None. Do you actually know what you are talking about?
Is there? Do tell.
What that got to do with anything?
Aaand. Back in the room. Find a new ‘friend’
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
None. Do you actually know what you are talking about?
Is there? Do tell.
What that got to do with anything?
I can never understand the argument for skipping over Charles and going straight to William. Do people not understand how a hereditary monarchy works? If there is going to be another monarch after Elizabeth it will be Charles, end of story.
Aaand. Back in the room. Find a new ‘friend’
And a predictable disaster
This is merely unsubstianted opinion.
Stop posting inaccuracies and falsehoods and I won't need to correct them. You don't know what you're talking about.
As is 98% of etc etc
That is not your role mate. It says moderator. Re read the bigfooty policies
I am not the moderator of this board and I have as much right to make comment here as you do. And, even if I was, I'd be continuing to correct your inaccuracies as you post them.
You can't even refute my corrections.
Tell me what the precedent for passing Charles over is, as you claimed.
Sure they willThere’s already talk that heads will roll at the palace. Not bad collateral for b grade trash
Ok I’ll bite. Every abdication ever. All ‘voluntary’ of course
You have to be monarch first before you can abdicate. You stated...
"Charles grounded. What’s the odds on him being passed over now? There’s plenty of precedent."
It's garbage.
There have been two abdications (as opposed to depositions) in the history of the English monarchy.
- Richard II in 1399
- Edward VIII in 1936 It was the first time in history that the British or English crown was surrendered entirely voluntarily.
Today, because the title to the Crown depends upon statute, particularly the Act of Settlement 1701, a royal abdication can be effected only by an Act of Parliament.
In modern times there is NO precedent for passing over the heir to the throne upon the death of the monarch.
There is one near example in 12th century England, but the reason for that were far different from the current situation. And it didn't happen anyway.
Proposing passing over Charles in favour of William is nonsenscial. You simply don't know what you are talking about.
I am not the moderator of this board and I have as much right to make comment here as you do. And, even if I was, I'd be continuing to correct your inaccuracies as you post them.
‘English monarchy’? Surely given their European connections you would include the many houses of Europe, many now gone’
Let’s face it mate you get a kick out of picking and winning arguments.
You steer the discussion to that end.
Do you think people are stupid ?
Does anyone even bother with the boards you moderate by the way?
Charles grounded. What’s the odds on him being passed over now?
Interesting though she has proof of everything she said, in emails and sms........Sure they will
MM has 1/700th the respect and power of the Queen
Fun and boring fact , one of the fellas at the cricket club I played is a distant relative of Henry 4 who usurped Richard .You have to be monarch first before you can abdicate. You stated...
"Charles grounded. What’s the odds on him being passed over now? There’s plenty of precedent."
It's garbage.
There have been two abdications (as opposed to depositions) in the history of the English monarchy.
- Richard II in 1399
- Edward VIII in 1936 It was the first time in history that the British or English crown was surrendered entirely voluntarily.
Today, because the title to the Crown depends upon statute, particularly the Act of Settlement 1701, a royal abdication can be effected only by an Act of Parliament.
In modern times there is NO precedent for passing over the heir to the throne upon the death of the monarch.
There are two near examples one in 12th century England and another in the 15th century, but the reasons for that were far different from the current situation. And both didn't happen, as both heirs died before their father. No heir has been passed over in favor of their own son or other near relative.
Proposing passing over Charles in favour of William is nonsenscial. You simply don't know what you are talking about.
Fun and boring fact , one of the fellas at the cricket club I played is a distant relative of Henry 4 who usurped Richard .
In the long term history she's a footnoteInteresting though she has proof of everything she said, in emails and sms........
re Gayle King .
You quoted my post within minutes. Like I said, get a new friend
As a moderator, tell me if one poster sneeringly posts constantly stuff like ‘did you see that on ‘the crown’ etc do you think it’s appropriate posting behaviour?
I’ve given several hints but I WILL report you mate
Wtf?Can’t say you weren’t warned