Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,178 posts, read 13,461,836 times
Reputation: 19482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacobo1
he should practice wearing a thobe. thats who'll be in charge when he grows up
The monarch has no political or executive role in Britain.
The Following were important events in terms of curtailing the power of Monarchy whilst establishing an independent Parliament, Law and Legal System in terms of England and later Britain.
Magna Carta 1215
The monarchy basically started losing material power with King John of England signing the Magna Carta [1215], which led to the rule of constitutional law in England. Translation: the beginning of the end of absolutism in royal rule in England. This was just 149 years after the Norman Conquest under William I.
English Civil War 1642-51 and Commonwealth of England/The Protectorate 1651-60
The monarchy continued to lose power by turns in the years since Magna Carta, culminating in the English Civil War. The Commonwealth of England (later, the Protectorate for the whole of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland) replaced the monarchy under Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland. (We can safely generalise Charles I was a British monarch, even though history books conventionally identify him as "of England.")
The Restoration 1660
With the end of the Commonwealth/Protectorate in 1658-60, the monarchy was restored under King Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland. However, Parliament limited Charles II's royal prerogative powers on constitutional grounds that he had no right to arbitrarily suspend laws enacted by Parliament. Translation: further loss of royal power.
The Glorious Revolution 1688
King James II of England and Ireland (and as James VII of Scotland) was overthrown by Parliamentary forces in a joint operation with Dutch forces under William of Orange, who then became "King Billy": William III of England, Scotland and Ireland (in addition to being Stadtholder of various areas in the Dutch Republic). But during William III's reign (jointly with Mary II), there was resistance to his/their validity to the throne (which is too involved to explain here).
United Kingdom 1707-1800 / 1801-1927 / 1921-today
The most prominent political feature of the UK that diluted the power of the monarchy was the Reform Act 1832 refashioned the British electoral system and extended the franchise. Translation: more power to the people and parliament.
Every kid plays cowboys. If there is no toy gun, they will point their index finger and yell "Pow". The royal family have always served in the military and have a long tradition of blood sport. No reason in the least for this to be a scandal.
Yes, indeed. His father and uncle were both military officers, as many other family members were. Prince Andy put his life on the line, flying target-interference with a helicopter, during the Malvinas Conflict, decoying missiles fired at a ship. One bad move or a slight equipment malfunction and blooey!
But in fact, a squirt gun is nothing more than a parody of a real gun, meant to be a joke, not something serious.
Sure, all those mass shootings are caused by letting kids play with squirt guns. No squirt guns for kids! That'll solve everything. Or maybe people should just start using their common sense and realize that kids' toys and mass shootings have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
But people in other countries are freaking out over the horrors happening in the United States. I don't blame them for overreacting. It's horrifying to be like US nowadays.
.
obviously the US is to blame. good one, b0pper
let's look at these statement side by side for a hearty chuckle:
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
I have friends in foreign countries who are too afraid to travel to the US. To them, coming to the US may as well be like going to Somalia.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
Americans who'd travel to Europe, by and large, are liberals. Do you really think these are the kind of people who'd be ignorant enough to let a miniscule chance of terrorism stop them from exploring the world?
.
Not judging by the packed flight from SFO to Spain on my recent trip.
Let's be honest, how many Bible thumbers from Middle America would ever travel aboard anywhere?? Many conservatives I met from red states have never gone further than 100 miles from the place of their birth.
Americans who'd travel to Europe, by and large, are liberals. Do you really think these are the kind of people who'd be ignorant enough to let a miniscule chance of terrorism stop them from exploring the world?
.
LOL, I've lived in KY, Alabama, Georgia, and numerous other "Middle America" states, and have never meet anyone as you say...so, calling BS, or at least states that is just you own opinion....and you have nothing to back up you position...
By and large..again, anything to back that up...lol...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
