Discussion:
Prince of Wales OT
Add Reply
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-16 13:01:33 UTC
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Daniel60
2018-05-19 13:54:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
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??
They are also part of the UK!
On
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Flags-of-the-United-Kingdom-and-British-crown-possessions-1693694
, are shown separate flags for those geographical regions, just as there
are the separate flags for England, NI, Scotland and Wales, but, as the
page is listed as "Flags of the United Kingdom and British crown
possessions", I'm guessing Guernsey, Jersey and Isle of Man are the
crown possessions *NOT* of the same statue as England, NI, Scotland and
Wales.

Additional, on the Commonwealth Games website,
https://thecgf.com/countries , Guernsey, Jersey and Isle of Man are
shown as separate competitor nations, just as England, NI, Scotland and
Wales are!!
--
Daniel
The Doctor
2018-05-19 21:45:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
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??
They are also part of the UK!
On
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Flags-of-the-United-Kingdom-and-British-crown-possessions-1693694
, are shown separate flags for those geographical regions, just as there
are the separate flags for England, NI, Scotland and Wales, but, as the
page is listed as "Flags of the United Kingdom and British crown
possessions", I'm guessing Guernsey, Jersey and Isle of Man are the
crown possessions *NOT* of the same statue as England, NI, Scotland and
Wales.
Additional, on the Commonwealth Games website,
https://thecgf.com/countries , Guernsey, Jersey and Isle of Man are
shown as separate competitor nations, just as England, NI, Scotland and
Wales are!!
--
Daniel
Commonwealth ,yes, but not in theOlympics
--
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
Daniel60
2018-05-20 10:11:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
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??
They are also part of the UK!
On
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Flags-of-the-United-Kingdom-and-British-crown-possessions-1693694
, are shown separate flags for those geographical regions, just as there
are the separate flags for England, NI, Scotland and Wales, but, as the
page is listed as "Flags of the United Kingdom and British crown
possessions", I'm guessing Guernsey, Jersey and Isle of Man are the
crown possessions *NOT* of the same statue as England, NI, Scotland and
Wales.
Additional, on the Commonwealth Games website,
https://thecgf.com/countries , Guernsey, Jersey and Isle of Man are
shown as separate competitor nations, just as England, NI, Scotland and
Wales are!!
Commonwealth ,yes, but not in theOlympics
Who mentioned The Olympics in this thread until you, you idiot?? THIS
THREAD IS ABOUT PRINCE OF WALES AND, THEREFORE, THE COMMONWEALTH !!
--
Daniel
Daniel60
2018-05-20 10:15:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
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??
They are also part of the UK!
On
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Flags-of-the-United-Kingdom-and-British-crown-possessions-1693694
, are shown separate flags for those geographical regions, just as there
are the separate flags for England, NI, Scotland and Wales, but, as the
page is listed as "Flags of the United Kingdom and British crown
possessions", I'm guessing Guernsey, Jersey and Isle of Man are the
crown possessions *NOT* of the same statue as England, NI, Scotland and
Wales.
Additional, on the Commonwealth Games website,
https://thecgf.com/countries , Guernsey, Jersey and Isle of Man are
shown as separate competitor nations, just as England, NI, Scotland and
Wales are!!
Commonwealth ,yes, but not in theOlympics
Yes, idiot, but neither do England, Scotland, Wales nor Northern Ireland
compete in the Olympic Games so why mention them??
--
Daniel
The Other Doctor
2018-05-20 11:34:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
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??
They are also part of the UK!
On
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Flags-of-the-United-Kingdom-and-British-crown-possessions-1693694
, are shown separate flags for those geographical regions, just as there
are the separate flags for England, NI, Scotland and Wales, but, as the
page is listed as "Flags of the United Kingdom and British crown
possessions", I'm guessing Guernsey, Jersey and Isle of Man are the
crown possessions *NOT* of the same statue as England, NI, Scotland and
Wales.
Additional, on the Commonwealth Games website,
https://thecgf.com/countries , Guernsey, Jersey and Isle of Man are
shown as separate competitor nations, just as England, NI, Scotland and
Wales are!!
Commonwealth ,yes, but not in theOlympics
Yes, idiot, but neither do England, Scotland, Wales nor Northern Ireland
compete in the Olympic Games so why mention them??
Actually it's not quite as straightforward even as that.

