Queen Elizabeth has passed on at 96 years old

[toddnjoyce]

There have been thousands of articles published online that address that exact question. …..

This thread and the biden/military thread have both been educational to me when it comes to obstinance and opinions.

 

[benenglish]

Queen Elizabeth managed to get through her entire, lengthy reign without personal scandal.

Her successor brought one in with him.

The alleged love-child of King Charles III and Camilla claims to be the Prince of Wales: It's a kick in the face

For more than two years, Simon Dorante-Day has been attracting the attention of the press because he claims to be the love-child of the now King Charles III and Camilla.

amp.marca.com

 

[Darkpriest667]

Queen Elizabeth managed to get through her entire, lengthy reign without personal scandal.

Her successor brought one in with him.

The alleged love-child of King Charles III and Camilla claims to be the Prince of Wales: It's a kick in the face

For more than two years, Simon Dorante-Day has been attracting the attention of the press because he claims to be the love-child of the now King Charles III and Camilla.

amp.marca.com

I mean except for Diana's death thing yeah. Queen has to sign off on political assassinations too LOL

Charles sausage fingers for attention

 

[benenglish]

Now that I've spent ten minutes reading, I realize that Charles brought multiple scandals with him, scandals sexual, financial, race-based, and maybe more. I didn't realize any of that before.

The Brits have definitely traded down.

 

[Darkpriest667]

Now that I've spent ten minutes reading, I realize that Charles brought multiple scandals with him, scandals sexual, financial, race-based, and maybe more. I didn't realize any of that before.

The Brits have definitely traded down.

Dude he should have abdicated to William and William should have absolved the crown, but they won't. They're too addicted to power and money.

 

[benenglish]

 

[General Zod]

The Australian guy who's claiming to be their love child...he'd have been born several years before they met. He's 56, but Charles and Camilla met for the first time in 1970 at a polo match. Dude's clinging to a fantasy.

Besides, it's not as if Charles has handled any of his other scandals well. There would be a lot more than one sad Australian's claims if this was true.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Monarchy should be despised by everyone............she was a figurehead and nothing more.

As I stated..........there is a reason why we as Americans separated from Great Brittain.........get bent if you don't agree...........and go back to a country lead by a monarch.

The abdication of rule by monarch and subjugation by parliament, contrary to the Royal Charters establishing the Colonies is what we rebelled against. It wasn't a rebellion against the Monarchy of England per se because GRIII had abdicated his position of authority and allowed Parliament to rule and tax the Colonies, without representation or redress other than war.

ERII and Prince Phillip, from what I could see, nothing short of gracious and kind.

No King, but King Jesus, as the revolution 's cry was, but if you must be ruled by a Monarch, figure head or not, ERII would not have been so bad.

If you knew your history a touch better you would see England's Monarchy is rather a bit more democratic/populist than most and their traditions gave much of the ground work for our Constitutional Republic.

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

 

[studenygreg]

I'm glad the US royal families have finally ended. At least for now

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Darkpriest667]

The abdication of rule by monarch and subjugation by parliament, contrary to the Royal Charters establishing the Colonies is what we rebelled against. It wasn't a rebellion against the Monarchy of England per se because GRIII had abdicated his position of authority and allowed Parliament to rule and tax the Colonies, without representation or redress other than war.

ERII and Prince Phillip, from what I could see, nothing short of gracious and kind.

No King, but King Jesus, as the revolution 's cry was, but if you must be ruled by a Monarch, figure head or not, ERII would not have been so bad.

If you knew your history a touch better you would see England's Monarchy is rather a bit more democratic/populist than most and their traditions gave much of the ground work for our Constitutional Republic.

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

No,

Locke and Hobbes are not the foundations of our Republic, they are merely pieces of the puzzle. We owe English philosophy jack and shit when it comes to the foundation of the United States.

We rebelled because the King, which is where the grievances were aired, ALLOWED the legislature to tax us for a war that they were fighting in Europe against the French.

The foundation of our republic philosophy goes back almost 2000 years. You can read it sometime if you wish, God knows I had to write enough essays about it in college.

Thomas Aquinas was the major Medieval philosophical commentator that pushed the philosophy of agreements between God and man and how governments should adhere to that agreement. (later coined the social contract)

Then there was discourses by Niccolo Machiavelli, contrary to popular belief Machiavelli was one of the first modern writers to address the benefits of a republic over other types of government.

