re: US English? page 7

Peter Moylan typed thus:

david56 redled: small with a Not at all. The ... tracked down the line of succession. No trickery about it.

I disagree. AIUI there's some sort of committee which decides who is the next King. They follow the normal line ... he's out. You can't later claim that he was never out and so the game was won by a wicket.

Interesting. Of course, Tony Robinson's documentary chose to pursue one particular moment in history when the throne was claimed in dodgy circumstances, and there's probably been dozens.
For a republican, I seem to have ended up in a lot of discussions about Royalty lately...
DC

Peter Moylan typed thus:

david56 redled: small with a Not at all. The ... tracked down the line of succession. No trickery about it.

I disagree. AIUI there's some sort of committee which decides who is the next King. They follow the normal line ... he's out. You can't later claim that he was never out and so the game was won by a wicket.

Interesting. Of course, Tony Robinson's documentary chose to pursue one particular moment in history when the throne was claimed in dodgy circumstances, and there's probably been dozens.
For a republican, I seem to have ended up in a lot of discussions about Royalty lately...
DC

Peter Moylan typed thus:

david56 redled: http://tinyurl.com/3apr6 small with a Not at all. The ... tracked down the line of succession. No trickery about it.

I disagree. AIUI there's some sort of committee which decides who is the next King. They follow the normal line ... he's out. You can't later claim that he was never out and so the game was won by a wicket.

Interesting. Of course, Tony Robinson's documentary chose to pursue one particular moment in history when the throne was claimed in dodgy circumstances, and there's probably been dozens.
For a republican, I seem to have ended up in a lot of discussions about Royalty lately...
DC

Peter Moylan typed thus: I disagree. AIUI there's some sort ... out and so the game was won by a wicket.

Interesting. Of course, Tony Robinson's documentary chose to pursue one particular moment in history when the throne was claimed in dodgy circumstances, and there's probably been dozens. For a republican, I seem to have ended up in a lot of discussions about Royalty lately...

It is moderately amusing to see lots of people improvising on a subject they know little about, but, for anyone interested, here are a few facts.
1. The Earl of Loudoun (aka "some Australian bloke") is theheir-general of George, Duke of Clarence, younger brother of Edward IV.

2. This fact is well known and was never in dispute; it appears indozens of reference books and on dozens of websites. Tony Robinson discovered nothing.

3. This line was excluded from the succession by the Duke's attainderin 1479.

4. No-one since 1483 has based a claim to the throne on descent fromEdward IV, so his legitimacy or otherwise is irrelevant.
5. The identity of the sovereign can be determined by following therules laid down in the Act of Settlement 1701 as amended by His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936. A complete list of those who may be eligible as of 2001 (4,583 of them) is online at http://members.aol.com/eurostamm/succession 2001.html
6. There is no "committee".
7. The Huguenots don't enter into it.
8. Nor do the Charleses.

Not that the Earl might not make a perfectly good king. It would have been even better if it had been suggested while his late wife was alive. It would be great fun to have a Queen Noelene.

Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

Don Aitken typed thus:

Interesting. Of course, Tony Robinson's documentary chose to pursue one ... ended up in a lot of discussions about Royalty lately...

It is moderately amusing to see lots of people improvising on a subject they know little about

Glad to be of service. I once got annoyed with a colleague who kept saying "but that's just your opinion". Dur.
General Usenet Disclaimer - I don't necessarily know what I'm talking about, unless it's to do with choral singing, bees or bassoons. Or Marmite.

but, for anyone interested, here are a few facts 1. The Earl of Loudoun (aka "some Australian bloke") is the ... was never in dispute; it appears in dozens of reference books and on dozens of websites. Tony Robinson discovered nothing.

I was rather disappointed that he ended up with an Earl; after the build-up I expected that he would announce the rightful king was a dustman in Barnsley.

3. This line was excluded from the succession by the Duke's attainder in 1479. 4. No-one since 1483 has based ... who may be eligible as of 2001 (4,583 of them) is online at http://members.aol.com/eurostamm/succession 2001.html 6. There is no "committee".

ISTR that somebody had to decide and/or declare who would be monarch after William IV.

7. The Huguenots don't enter into it. 8. Nor do the Charleses. Not that the Earl might not make a ... it had been suggested while his late wife was alive. It would be great fun to have a Queen Noelene.

We nearly had a Queen Diana; I know we got used to the idea but she sounded like a girls' magazine at first.

David
==

ISTR that somebody had to decide and/or declare who would be monarch after William IV.

Not quite; certain special provisions were made by the Regency Act
1831. See this old post of minehttp://groups.google.com/groups?as umsgid=(Email Removed) in which I point out that "the Act does not create the rules about who succeeds to the throne and when; it merely assumes them, and makes consequential arrangements".

Not that the Earl might not make a perfectly good ... It would be great fun to have a Queen Noelene.

We nearly had a Queen Diana; I know we got used to the idea but she sounded like a girls' magazine at first.

Very true.

Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

(somebody said)

We nearly had a Queen Diana; I know we got used to the idea but she sounded like a girls' magazine at first.

Very true.

Oh, you guys. You had a Queen Victoria, you had a Queen Alexandra. Surely Diana fits right in that category of name. Classical. Ending in -a.
It beats the traditional English naming of Anne, Mary, Elizabeth, Anne, Mary, Elizabeth, Anne, Mary...

Best - Donna Richoux

(somebody said)

Very true.

Oh, you guys. You had a Queen Victoria, you had a Queen Alexandra. Surely Diana fits right in that category of name. Classical. Ending in -a. It beats the traditional English naming of Anne, Mary, Elizabeth, Anne, Mary, Elizabeth, Anne, Mary...

Raises and intersting point: aside from Victoria, there tends to be a difference between the plain-Jane (pun intended) names of queens-in- their-own-right and some of the consorts particularly the German ones like Adelaide.
Fancy naming a queen after an Australian town...

Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 21 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs)

It beats the traditional English naming of Anne, Mary, Elizabeth, Anne, Mary, Elizabeth, Anne, Mary...

Beats them how?