Brexit, and the difference between England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland,
perfectly described:

solar penguin
2018-05-18 07:48:01 UTC
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Daniel60
2018-05-19 13:56:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
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??
Yes. Look it up online where it is available!!!
Where is it available, idiot??
--
Daniel
Daniel60
2018-05-20 10:16:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
<Snip>
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
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??
Yes.  Look it up online where it is available!!!
Where is it available, idiot??
Still waiting, idiot!
--
Daniel
Wouter Valentijn
2018-05-17 16:34:23 UTC
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Daniel60
2018-05-19 13:57:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
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.!!
Bits? Typical Ausalien!
"Typical Ausalien!" .... WHAT??
--
Daniel
The Doctor
2018-05-19 21:58:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
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.!!
Bits? Typical Ausalien!
"Typical Ausalien!" .... WHAT??
--
Daniel
Yes Ausalie as Alien Australian.
--
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
Daniel60
2018-05-20 10:19:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
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.!!
Bits? Typical Ausalien!
"Typical Ausalien!" .... WHAT??
Yes Ausalie as Alien Australian.
Ah!! So now you are not even bothering to trying to use to English
English ... you are now using Idiot English!!
--
Daniel
The Doctor
2018-05-18 14:48:55 UTC
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
The Doctor
2018-05-19 12:48:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
<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
We refer to overall!
--
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
Daniel60
2018-05-19 13:59:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
<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??
We refer to overall!
Ah!! So you think Prince of Wales will rule overall, idiot?? Talk about
delusions of grandeur!!
--
Daniel
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-18 17:46:04 UTC
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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 13:10:49 UTC
Reply
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
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.
As long as the groom's 4 given names are being mentioned, it seems to me that the groom's surname (Mountbatten-Windsor) should also be mentioned for the sake of completeness!

Groom is Prince Henry Charles Albert David, AKA Prince Harry.
Wouter Valentijn
2018-05-19 14:31:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
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
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.
As long as the groom's 4 given names are being mentioned, it seems to me that the groom's surname (Mountbatten-Windsor) should also be mentioned for the sake of completeness!
Groom is Prince Henry Charles Albert David, AKA Prince Harry.
Her surname wasn't mentioned either. Just Rachel Meghan.
--
Wouter Valentijn www.j3v.net

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

liam=mail
The Doctor
2018-05-19 21:40:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Other 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
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 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
Post by The Other Doctor
should "adopt" one of Charles' middle names?
Charles was called "Charles Phillip Arthur George" during
his wedding
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
ceremony in 1981. I had therefore assumed that "George"
was his last
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
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
Post by Wouter Valentijn
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.
As long as the groom's 4 given names are being mentioned, it seems to me
that the groom's surname (Mountbatten-Windsor) should also be mentioned
for the sake of completeness!
Groom is Prince Henry Charles Albert David, AKA Prince Harry.
House of Windsor is implied!
--
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
Reply
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
Reply
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 12:48:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
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
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
Some still are!
--
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 12:42:32 UTC
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
The Doctor
2018-05-19 12:49:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Daniel60
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
Not when you sign the registry.
--
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
Daniel60
2018-05-19 14:02:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
In article
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
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!
Not when you sign the registry.
READ WHAT I WROTE, IDIOT!!
--
Daniel
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-18 12:16:47 UTC
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Daniel60
2018-05-20 10:53:27 UTC
Reply
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!!
How the hell do you see that, idiot??
--
Daniel
The Doctor
2018-05-18 00:11:42 UTC
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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.
Daniel60
2018-05-20 11:01:15 UTC
Reply
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 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?
So much for spell checkers!
No, idiot, spell checker only check for collections of letters that are,
possibly, meant to be words!!

"hid" IS a word, as Tim suggests it's the past tense of "hide" so could
not be detected by a spell checker ... IF YOU BOTHERED TO USE ONE!!
--
Daniel
The Doctor
2018-05-18 00:10:23 UTC
Reply
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
Daniel60
2018-05-20 11:04:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<Snip>
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
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!
"eier"??
--
Daniel
The Doctor
2018-05-18 00:09:07 UTC
Reply
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
Reply
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
2018-05-20 10:24:00 UTC
Reply
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!
Which does *NOTHING* to answer the question Tim asked!! Just a garbage
post to get your post count up, idiot!!
--
Daniel
Daniel60
2018-05-18 07:18:33 UTC
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Adam H. Kerman
2018-05-19 16:10:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Wouter Valentijn
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.
Republics are irrelevant. The effect of the law is highly specific,
changing the order of succession and eligibility for the crown. It
doesn't affect the subjects of the crown in any way because they're
still peasants and never going to be royals.

