The queen of England owns ALL the sturgeons, whales and dolphins within 3 miles of England.

reply to post by Thunderheart


You misunderstood. I was not joking about being "ruled" by these irrelevant laws, I was joking about you're understanding of England and this thread in general. Anyway I wont waste you're time explaining how it really is in our country like the rest of us who live here have. If it makes you feel better about you're way of living then fair enough.

At first I thought you were just messing about but now I see you are serious it is best I just leave you with you're understanding as the only way you will change you're mind is if you step foot on England.

reply to post by OwenGP185
May visit one day but I would never live under a monarchy.

Originally posted by Zamini
reply to post by Suspiria

 

In a country where technicalities in law mean everything in the end, I thought this was funny.

What if these fish mate and make baby fish outside of the 3 mile radius? Is the baby fish then still technically hers or not?

It is the same principle as when humans have babies. It causes a stock split.



I think it is lovely that the Queen has an opportunity for a nice day in the water to "Swim with the Dolphins".
Btw, I notice there is no claim on the sharks in the OP remarks. Why does royalty stake no claim on the sharks...is this an oversight?


It is probably a protection for the swans that royalty "owns" them. Perhaps that is the only way to teach people to respect some of the creatures that are out in the open. These rules and laws are most likely designed to insure that parents teach their children to have feelings for lesser life forms. I can well imagine that if they were not so protected by this royal ownership that kids might throw rocks at them for entertainment. Many adults need parenting as well, and this is why these governments are necessary. Until humans can learn to properly and peacefully govern themselves, rules and laws will always be necessary.

reply to post by Thunderheart


All your questions have been answered yet you have been deafeningly silent in your response to them and anything else asked of you.

You seem incapable of understanding anythng posted and entering into reasoned debate.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that The Queen has no significant power whatsoever and why are you so obsessed with her and her family?

We certainly aren't!

reply to post by Freeborn

You can't possibly be that daft. I guess you will never understand where I am coming from, it is plain for me since I am 100% Navajo and we fought the white man to this day to keep our freedom. Not that we won but at least we fought.
You have known nothing different but being a subject for her smelly highness.

Let's be honest, the US got a right panning yesterday from all and sundry on ATS, and you're still smarting about it.

Rather than getting upset about it, and lashing out like a mortally wounded animal, you should adopt the mature and dignified bearing of your former colonial masters, and keep a firm, stiff upper lip throughout any trials and tribulations which you may endure.

Originally posted by Thunderheart
Yeah, I get it, she owns 88 Swans, it is in the link I provided.
and you guys aren't even embarrassed to admit this. Sad really, I pity how subservient your people have become.

The Crown has owned the swans of the land since the 1100s, although this has later been refined to be purely the unmarked mute swans in open water.

You appear to be upset at the fact that we have haven't started an uprising against the Queen to reclaim our swans from Royal custody.

Yet where you are going wrong in your ranting and raving, is in your embarrassing attempt to solely apportion blame to the modern-day English people for not doing anything about this practice, despite the fact that it has been widely accepted by the general population for over 800 years.

If you think that the Queen owning some swans is a sign of subservience on the part of the English people, then you must think that the English people have been subservient since at least the 12th-century - because the Crown has owned the swans of the land ever since then.

If you pity how ''subservient we have become'', then you must be comparing us to pre-1100s Britain, as, according to your bizarre swan-owning/subservience link, we ''became'' subservient shortly after that time period.

reply to post by Thunderheart


You have not once attempted to enter into any sort of reasoned debate or discussion and have done nothing but post childish and immature remarks and blatantly ignore anything that has been posted in reply to you.

I assure you, nothing The Queen does or says has any impact whatsoever on me and my life and the minute she or any of her successors attempts to intefere in the governing of this country then I and countless others will put her in her place.

I suggest you do a bit more reading and research and in future try to enter into reasoned discourse with fellow members.

Oh, and just because you are a Native American it doesn't grant you any special privelidges or respect, that my friend is earned....and I would suggest that with your glib, ignorant and innacurate postings and attitude you have achieved little, if any, of either.

You Brits are the epitome of sheeple.
Good day to you'all, you are beyond repair.

(I love Torchwood btw, at least you have that, and Dr. Who)

Originally posted by Thunderheart
You Brits are taking this thread the wrong way. It is not directed at dumb laws which we all know all countries have, it is directed at the fact that one family has the right to own anything they're little hearts desire and you are "subjects" of them.

And therein lies your confusion. Because they are just dumb laws and one family does not have the right to own anything their heart's desire and we are not 'subjects' of them.

But I guess you're young and American? So your confusion is understandable.

Originally posted by Thunderheart
You Brits are the epitome of sheeple.
Good day to you'all, you are beyond repair.

(I love Torchwood btw, at least you have that, and Dr. Who)

Thunderheart.............

Your TRUE colours are now Revealed........

Aged 13.5 years old
Still believes in the Tooth Fairy
Thinks Chicken Nuggets come from a real part of a chicken
Thinks Irony is a way of 'steam' pressing your clothes
Talks complete *ollocks and doesn't try to understand history and heritage....? something a descendant of the Navejo Indians SURELY would understand......!!

Have a Nice day

PDUK

Originally posted by Suspiria

Originally posted by fenceSitter
Pretty lame rule but who really cares? BTW - Prince William is heir to the throne... not Charles.

