Should Queen Elizabeth II Abdicate?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2024, 10:14:54 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Should Queen Elizabeth II Abdicate?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Should Queen Elizabeth II Abdicate?  (Read 6511 times)
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,890


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: September 17, 2007, 12:28:56 PM »

What would be Charles' and William's numbers?
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: September 17, 2007, 12:38:45 PM »

What would be Charles' and William's numbers?

Assuming Charles keeps his name - Charles III (there are a lot of rumours he'll take the name of his grandfather and be George VII. William, would be William V
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: September 17, 2007, 03:42:49 PM »

I think the Orthodox Church was in Communion with the Anglican Communion, at least until they started ordaining women.

God forbid Smiley !  This is anathema to all the truly Orthodox!  From the Orthodox standpoint, Anglicans are not much different from the Catholics and both are clearly heretic. What's the Anglican position on the origin of the Holy Ghost (filioque)?   The Anglicans might think the Orthodox are acceptable, and the Orthodox hierarchs might sometimes downlpay their views of the matter, but there are no doubts among the "orthodox Orthodox" that those Anglican heretics would burn in hell (and that all those Orthodox who might ever think of a communion w/ those infidels would do the same). 
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: September 17, 2007, 04:11:03 PM »

What would be Charles' and William's numbers?

Assuming Charles keeps his name - Charles III (there are a lot of rumours he'll take the name of his grandfather and be George VII. William, would be William V

Indeed. Both Charles I and Charles II were extraordinarily unpopular. Of course, there were also calls for Elizabeth II to reign as Mary III in order to preserve Elizabeth I's status as a symbol of Britain.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,156
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: September 17, 2007, 05:29:43 PM »

The English throne has a history of using regencies, not abdications for elderly monarchs.  Also if Charles wants to avoid the throne, he has a very available out to him.  Given his association with Greek Orthodoxy via his father, if he converted to being an Orthodox Catholic, he would not be Protestant and thus under the Act of Settlement incapable of assuming the throne, but since he wouldn't have committed the heresy of becoming a Papist, Princes William and Henry could still take the throne.

Actually, Orthodox Christianity does not violate the Act.  It is specific to Communion with Rome. Or a papist.  http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1565208

I think the Orthodox Church was in Communion with the Anglican Communion, at least until they started ordaining women.

There are two separate provisions in the Act of Settlement that are relevant, the first, which would bar not only Charles but also Henry and William from the throne of Charles became a Roman Catholic is:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

However, a further restriction is that:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That could be viewed as including other churches in full communion with the Church of England, such as those in the Anglican and Porvoo Communions and the Union of Utrecht.  However, relations with the Orthodox have been warmer than those with the Papists, but there never was full communion and the relationship has grown colder as the Orthodox and Roman churches have grown closer.

So if Charles became Greek Orthodox, that would bar him personally from the throne, but not his issue.

Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: September 17, 2007, 09:51:33 PM »

Coincidentally, I had a dream a couple of nights ago where Queen Elizabeth died.  It was all over Google News.

But, of course she should abdicate, and declare Xanana Gusmão King Xanana, first of his name.  Because that would just be awesome.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: September 17, 2007, 10:08:06 PM »

Personally, I lost any respect for Queen Elizabeth II after the death of Princess Diana, and the deplorable and disgusting way Elizabeth and her husband, Philip, treated Diana at that time, even in death.

The U.K. was almost ready to revolt, and bring down this cold and insensitive old woman who still had her mind and attitudes in the 19th century.

Elizabeth finally showed some respect for Diana, only after she was forced to do so.

In my view, the old Queen's abdication is ten years overdue. 
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: September 17, 2007, 10:08:18 PM »

No
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: September 17, 2007, 10:30:00 PM »

Personally, I lost any respect for Queen Elizabeth II after the death of Princess Diana, and the deplorable and disgusting way Elizabeth and her husband, Philip, treated Diana at that time, even in death.

The U.K. was almost ready to revolt, and bring down this cold and insensitive old woman who still had her mind and attitudes in the 19th century.

Elizabeth finally showed some respect for Diana, only after she was forced to do so.

In my view, the old Queen's abdication is ten years overdue. 

Please watch The Queen. Your mind will be changed.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: September 18, 2007, 02:28:29 AM »

Personally, I lost any respect for Queen Elizabeth II after the death of Princess Diana, and the deplorable and disgusting way Elizabeth and her husband, Philip, treated Diana at that time, even in death.

The U.K. was almost ready to revolt, and bring down this cold and insensitive old woman who still had her mind and attitudes in the 19th century.

Elizabeth finally showed some respect for Diana, only after she was forced to do so.

In my view, the old Queen's abdication is ten years overdue. 

Firstly - I concur with Verily - watch The Queen.

Secondly - Ironically, the Queen was acting like a grandmother - protecting her grandsons from the orgy of grief going on in London - also read The Diana Chronicles by Tina Brown. Personally I think the reaction was more about the people being grief and wanting their Queen there, she chose her family over the people, once - and she was roasted alive for it, I think she did the right thing. The Queen was raised to believe in the value of protocol and order, and something like that had never ever happened in Britiain before - and as the Queen shows, it terrified her right to her core.

Whatever negative feelings toward her from then is gone, the death of her sister and mother within 6 weeks of each others - seeing her visibly upset - and the Golden Jubillee in 2002 pretty much guarantees how popular she is. Plus, countries like Australia will never become a Republic while she's on the throne.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: September 18, 2007, 01:09:16 PM »

The Queen isn't one to display affection in public. My mother recalls a time when she returned from along trip overseas and, on her return, greated Prince Charles, then just a boy, with a handshake. My mother said any "normal" mother would have greeted her young son with a hug but that's just it the Queen transcends "normality"

At the Commonwealth Games in Manchester, the Queen was presented with a baton from Kirsty Howard, a young girl who was born with her heart back to front, and David Beckham. Some folk crumbled because rather then shaking her hand, she should have bent down and give her a hug

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirsty_Howard

But as Polnut says, the Queen is mindful of dignity and protocol, and her duty has made her the person she is

The overall point is that it is not befitting a British Monarch to be "familiar" (for what of a better word)

The recent memorial service to the Princess of Wales, also attracted comment, with people feeling that what Harry had to say "came from his heart"; while William was more formal, as though he was just "going through the motions"; maybe he was, but only on the surface

Dave
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: September 18, 2007, 02:05:13 PM »

The recent memorial service to the Princess of Wales, also attracted comment, with people feeling that what Harry had to say "came from his heart"; while William was more formal, as though he was just "going through the motions"; maybe he was, but only on the surface

Dave

Which, of course, reflects the fact that William is being trained to inherit the throne some day, but Harry is not.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: September 18, 2007, 08:15:30 PM »

The recent memorial service to the Princess of Wales, also attracted comment, with people feeling that what Harry had to say "came from his heart"; while William was more formal, as though he was just "going through the motions"; maybe he was, but only on the surface

Dave

Which, of course, reflects the fact that William is being trained to inherit the throne some day, but Harry is not.

Indeed
Logged
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,288
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: September 19, 2007, 11:56:10 AM »

I don't see why she should. But then equally, I don't really care.
Logged
GMantis
Dessie Potter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,984
Bulgaria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: September 19, 2007, 03:34:38 PM »

She should abdicate, because having Charles as king would make popular opinion receptive about abolishing the monarchy.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.038 seconds with 11 queries.