Leviathan, by Hobbes wasn't published until 150 years after Machiavelli became the spearpoint for modern Republic thought. And I'd argue Rosseau had a much larger impact on Jefferson than Locke and Hobbes. Hume was definitely more influential.


no if you want to kiss the ass of the Monarchy be my guest, but I am not going to do it.


After the preamble to the declaration --

"Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

"He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

"He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

"He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

"He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness of his invasions on the rights of the people.

"He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

"He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

"He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

"He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

"He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

 

[cycleguy2300]

I wasn't referring to either Locke or Hobbs specifically...

More so the tradition of governance by the consent of the governed and of the monarch (we have a monarch no matter what else you may call him our president is an elected monarch) not being above the law, but subject to it. The English tolerated a bit of their monarchs acting above the law, but when John's behavior went overboard the governed revolted and forced John to submit, in writing, to a number of explicit restrictions and guarantee of various legal, social and religious rights which were concept-for-concept copied into our Bill of Rights.

It is no coincidence that our first amendment and the Magna Carta's first right addressed is the freedom of the church to operate without government intervention.

Much of our fourth, fifth and sixth amendment rights are seen in this translated portion:

In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.
No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.
To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

Of course it would be silly to think our founding fathers did not take every good and freedom preserving idea from many, many places, but the point I was making is much of our American traditions of separation of Church and State, rights to be free of seizure except by probable cause, right to a jury of your peers come from the traditions of England and its monarchy.

The ideas of freedom have existed since Man was created. The exercise of that freedom has waxed and waned throughout the time since.

When Adam and Eve had a monarch things ran pretty smooth, but then they rebelled and here we are...

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

 

[General Zod]

I wasn't referring to either Locke or Hobbs specifically...

More so the tradition of governance by the consent of the governed and of the monarch (we have a monarch no matter what else you may call him our president is an elected monarch) not being above the law, but subject to it. The English tolerated a bit of their monarchs acting above the law, but when John's behavior went overboard the governed revolted and forced John to submit, in writing, to a number of explicit restrictions and guarantee of various legal, social and religious rights which were concept-for-concept copied into our Bill of Rights.

It is no coincidence that our first amendment and the Magna Carta's first right addressed is the freedom of the church to operate without government intervention.

Much of our fourth, fifth and sixth amendment rights are seen in this translated portion:

In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.
No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.
To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

Of course it would be silly to think our founding fathers did not take every good and freedom preserving idea from many, many places, but the point I was making is much of our American traditions of separation of Church and State, rights to be free of seizure except by probable cause, right to a jury of your peers come from the traditions of England and its monarchy.

The ideas of freedom have existed since Man was created. The exercise of that freedom has waxed and waned throughout the time since.

When Adam and Eve had a monarch things ran pretty smooth, but then they rebelled and here we are...

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

The principle of government by consent of the governed is also put forth in the Declaration of Arbroath, which was a declaration of Scotland's independence sent to the Pope in April of 1320 to try to get him to stop supporting Edward I of England's efforts to subjugate Scotland. The Scots declared their nation to be an independent kingdom and Robert the Bruce their king - unless he failed to live up to their expectations (most relevant text in bold):

"But from these countless evils we have been set free, by the help of Him who though
He afflicts yet heals and restores, by our most tireless prince, King and lord, the lord
Robert. He, that his people and his heritage might be delivered out of the hands of our
enemies, bore cheerfully toil and fatigue, hunger and peril, like another Maccabaeus or
Joshua. Him, too, divine providence, the succession to his right according to our laws
and customs which we shall maintain to the death, and the due consent and assent of
us all have made our prince and king. To him, as to the man by whom salvation has
been wrought unto our people, we are bound both by his right and by his merits that
our freedom may be still maintained, and by him, come what may, we mean to stand.

Yet if he should give up what he has begun, seeking to make us or our kingdom subject
to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him
out as our enemy and a subverter of his own right and ours, and make some other man
who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as a hundred of us remain alive,
never will we on any conditions be subjected to the lordship of the English. It is in
truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom alone,
which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

Now sure, it was a bunch of noblemen who wrote this, and it's not as if the Bruce was elected (you don't vote for kings!) but the point is that this declaration, like the Declaration of Independence 450 years later, set forth the idea that the governed had rights and that their leader had expectations from the governed he had to live up to.

I can't help but see a lot of influence from one Declaration to another in this bit from 1776:

"A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."