Therefore it has no effect on society.
Post by Wouter Valentijn
. . .
Wouter Valentijn
2018-05-19 18:00:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
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.
Republics are irrelevant. The effect of the law is highly specific,
changing the order of succession and eligibility for the crown. It
doesn't affect the subjects of the crown in any way because they're
still peasants and never going to be royals.
Unless they marry into them. Like Meghan or Maxima, who is now queen of
The Netherlands. No blue bloods before, but now they are.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Therefore it has no effect on society.
Post by Wouter Valentijn
. . .
And if their role is mostly ceremonial (ribbon cutting as their core
business) they don't anyway. They are living symbols to promote certain
values.
I think for the most part it's a gilded cage. One wrong word from them
and a politician or a government could be in trouble, for they, the
politicians, are responsible for their actions. Therefore their words
are very much chained. I don't envy them.
--
Wouter Valentijn www.j3v.net

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

liam=mail
Adam H. Kerman
2018-05-19 19:48:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
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.
Republics are irrelevant. The effect of the law is highly specific,
changing the order of succession and eligibility for the crown. It
doesn't affect the subjects of the crown in any way because they're
still peasants and never going to be royals.
Unless they marry into them. Like Meghan or Maxima, who is now queen of
The Netherlands. No blue bloods before, but now they are.
Nonsense. She remains a commoner and is not in the line of succession.
The law doesn't affect her.
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Therefore it has no effect on society.
Post by Wouter Valentijn
. . .
And if their role is mostly ceremonial (ribbon cutting as their core
business) they don't anyway. They are living symbols to promote certain
values.
Ok. I don't agree. Monarchy is tradition. There is a distinction between
tradition and value. Just because it's old doesn't make it valuable.

Over the centuries, any number of monarchs have behaved disgracefully.
I'm not talking about personal embarassing conduct but in a manner that
made the lives of their subjects miserable or got them killed.
Post by Wouter Valentijn
I think for the most part it's a gilded cage. One wrong word from them
and a politician or a government could be in trouble, for they, the
politicians, are responsible for their actions. Therefore their words
are very much chained. I don't envy them.
I agree with this. They are the living embodiment of the state and must
not express a personal opinion ever.

Harry seems to have had more freedom as no one expected him to be king.

I re-watched Royal Wedding, the wonderful movie that made Audrey Hepburn
an international star, about a princess of an unnamed Slavic country who
rebelled against her chains to spend a day enjoying life as a human
being and fantacizing about raising a family married to a common man.

The film was released during all the bad publicity that Princess Margaret
received, who was pressured into renouncing her love for a commoner, Peter
Townsend, not yet divorced when they were dating, and forced to marry a
man she didn't love. Now, Margaret was never going to be queen, either,
but the elites of society and the Church were horrified that the queen's
sister might marry a divorced man.

That's representing tradition, not value. There was no value in the UK's
divorce law at the time nor in the idea of punishing divorced people
so they couldn't be accepted into society upon remarriage.

She ended up divorcing the more "suitable" man anyway.
Wouter Valentijn
2018-05-19 20:23:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
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.
Republics are irrelevant. The effect of the law is highly specific,
changing the order of succession and eligibility for the crown. It
doesn't affect the subjects of the crown in any way because they're
still peasants and never going to be royals.
Unless they marry into them. Like Meghan or Maxima, who is now queen of
The Netherlands. No blue bloods before, but now they are.
Nonsense. She remains a commoner and is not in the line of succession.
The law doesn't affect her.
And yet, Maxima's now a queen and they call her majesty, and she's a
very popular item in a program on TV called 'Blauw Bloed' (Blue Blood). :-)

In theory Maxima could even become regent, like Emma before her. When
King Willem III died, his daughter Wilhelmina wasn't old enough, so her
mother Emma became regent.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Therefore it has no effect on society.
Post by Wouter Valentijn
. . .
And if their role is mostly ceremonial (ribbon cutting as their core
business) they don't anyway. They are living symbols to promote certain
values.
Ok. I don't agree. Monarchy is tradition. There is a distinction between
tradition and value. Just because it's old doesn't make it valuable.
They're not /that old/. We've been a monarchy for about 210 years. :-)

And with promoting values I mean supporting good causes, not any
intrinsic value they themselves might have. Causes in areas of art,
medicine, science, development aid, disaster relief, schooling. Being a
supporter or name giver or promoter.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Over the centuries, any number of monarchs have behaved disgracefully.
I'm not talking about personal embarassing conduct but in a manner that
made the lives of their subjects miserable or got them killed.
True that.
Leopold of Belgium comes to mind.

