Queen Elizabeth II Is Not The Rightful Heir To The Throne

NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

Freeborn
reply to post by NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

 

Got to say, I made the assumption that you were American.

Sincerest apologies.

I hate making assumptions, alas I am human and have my failings just like everyone else.

And I've got to say you appear to have a very good command of the English language.

You come from somewhere with a Queen...I'll take a stab in the dark and guess you are Danish?

it is only because they allow it, you got those freedoms.

Utter Bollocks.

We fought a Civil War to get our freedom

en.wikipedia.org...

Which bought about The English Bill Of Rights

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

You need a quick lesson in British History.

Freeborn
reply to post by NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

Do you know anything about British History and The English Civil War?
Do you know anything about British Constitutional Law and Procedure?

And bearing in mind the context of your whole post please explain and show how we would have any more freedoms if we didn't have 'our' monarchy?

And my previous question is also still relevant given your assertions;
How have we got any less freedoms because we have a Constitutional Monarchy rather than a President as our Head Of State?

I know some history, but not enough about the law

You wouldnt have anymore freedom with a president, pope, dictator etc.
The problem is you give your power to chose the laws in your life to someone else, and unless you agree 100% with that person making the rules, that is a lost of freedom.

So who do you agree 100% with? Yourself ofcourse, so without a monarchy AND anything else, i guees you would be more free, but your right, makes no big difference if your president or King, you still rule

Peace

Double post
Sorry about the qoute mess i made in the above post


Thanks Disraeli, that was a big help. The Q'u' explanation makes sence and makes it a lot easier to remember
Thanks

reply to post by NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

Just for information, so you know what's happening;
The system on ATS is geared up to stop "nesting" of quotes within quotes, so if you start one "quote" without ending the previous one, that will happen.
The solution is to edit and delete the surplus portions of "quote".

PS You're nearly there.
One [/qoute]is visible and non-working because mis-spelled. "Q" in English is always followed by "u". Quote.

alldaylong

NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

Freeborn
reply to post by NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

 

Got to say, I made the assumption that you were American.

Sincerest apologies.

I hate making assumptions, alas I am human and have my failings just like everyone else.

And I've got to say you appear to have a very good command of the English language.

You come from somewhere with a Queen...I'll take a stab in the dark and guess you are Danish?

it is only because they allow it, you got those freedoms.

Utter Bollocks.

We fought a Civil War to get our freedom

en.wikipedia.org...

Which bought about The English Bill Of Rights

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

You need a quick lesson in British History.

Didnt you forget something in that qoute??? Like "ACCORDING TO DANISH LAW, I KNOW"

I agree like i ALSO stated in that post, so i will study some english history.
Meanwhile, you should learn to read!!!!

I dont try to offend anybody, so please read what i wrote again...

I made it sound like the british people dont have anything to say in your own country, ofcourse you do, and you have lots of freedom
i apoligies if i offended people, i was only trying to point out, that it is only because they allow it, you got those freedoms. According to danish laws, i know.

How nice of you to pick those lines out of the sentence and use it for your own reasons

Shows me how nice a person you are.

DISRAELI
reply to post by NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

 

Just for information, so you know what's happening;
The system on ATS is geared up to stop "nesting" of quotes within quotes, so if you start one "quote" without ending the previous one, that will happen.
The solution is to edit and delete the surplus portions of "quote".

edit on 14-2-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

Thanks
Iam on my phone, and editing qoutes is a pain in the ...well it is anoying, i will try to fix it. Thanks again

new here, just to add my opinion on the subject matter,
the british monarchy are a key elelment in british society and culutre, now they are just figure heads witha lack of real power.
as to "Lech on society", although some ridiculous expneses the monary spend little and pay tax, majority of there assets are property of the state and are held in trust by the monarch.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Sorry for the late comeback but I have not been on ATS out of disgust for someone else whose attitude ruined a thread, That law is in itself not a valid law due to the inherant fact the authority of the crown at the time of the law being made was actually in the hand's of a usurper, to go back far enough you must understand the usurption took place at the end of the war of the roses and it was the House Tudor who had no legitimate claim whom took the throne and for several hundred years the Tudor's and Usurption royalists (false royalist heirarchy) persecuted the rightful heirs ancestor's until as late as the 1800's.

