charlotte is 4th in line
after Charles
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by The Last Doctor
William and George.
That's an improvement.
I guess I don't see how it improves nor detracts from society in any
way. It's still a monarchy.
REpublicvs are hell ridden wastes of nation states!
So defeat Trump in 2020!
No. Canada to annex the USA!!
You seemed to be dissing Republican Party.
I diss the USA as a whole!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Furious activity is no substitute for understanding. -H. H. Williams
Wouter Valentijn
2018-05-19 11:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of
secession, so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
I'd like to blame it on Spell Check, but, I'm afraid I have to take the
blame!! ;-(
Happens to me too sometimes.....
Post by Daniel60
Post by Wouter Valentijn
But English is not my first language, so I could be wrong.
Post by Daniel60
Probably not Anne because she was bypassed under old Secession Rule,
but Andrew would still be available!
Why was she bypassed? Ah, wait, because she was a woman and other,
younger, siblings were not! :-(
Yeap! Back in those Male Chauvinist days!! ;-P
Feared as much.
The law was changed though, so now Charlotte is 4th in line after Charles
William and George.
That's an improvement.
I guess I don't see how it improves nor detracts from society in any
way. It's still a monarchy.
Like republics are automatically better? Don't think so. The US has
Trump. The RF has Putin. Wouldn't trade for that ever. At heart I might
favor a republic, but I'm not unhappy with our King and Queen and they
are still popular with our population.
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
REpublicvs are hell ridden wastes of nation states!
So defeat Trump in 2020!
No. Canada to annex the USA!!
Did you ever read Clive Cussler novels? They featured a United States of
Canada. :-)
--
Wouter Valentijn www.j3v.net

http://www.zeppodunsel.nl/tijdlijnen-timelines.html

liam=mail
The Doctor
2018-05-19 12:44:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of
secession, so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
I'd like to blame it on Spell Check, but, I'm afraid I have to take the
blame!! ;-(
Happens to me too sometimes.....
Post by Daniel60
Post by Wouter Valentijn
But English is not my first language, so I could be wrong.
Post by Daniel60
Probably not Anne because she was bypassed under old Secession Rule,
but Andrew would still be available!
Why was she bypassed? Ah, wait, because she was a woman and other,
younger, siblings were not! :-(
Yeap! Back in those Male Chauvinist days!! ;-P
Feared as much.
The law was changed though, so now Charlotte is 4th in line after Charles
William and George.
That's an improvement.
I guess I don't see how it improves nor detracts from society in any
way. It's still a monarchy.
Like republics are automatically better? Don't think so. The US has
Trump. The RF has Putin. Wouldn't trade for that ever. At heart I might
favor a republic, but I'm not unhappy with our King and Queen and they
are still popular with our population.
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
REpublicvs are hell ridden wastes of nation states!
So defeat Trump in 2020!
No. Canada to annex the USA!!
Did you ever read Clive Cussler novels? They featured a United States of
Canada. :-)
The Dominion of Canada to command North America!!
Post by Wouter Valentijn
--
Wouter Valentijn www.j3v.net
http://www.zeppodunsel.nl/tijdlijnen-timelines.html
liam=mail
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Furious activity is no substitute for understanding. -H. H. Williams
The Doctor
2018-05-18 21:40:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of
secession, so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
I'd like to blame it on Spell Check, but, I'm afraid I have to take the
blame!! ;-(
Happens to me too sometimes.....
Post by Daniel60
Post by Wouter Valentijn
But English is not my first language, so I could be wrong.
Post by Daniel60
Probably not Anne because she was bypassed under old Secession Rule,
but Andrew would still be available!
Why was she bypassed? Ah, wait, because she was a woman and other,
younger, siblings were not! :-(
Yeap! Back in those Male Chauvinist days!! ;-P
Feared as much.
The law was changed though, so now Charlotte is 4th in line after Charles
William and George.
That's an improvement.
--
Wouter Valentijn www.j3v.net
http://www.zeppodunsel.nl/tijdlijnen-timelines.html
liam=mail
And Louis after that.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Originality is simply a pair of fresh eyes. -Thomas Wentworth Higginson
The Doctor
2018-05-18 21:28:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of
secession, so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
I'd like to blame it on Spell Check, but, I'm afraid I have to take the
blame!! ;-(
Happens to me too sometimes.....
Post by Daniel60
Post by Wouter Valentijn
But English is not my first language, so I could be wrong.
Post by Daniel60
Probably not Anne because she was bypassed under old Secession Rule,
but Andrew would still be available!
Why was she bypassed? Ah, wait, because she was a woman and other,
younger, siblings were not! :-(
Yeap! Back in those Male Chauvinist days!! ;-P
Feared as much.
The law was changed though, so now Charlotte is 4th in line after Charles
William and George.
--
There are some corners of the universe which have bred the most terrible
things. Things which act against everything we believe in. They must be
fought.
Then Louis after that.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Originality is simply a pair of fresh eyes. -Thomas Wentworth Higginson
The Doctor
2018-05-18 21:28:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Daniel60
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of
secession, so is William.
Exactly.
BTW, isn't it 'succession'?
Secession is something else.
I'd like to blame it on Spell Check, but, I'm afraid I have to take the
blame!! ;-(
Happens to me too sometimes.....
Post by Daniel60
Post by Wouter Valentijn
But English is not my first language, so I could be wrong.
Post by Daniel60
Probably not Anne because she was bypassed under old Secession Rule,
but Andrew would still be available!
Why was she bypassed? Ah, wait, because she was a woman and other,
younger, siblings were not! :-(
Yeap! Back in those Male Chauvinist days!! ;-P
Feared as much.
--
Wouter Valentijn www.j3v.net
http://www.zeppodunsel.nl/tijdlijnen-timelines.html
liam=mail
No it's, Charles, William, George, Charlotte and Louis then Harry.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Originality is simply a pair of fresh eyes. -Thomas Wentworth Higginson
The Doctor
2018-05-17 20:50:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
But wouldn't William be next in line to WELSH Throne?
If the line of Charles is not available for the UK...
William.
William is in Charles' line so if Charles is out of line of secession,
so is William.
Probably not Anne because she was bypassed under old Secession Rule, but
Andrew would still be available!
--
Daniel
If Charles gives up succession, William is promoted!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
He will live ill who does not know how to die well. -Seneca
The Doctor
2018-05-16 21:32:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
But wouldn't William be next in line to WELSH Throne?
Still would be Cymru Head of State?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Mistakes are the portals of discovery. -James Joyce
The Other Doctor
2018-05-16 21:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
William would be next in line.
Not until Charles goes...
The Doctor
2018-05-16 21:27:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of the UK?
Go to Cardiff to be installed full time.
Who would then assume the British Throne?
The designated Heir Apparent.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Mistakes are the portals of discovery. -James Joyce
Agamemnon
2018-05-16 21:53:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of the UK?
He'd start celebrating in the style of half his ancestors since he will
no longer be Prince but King of Wales!

https://www.facebook.com/GreekReporter/videos/10155616088395829/
The Doctor
2018-05-16 21:54:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Timothy Bruening
What would happen to the Prince of Wales if Wales broke free of the UK?
He'd start celebrating in the style of half his ancestors since he will
no longer be Prince but King of Wales!
https://www.facebook.com/GreekReporter/videos/10155616088395829/
WEll depends on Cymru.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
He will live ill who does not know how to die well. -Seneca
Loading...