Nowadays monarchs in constitutional monarchies wouldn't be able to pull
that kind of shit I think.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
I think for the most part it's a gilded cage. One wrong word from them
and a politician or a government could be in trouble, for they, the
politicians, are responsible for their actions. Therefore their words
are very much chained. I don't envy them.
I agree with this. They are the living embodiment of the state and must
not express a personal opinion ever.
Harry seems to have had more freedom as no one expected him to be king.
By a hair maybe.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I re-watched Royal Wedding, the wonderful movie that made Audrey Hepburn
an international star, about a princess of an unnamed Slavic country who
rebelled against her chains to spend a day enjoying life as a human
being and fantacizing about raising a family married to a common man.
I fear I can't recall ever having seen that flick. :-)

Or... Was there a scene in it where her wedding dress caught fire?
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The film was released during all the bad publicity that Princess Margaret
received, who was pressured into renouncing her love for a commoner, Peter
Townsend, not yet divorced when they were dating, and forced to marry a
man she didn't love. Now, Margaret was never going to be queen, either,
but the elites of society and the Church were horrified that the queen's
sister might marry a divorced man.
Well, things have improved since then.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
That's representing tradition, not value. There was no value in the UK's
divorce law at the time nor in the idea of punishing divorced people
so they couldn't be accepted into society upon remarriage.
She ended up divorcing the more "suitable" man anyway.
Good for her!

But again, not the 'values' I'm referring to.
--
Wouter Valentijn www.j3v.net

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

liam=mail
Adam H. Kerman
2018-05-19 22:12:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
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.
Republics are irrelevant. The effect of the law is highly specific,
changing the order of succession and eligibility for the crown. It
doesn't affect the subjects of the crown in any way because they're
still peasants and never going to be royals.
Unless they marry into them. Like Meghan or Maxima, who is now queen of
The Netherlands. No blue bloods before, but now they are.
Nonsense. She remains a commoner and is not in the line of succession.
The law doesn't affect her.
And yet, Maxima's now a queen and they call her majesty, and she's a
very popular item in a program on TV called 'Blauw Bloed' (Blue Blood). :-)
In theory Maxima could even become regent, like Emma before her. When
King Willem III died, his daughter Wilhelmina wasn't old enough, so her
mother Emma became regent.
There's no debate here. Meghan is simply not in the line of succession.
The law in question, removing the preference for male over female,
doesn't apply to her.
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
. . .
And if their role is mostly ceremonial (ribbon cutting as their core
business) they don't anyway. They are living symbols to promote certain
values.
Ok. I don't agree. Monarchy is tradition. There is a distinction between
tradition and value. Just because it's old doesn't make it valuable.
They're not /that old/. We've been a monarchy for about 210 years. :-)
The Arab states have been monarchies for far less time than that.
Post by Wouter Valentijn
And with promoting values I mean supporting good causes, not any
intrinsic value they themselves might have. Causes in areas of art,
medicine, science, development aid, disaster relief, schooling. Being a
supporter or name giver or promoter.
What does any of that have to do with being a monarch?
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Over the centuries, any number of monarchs have behaved disgracefully.
I'm not talking about personal embarassing conduct but in a manner that
made the lives of their subjects miserable or got them killed.
True that.
Leopold of Belgium comes to mind.
Nowadays monarchs in constitutional monarchies wouldn't be able to pull
that kind of shit I think.
England has a constitutional monarchy, but no constitution. It took
several wars to pull it off. I wouldn't recommend that as the go to way
of reigning in excessive power at the expense of the subjects.
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
I think for the most part it's a gilded cage. One wrong word from them
and a politician or a government could be in trouble, for they, the
politicians, are responsible for their actions. Therefore their words
are very much chained. I don't envy them.
I agree with this. They are the living embodiment of the state and must
not express a personal opinion ever.
Harry seems to have had more freedom as no one expected him to be king.
By a hair maybe.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I re-watched Royal Wedding, the wonderful movie that made Audrey Hepburn
an international star, about a princess of an unnamed Slavic country who
rebelled against her chains to spend a day enjoying life as a human
being and fantacizing about raising a family married to a common man.
I fear I can't recall ever having seen that flick. :-)
I meant Roman Holiday. I'm an idiot.