Technically Charlie Boy IS heir. But there's no way his mother will abdicate. I'm sure even SHE thinks he's a gibbering fool.

This made me chuckle lots - ive always thought the old bat is hanging on by her fingertips so that Charlie doesnt get a look in......not sure what he would bring to the throne as king apart from an upgraded Duchy biscuit range!

William on the other hand, might just cut it.....or even better his brother - he would be a great king!

No, She does not.

She may think she does, but she doesn't.
Just more ignorant BS from the "wealthy".

Means nothing.

Hope someone/something eats her.

reply to post by Thunderheart


How dare those royals hoard all the porpoises away from the common man! IT'S TIME FOR A REVOLUTION! Sturgeon for all, WHO'S WITH ME?!

...Seriously? have you got nothing else to do with your day?

The Queens owns all the "fishes" ...aint that what being a Queens all about

Any way, we dont agree that they are any better than us, by who they were born by.

And they can be a pain in the ass.

But at the end of the day it is living proof of our history as a country. Its heritage.

And sometimes it has its high points, they have made us proud in the past.

I hope when the Queen pops her clogs Charles will pass it on to Will....He certainly looks the part and we need some young blood.

If he dont though Camilla will never be Queen or hold any special title, The Royal Family still answer to us now and then....they would'nt go againt the public by seeing that pube taking Diana's rightfull place.

reply to post by Thunderheart


you are one dumbass yank aint you

she has no rule over us

and if the day comes when we are in the state your country is then we wont be sat behind a computer screen whining about it like most of you amerians do, you are the ones who are RULED by your goverment so grow some 'bollocks' and do sumat about it

reply to post by Thunderheart


As has been said, nobody in the UK takes these laws seriously, I'm assuming you are from the US........do you take some of your laws seriously?

In Alaska, the following laws apply to moose: a moose may not be viewed from an aeroplane. it is illegal to give alcoholic beverages to a moose. it is an offence to push a live moose out of a moving aeroplane.

In Pennsylvania the following laws apply: Because of the farmers Anti-automobile society, these are some of the rules of the road: Automobiles travelling on country roads at night must send up an rocket every mile, then wait ten minutes for the road to clear. If a driver sees a team of horses, they are to pull to the side of the road, and cover their machine with a blanket or dust cover that has been painted to blend into the scenery. In the event that a horse refuses to pass a car on the road, the owner of the car must take their car apart and conceal the parts in nearby foliage.

In Texas the following laws apply: it is illegal to take more than three sips of beer whilst standing. the entire Encyclopaedia Britannica is also banned, as it contains a formula for making beer at home. a new anti crime law has been introduced, requiring criminals to give their intended victims 24 hour notice, either orally or in writing to explain the nature of the crime.

In California, it is illegal to ride a bicycle in a swimming pool.

In Hawaii it is illegal to insert pennies into your ear.

there's plenty more

I don't know about you, but as a Brit I don't feel quite so crazy anymore

Originally posted by Thunderheart
reply to post by OwenGP185

 

May visit one day but I would never live under a monarchy.

No one in the UK "lives under a monarchy" the royal family are simply a figure head, a mere tourist attraction, they earn us a few quid every year, and we let them live in a big house, it's a win win situation!

It is kind of justifiable because then if anyone tries to kill dolphins or whales or fish, they'd be imprisoned for killing her property.

reply to post by Thunderheart


well i guess its your spirtual belifs that make u think owning the swans is bad and just out of curiosity what does some navajo have to do with the crown in any way shape or form least the brits didnt put you in to camps and seriously i know it was the 4th yesterday but whats peoples problems with the brits they have fought longer and harder as our allies then any other nation that we call friend i my self would be glad to stand shoulder to shoulder with our astranged parents accross the pond...who cares if they want a king you dont like kings try going to thailand and saying that kind of stuff and see what happens tehy love the king there,just because they are a king or queen dosent make them evil there actions make them evil not there titles have too much firewater yesterday buddy? as an american ill say god save the queen....because if he dosent we problay will have to

oh yeah and if you wanan get on dumb laws montana has one thats like the scottish man one if 7 ore more indians approach your property its legal to shoot them as it consitutes a war party dont know last time it was applied but its still on the books so why dont you yell at the people who have laws that make it legal to kill your people instead of controling who kills her swans and dolphins?


and thanks for your people saving us in ww2 with that code talking stuff!

reply to post by gabby2011


NO its completely true i have found living in the usa for the past 3-4 yyears that there is much more of a fascination with the royal tfamily. If you were to go to a pub in England and start talking about how great the queen is. You would get some very strong worded arguments about how useless she is. I think it might be because most americans (well loads of them) have this 17 th century picture of england in there head.

EDIT: Just read through some of thunderhearts post and i really can't tell if he is serious or not. If you are you prove my point about people having a 17th cent picture of england. Ever heard of the magna carta? Its were the People of England got tired of the monarchy thinking there better then everyone else and being able to do what ever they want. They made the king sign it effectively made them useless and powerless. (i imagine it was very awkward back then everyone knew that the royal family was full of it. they knew god didn't really give them the power to rule. I suppose i was as embarrassing when people finally realized the pope can't speak to god.)
Anyway Look it up. it inspired the US Constitution . You'd think on a site whos motto is deny ignorance you'd have more intelligent people, would you not?