In essence as all british law is made under a royal seal if the monarch is not legitimate then the seal is not legitimate and therefor the law is null and void (though try getting that past the bar and the picture of Elizabeth regina (nothing against them but they are not legitimate and it make me sick to see people bowing and courtseying to other commoners as though they where god's gift)).

This mean's of course all repealed law's would not be repealed and all made law's would not be legal, of course this is purely accademic as they are all nothing in reality other then fellow human's whom are really no different to you or me with the possible exception that there ancestor had a bigger gang.

great point,
i studied the royal assent or seal in college,as i understand it the British system is formed on the basis that the monarchs powers are given to government, any new laws are given to the monarch for royal seal, which they wouldn't deny but could and it would not be law.

so hypothetically the monarch could revoke the power given to government and rule themselves.

reply to post by LABTECH767

What you are forgetting is the other point I made in that post, that the Planatagenets themselves were usurpers. They go back to William the Conqueror, who notoriously obtained the throne by conquest. If there was any such thing as a "rightful heir", it would have to depend on inheritance from the Anglo-Saxon line- in other words the descendants of Edgar Atheling and his sister Margaret.

In fact I've been arguing throughout this thread that there is no such thing as "rightful heir" (except in the sense "as defined by law"). the concept of a "righftul line" is artificial, a comparatively late development in history, and has no rational basis.
If there is such a thing as a "right" to the throne, where do you think it comes from? Obviously we can no longer believe in "descended from Woden" (and Woden himself had a whole line of ancestors, according to the genealogies, so he must originally have been human).
Historically, the earliest kings would have been the good fighters. Inspiring enough as leaders to get other warriors to follow them, or to persuade the people to select them as commmanders against hostile invaders.
The convenience of passing power from father to son eventually hardened into dynasties, but it would be difficult to argue that these dynasties had any abstract "right".
The Anglo-Saxon kingships never entirely lost the element of "election" (obviously by the magnates rather than the common people). In other posts I have quoted some examples from Canute onwards. Even after the Conquest the element of "election" was still active even down to John's time.
I would argue that "Act of Parliament" is the modern equivalent of this old tradition of "kings chosen by the people".
And if there is no such thing as "rightful king" in any abstract sense independent of the law, then the legitimacy of the law cannot depend on whether a "rightful king" was in place.

And I have to ask again- if you believe there is such a thing as a "rightful king", where exactly do you think this right comes from? What is its source?

reply to post by DISRAELI


i completley agree on legitimacy of the current monarch. The way in which line of succession is legally and how it developed seems irrelevant, if your operating on the basis that the line is already illegitimate then the it seems obvious that throughout history monarchs not only in england but throughout europe have ensured succesion based on planned weddings and childern.
the modern day monarch are merely a figure heads, the last of a dead system. without queen elizabeth 2 it will struggle to modernize and maintain any relevance

reply to post by ramesses

In fact, to make clear, the line I'm taking is that Parliament has decided who the legitimate monarch is.
That's the only definition of "legitimacy" which has any workable value.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Absolutely correct and you know they gelded the body of Harald Godwinson as they feared he may have had an heir, on his deathbed William of Normandy is said to have confessed he never had any claim to the english throne (which was based on the fact Harald had served him for a time in Normandy, now as you know also the papacy was totally corrupt and for sale, the pope lived a life of debauchery in france and did what the french or anyone else that could lean on him said so William gained his legitimacy through a papal decree which said he was the rightful heir, though Edward the confessor whom was more priest than king and was said to spend hours on bended knee in this chapel would probably not have chosen either.

Had godwinson not been so battle tired with some of his best men wounded and dead from driving out and routing the danes at stamford when he drove haddrada back into the sea, then his army would have held, it very nearly did except for an opportune partial rout of the normans which william turned around when the chasing Saxon farmer's broke there own shield wall.