You know she was born in Belgium?
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Or... Was there a scene in it where her wedding dress caught fire?
That happened to Lily James in Cinderella (2013), not scripted. I don't
know what movie you're thinking of.
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The film was released during all the bad publicity that Princess Margaret
received, who was pressured into renouncing her love for a commoner, Peter
Townsend, not yet divorced when they were dating, and forced to marry a
man she didn't love. Now, Margaret was never going to be queen, either,
but the elites of society and the Church were horrified that the queen's
sister might marry a divorced man.
Well, things have improved since then.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
That's representing tradition, not value. There was no value in the UK's
divorce law at the time nor in the idea of punishing divorced people
so they couldn't be accepted into society upon remarriage.
She ended up divorcing the more "suitable" man anyway.
Good for her!
But again, not the 'values' I'm referring to.
You are refering to values that you would like the monarch to have, but
that's wishful thinking. The vast majority of monarchs were just awful
awful people.
Wouter Valentijn
2018-05-20 11:34:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
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.
Republics are irrelevant. The effect of the law is highly specific,
changing the order of succession and eligibility for the crown. It
doesn't affect the subjects of the crown in any way because they're
still peasants and never going to be royals.
Unless they marry into them. Like Meghan or Maxima, who is now queen of
The Netherlands. No blue bloods before, but now they are.
Nonsense. She remains a commoner and is not in the line of succession.
The law doesn't affect her.
And yet, Maxima's now a queen and they call her majesty, and she's a
very popular item in a program on TV called 'Blauw Bloed' (Blue Blood). :-)
In theory Maxima could even become regent, like Emma before her. When
King Willem III died, his daughter Wilhelmina wasn't old enough, so her
mother Emma became regent.
There's no debate here. Meghan is simply not in the line of succession.
The law in question, removing the preference for male over female,
doesn't apply to her.
Okay.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
. . .
And if their role is mostly ceremonial (ribbon cutting as their core
business) they don't anyway. They are living symbols to promote certain
values.
Ok. I don't agree. Monarchy is tradition. There is a distinction between
tradition and value. Just because it's old doesn't make it valuable.
They're not /that old/. We've been a monarchy for about 210 years. :-)
The Arab states have been monarchies for far less time than that.
Okay.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
And with promoting values I mean supporting good causes, not any
intrinsic value they themselves might have. Causes in areas of art,
medicine, science, development aid, disaster relief, schooling. Being a
supporter or name giver or promoter.
What does any of that have to do with being a monarch?
Being high profile and popular, without having any real power otherwise.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Over the centuries, any number of monarchs have behaved disgracefully.
I'm not talking about personal embarassing conduct but in a manner that
made the lives of their subjects miserable or got them killed.
True that.
Leopold of Belgium comes to mind.
Nowadays monarchs in constitutional monarchies wouldn't be able to pull
that kind of shit I think.
England has a constitutional monarchy, but no constitution. It took
several wars to pull it off. I wouldn't recommend that as the go to way
of reigning in excessive power at the expense of the subjects.
Heard that it didn't have one.
Were there ever real attempts to establish one?


<snip>
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I re-watched Royal Wedding, the wonderful movie that made Audrey Hepburn
an international star, about a princess of an unnamed Slavic country who
rebelled against her chains to spend a day enjoying life as a human
being and fantacizing about raising a family married to a common man.
I fear I can't recall ever having seen that flick. :-)
I meant Roman Holiday. I'm an idiot.
Memories can be tricky sometimes.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
You know she was born in Belgium?
Forgot that. Did remember she lived in my country for a while.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Or... Was there a scene in it where her wedding dress caught fire?
That happened to Lily James in Cinderella (2013), not scripted. I don't
know what movie you're thinking of.
I think I saw a movie on television with such a scene either in the '70s
or early '80s...

The train of the wedding dress caught fire...

But possibly that's my memory playing tricks on me. :-)
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The film was released during all the bad publicity that Princess Margaret
received, who was pressured into renouncing her love for a commoner, Peter
Townsend, not yet divorced when they were dating, and forced to marry a
man she didn't love. Now, Margaret was never going to be queen, either,
but the elites of society and the Church were horrified that the queen's
sister might marry a divorced man.
Well, things have improved since then.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
That's representing tradition, not value. There was no value in the UK's
divorce law at the time nor in the idea of punishing divorced people
so they couldn't be accepted into society upon remarriage.
She ended up divorcing the more "suitable" man anyway.
Good for her!
But again, not the 'values' I'm referring to.
You are refering to values that you would like the monarch to have, but
that's wishful thinking. The vast majority of monarchs were just awful
awful people.
More like them promoting causes and charities. Lending their name, fame
and high profile to that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Máxima_of_the_Netherlands#Activities

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Máxima_of_the_Netherlands#International_appointments



As for monarchs of the past, probably yeah.
Their power was more absolute, and power corrupts.
Probably had no uncle Ben. :-)
--
Wouter Valentijn www.j3v.net

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

liam=mail
The Doctor
2018-05-19 22:02:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wouter Valentijn
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.
Republics are irrelevant. The effect of the law is highly specific,
changing the order of succession and eligibility for the crown. It
doesn't affect the subjects of the crown in any way because they're
still peasants and never going to be royals.
Unless they marry into them. Like Meghan or Maxima, who is now queen of
The Netherlands. No blue bloods before, but now they are.
Nonsense. She remains a commoner and is not in the line of succession.
The law doesn't affect her.
Post by Wouter Valentijn
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Therefore it has no effect on society.
Post by Wouter Valentijn
. . .
And if their role is mostly ceremonial (ribbon cutting as their core
business) they don't anyway. They are living symbols to promote certain
values.
Ok. I don't agree. Monarchy is tradition. There is a distinction between
tradition and value. Just because it's old doesn't make it valuable.
Over the centuries, any number of monarchs have behaved disgracefully.
I'm not talking about personal embarassing conduct but in a manner that
made the lives of their subjects miserable or got them killed.
Post by Wouter Valentijn
I think for the most part it's a gilded cage. One wrong word from them
and a politician or a government could be in trouble, for they, the
politicians, are responsible for their actions. Therefore their words
are very much chained. I don't envy them.
I agree with this. They are the living embodiment of the state and must
not express a personal opinion ever.
Harry seems to have had more freedom as no one expected him to be king.
I re-watched Royal Wedding, the wonderful movie that made Audrey Hepburn
an international star, about a princess of an unnamed Slavic country who
rebelled against her chains to spend a day enjoying life as a human
being and fantacizing about raising a family married to a common man.
The film was released during all the bad publicity that Princess Margaret
received, who was pressured into renouncing her love for a commoner, Peter
Townsend, not yet divorced when they were dating, and forced to marry a
man she didn't love. Now, Margaret was never going to be queen, either,
but the elites of society and the Church were horrified that the queen's
sister might marry a divorced man.
That's representing tradition, not value. There was no value in the UK's
divorce law at the time nor in the idea of punishing divorced people
so they couldn't be accepted into society upon remarriage.
She ended up divorcing the more "suitable" man anyway.
Hopefully not for Prince Charles's sons!!!
--
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 22:17:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I re-watched Royal Wedding, the wonderful movie that made Audrey Hepburn
an international star, about a princess of an unnamed Slavic country who
rebelled against her chains to spend a day enjoying life as a human
being and fantacizing about raising a family married to a common man.
The film was released during all the bad publicity that Princess Margaret
received, who was pressured into renouncing her love for a commoner, Peter
Townsend, not yet divorced when they were dating, and forced to marry a
man she didn't love. Now, Margaret was never going to be queen, either,
but the elites of society and the Church were horrified that the queen's
sister might marry a divorced man.
What did you think of King Edwards wanting to marry a divorcee?
The Doctor
2018-05-19 22:35:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I re-watched Royal Wedding, the wonderful movie that made Audrey Hepburn
an international star, about a princess of an unnamed Slavic country who
rebelled against her chains to spend a day enjoying life as a human
being and fantacizing about raising a family married to a common man.
The film was released during all the bad publicity that Princess Margaret