A forgotten heroic moment is the fact his houscarls died to the last man defending his body like the spartans of legend and william left there body's unburied for over two year's to rot in the open on the battle field while his men raped and pillaged.

To this day the scot's blame the english but it was the Normans whom ruled them and william of wallace was fighting a norman led army (second class saxon troop's or serfs' - it was the law to speak french in this country for over 400 years or we would actually be speaking a dutch or german language) with norman law's, the english were OWNED slaves of the Normans and that is where we get the TERM SERFDOM from which Servant's is taken, Under the older saxon nobility there lord's freely lived in the village and married the local village girl, basically they were the boss but they were just one of the boy's.

And remember they stole it from the Romano Briton's whom had been left behind by the retreating roman legions, whom in turn had stolen it from the Celtic "culture" tribes, whom had been conquered by the celt's "whom set themselve up as the new chief but it was a warrior meritocratic society so anyone could rise and woman had more rights under them" whom originated south of the rheine in what is today southern germany.

The age of the inbreed I am better than thou was brought in by the Normans though.

This is why I say I have only one king, and he is christ.

Anyway to quote the plantagenat claiment whom has passed away, I am in favour of a democracy but they as you know only work well when the majority have shared goal's.

reply to post by LABTECH767

On the Scots and the Normans- a further irony, of course, is that the chief Scottish leaders of the "Bruce" period were themslves "Norman familes"- Bruce, Comyn, Stewart, all at least Continental in origin.

reply to post by DISRAELI

In fact, to make clear, the line I'm taking is that Parliament has decided who the legitimate monarch is.
That's the only definition of "legitimacy" which has any workable value.

I understand your reasoning - and by extension Parliament only gets its legitimacy from us, the people.
They are our elected representatives, blah blah blah.

But, there is a school of thought that there has been a treasonous transfer of sovereignty from the UK to the EU which every Prime Minister since Heath and the current monarch have all been treasonously complicit in. This nullifies both the legitimacy of Parliament and the monarch.
There are even those who believe that Article 61 of The Magna Carta gives the people the right, even the duty, to enter in to lawful rebellion when they are being governed unjustly and illegally. (There is a clear distinction that Parliament, and by extension The Monarch, are only entitled to govern, not rule).

It would be interesting to see what would happen if any individual or group did invoke Article 61 and use it as a defence for entering in to 'lawful rebellion'.

But I fear we digress.

There are even those who believe that Article 61 of The Magna Carta gives the people the right, even the duty, to enter in to lawful rebellion when they are being governed unjustly and illegally. (There is a clear distinction that Parliament, and by extension The Monarch, are only entitled to govern, not rule).

reply to post by Freeborn


This is something that should definitely be looked at seriously. Unelected EU officials are passing illegal laws in the UK. Did Blair and his cronies not try to change the laws on Treason to protect themselves?

Arken
Has someone noticed a strange likeness?

Naa Arken, just another rock.

reply to post by OnionHead


Now that is just cruel, but very very funny, there used to be a book called the animal's whom govern us, it was like the english puppet show called spitting image but lampooned the leaders of the world with some fantastic and hilarious are work but let's just say it was not politically correct so would likely be banned now as it portrayed idi amin as a gorilla, Yassa Arafat as a camel (After reading it every time I saw the guy on the new's all I could see was that camel).

reply to post by LABTECH767


Spitting image I know it well, in fact used to watch it sneakily as a kid believe it or not. lol I'm just thinking, it's obviously where the saying "You're a spittin image of them" came from. That was used quite a lot by the Irish in the North in particular. Off to youtube to check out some vid's. I can remember Thatchers character, and wasn't there a politician that spat or squirted water on people, excellent show

Arken
Has someone noticed a strange likeness?

I missed this until someone quoted it....

I am actually quite angry that someone has posted this as a "fact" and yet it is quite obviously a fake. There I was thinking "knowingly posting hoaxes" is against T&C's and worthy of a ban - ATS has gone downhill...

This is actually a magazine cover by a graphic artist known as Tibor Kalman who not only did the Queen, but other notables like the Pope as a "racial minority".