received, who was pressured into renouncing her love for a commoner, Peter
Townsend, not yet divorced when they were dating, and forced to marry a
man she didn't love. Now, Margaret was never going to be queen, either,
but the elites of society and the Church were horrified that the queen's
sister might marry a divorced man.
What did you think of King Edwards wanting to marry a divorcee?
Thumbs down!
--
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 22:38:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Beware of the Prints Of Whales!
The Doctor
2018-05-19 22:40:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Beware of the Prints Of Whales!
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
Furious activity is no substitute for understanding. -H. H. Williams
The Other Doctor
2018-05-20 11:47:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Beware of the Prints Of Whales!
I've seen a few prints of whales. They've all seemed pretty harmless.
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-19 22:39:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I re-watched Royal Wedding, the wonderful movie that made Audrey Hepburn
an international star, about a princess of an unnamed Slavic country who
rebelled against her chains to spend a day enjoying life as a human
being and fantacizing about raising a family married to a common man.
The film was released during all the bad publicity that Princess Margaret
received, who was pressured into renouncing her love for a commoner, Peter
Townsend, not yet divorced when they were dating, and forced to marry a
man she didn't love. Now, Margaret was never going to be queen, either,
but the elites of society and the Church were horrified that the queen's
sister might marry a divorced man.
What did you think of King Edwards wanting to marry a divorcee?
Thumbs down!
Do you agree with Margaret being forced to renounce her divorcing boyfriend?
The Doctor
2018-05-19 22:40:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I re-watched Royal Wedding, the wonderful movie that made Audrey Hepburn
an international star, about a princess of an unnamed Slavic country who
rebelled against her chains to spend a day enjoying life as a human
being and fantacizing about raising a family married to a common man.
The film was released during all the bad publicity that Princess Margaret
received, who was pressured into renouncing her love for a commoner, Peter
Townsend, not yet divorced when they were dating, and forced to marry a
man she didn't love. Now, Margaret was never going to be queen, either,
but the elites of society and the Church were horrified that the queen's
sister might marry a divorced man.
What did you think of King Edwards wanting to marry a divorcee?
Thumbs down!
Do you agree with Margaret being forced to renounce her divorcing boyfriend?
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
Furious activity is no substitute for understanding. -H. H. Williams
Wouter Valentijn
2018-05-20 11:36:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I re-watched Royal Wedding, the wonderful movie that made Audrey Hepburn
an international star, about a princess of an unnamed Slavic country who
rebelled against her chains to spend a day enjoying life as a human
being and fantacizing about raising a family married to a common man.
The film was released during all the bad publicity that Princess Margaret
received, who was pressured into renouncing her love for a commoner, Peter
Townsend, not yet divorced when they were dating, and forced to marry a
man she didn't love. Now, Margaret was never going to be queen, either,
but the elites of society and the Church were horrified that the queen's
sister might marry a divorced man.
What did you think of King Edwards wanting to marry a divorcee?
Thumbs down!
Do you agree with Margaret being forced to renounce her divorcing boyfriend?
No way. She should have been allowed to follow her heart.
--
Wouter Valentijn www.j3v.net

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

liam=mail
The Other Doctor
2018-05-20 11:58:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I re-watched Royal Wedding, the wonderful movie that made Audrey Hepburn
an international star, about a princess of an unnamed Slavic country who
rebelled against her chains to spend a day enjoying life as a human
being and fantacizing about raising a family married to a common man.
The film was released during all the bad publicity that Princess Margaret
received, who was pressured into renouncing her love for a commoner, Peter
Townsend, not yet divorced when they were dating, and forced to marry a
man she didn't love. Now, Margaret was never going to be queen, either,
but the elites of society and the Church were horrified that the queen's
sister might marry a divorced man.
What did you think of King Edwards wanting to marry a divorcee?
I didn't. I've never even heard of King Edwards. I've heard of Edward VIII.
He abdicated in 1936. I wasn't alive at the time, so had no thoughts on the
matter back then.

But if a king wants to marry a divorcee, so what? His business, not yours.
solar penguin
2018-05-20 12:03:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The
solar penguin
2018-05-20 12:05:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The Other Doctor opined...
Post by The Other Doctor
I've never even heard of King Edwards.
They're potatoes.

The Doctor
2018-05-18 21:40:12 UTC
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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...