Mr. Carl, I am unsure if that's a trolling attempt or a serious comment.
It takes one person or fact to prove a scientific theory wrong. It used to be the majority view that the Earth was at the centre of the universe.
As for flat Earth - that's a rather cheap insult. Besides which, the Ancient Greeks, clever chaps that they were, reasoned the Earth was not flat (you see a ship's sails before its hull on the horizon).
From Charles: "Am in the US and the coverage is jaw-droppingly enthusiastic. They are bubbling over with excitement (watching NBC's Today).
Going out for a walk because I can't take it anymore. It's a baby. "
Charles: Silly people are just as thick on the ground in the US as in the UK. But they can allow full scope to their silliness, for they don't carry any responsibility for the "Royal Family" , legal or financial. If it's any consolation, it probably implies affection for Brits and their funny ways. Personally, I think it's wicked what we do to these poor kids. They ought to have the same rights as the rest of us to find their level.
The British Royal family is far more popular in the US than the President , the Senate or the House of Representatives. 1776 was a mistake but one remedied by time and experience.
When Queen Victoria succeeded in 1837 the heir presumptive was her uncle the Duke of Cumberland. He was supplanted when Princess Victoria was born in 1840 and she was supplanted when her brother Prince Edward was born the following year.
Why would the (male) Duke of Cumberland be supplanted by Princess Victoria?
The effect of the arrival of Prince Edward I can understand.
Mind, as a an egalitarian and a republican (ignore the pseudonym, it's jealousy) ) it all seems a something or other mess to me.
The Duke was supplanted because even a daughter of a sovereign or daughter of an elder deceased brother (The late Duke of Kent) takes precedence over male uncles .
Hence the present Queen succeeded her father rather than George VI's next in line brother the late Duke of Gloucester.
Thank you. Understand and accept.
When can I next vote for the head of state?
When you move to the Republic of Ireland.
BTW the death of William IV also saw one of those quirks of history as whilst Victoria succeeded to the UK throne under male preference cognatic primogeniture she did not inherit from William IV the Kingdom of Hanover.
Hanover practised semi salic also known as agnatic primogeniture whereby the male line must be extinct before a female may succeeed. Thus William IV's younger brother, the Duke of Cumberland, became King Ernst of Hanover as well as heir presumptive to his niece, the new Queen Victoria.
Mr. Jayfdee, I entirely agree. Greater energy efficiency, for example, is something that we should do whatever the case.
Mr. Pubgoer, I'm afraid I'm rather ignorant of Ancient Egypt and can't answer that. It would not surprise me, some Greeks got similar astronomical calculations more or less correct.
Did you know the Ancient Greeks had steam power? They just used it for making toys, though.
Mr. Jayfdee, I entirely agree. Greater energy efficiency, for example, is something that we should do whatever the case.
Mr. Pubgoer, I'm afraid I'm rather ignorant of Ancient Egypt and can't answer that. It would not surprise me, some Greeks got similar astronomical calculations more or less correct.
Did you know the Ancient Greeks had steam power? They just used it for making toys, though.
O/T - haven't read any yet - but look interesting - a series of talks by Vernon Bogdanor on British politicians who "made the weather" but never made it to PM:
When Queen Victoria succeeded in 1837 the heir presumptive was her uncle the Duke of Cumberland. He was supplanted when Princess Victoria was born in 1840 and she was supplanted when her brother Prince Edward was born the following year.
Why would the (male) Duke of Cumberland be supplanted by Princess Victoria?
The effect of the arrival of Prince Edward I can understand.
Mind, as a an egalitarian and a republican (ignore the pseudonym, it's jealousy) ) it all seems a something or other mess to me.
The Duke was supplanted because even a daughter of a sovereign or daughter of an elder deceased brother (The late Duke of Kent) takes precedence over male uncles .
Hence the present Queen succeeded her father rather than George VI's next in line brother the late Duke of Gloucester.
Thank you. Understand and accept.
When can I next vote for the head of state?
When you move to the Republic of Ireland.
Not true, JackW!
While British citizens can vote in local, European and Dáil (Seanad while it exists / applies) elections they do not get a vote in the Presidential election (or in referendums). Presumably because there would be no reciprocation
On a mild self-plugging note, got another 5* review for Journey to Altmortis today on Amazon. Quite nice, especially as Bane of Souls was 4*-tastic. [Still have a soft spot for the first book though. I keep meaning to run through it and work out the percentage of fairly important characters who end up dead].
Edited extra bit: F1: I'll put up an early discussion piece for Hungary tomorrow. Because we lost, er, somewhere (New Jersey?) from the calendar it's in rather isolated. The last race was 3 weeks before it, the next race will be 4 weeks after it.
Anyone is free to try to challenge or overturn aspects of any statute but the fact is the protections for religions in the Marriage (SAme Sex Couples) Act are iron-clad...
That's a keeper for a rainy day. I'd put money on there being a successful challenge within the next few years.
With just 4.5 hrs to go before tomorrow becomes today, Corals' current 5/2 odds on the Royal baby being born tomorrow, 23 July, compared with its 1/3 odds on it being born today look distinctly out of kilter imo.
When Queen Victoria succeeded in 1837 the heir presumptive was her uncle the Duke of Cumberland. He was supplanted when Princess Victoria was born in 1840 and she was supplanted when her brother Prince Edward was born the following year.
On that basis, we ought to include all first-born females whose father or mother was monarch. Queen Anne's son the Duke of Gloucester (IIRC) is another, as may be any older siblings he had who died young (I think Anne was pregnant about 17 times; most ending in stillbirths).
Henry VIII also provides fun and games. Both Mary and Elizabeth were at various times heir, delegitimised and restored. Both, however, were surpassed in the pecking order by Edward VI but then they went on to reign so don't count for Jack's list.
One that does, I think, is the Duke of York who was heir presumptive under George IV who had no surviving issue at the time.
We ought also to mention Sophia, Electress of Hanover, on whom the crown was settled in the event of Anne dying childless. She died, however, a few months before Anne so her son George I became king instead (had Anne died slightly earlier, Sophia would have been Britain's oldest monarch until Elizabeth II, and by far the oldest to ascend the throne).
On a mild self-plugging note, got another 5* review for Journey to Altmortis today on Amazon. Quite nice, especially as Bane of Souls was 4*-tastic. [Still have a soft spot for the first book though. I keep meaning to run through it and work out the percentage of fairly important characters who end up dead].
Edited extra bit: F1: I'll put up an early discussion piece for Hungary tomorrow. Because we lost, er, somewhere (New Jersey?) from the calendar it's in rather isolated. The last race was 3 weeks before it, the next race will be 4 weeks after it.
My inside info suggests that the Russian arace will happen.
Mr. Carl, I am unsure if that's a trolling attempt or a serious comment.
It takes one person or fact to prove a scientific theory wrong. It used to be the majority view that the Earth was at the centre of the universe.
As for flat Earth - that's a rather cheap insult. Besides which, the Ancient Greeks, clever chaps that they were, reasoned the Earth was not flat (you see a ship's sails before its hull on the horizon).
The Greeks also recognised that when there was an eclipse of the moon, the shadow cast was circular, and that as you travelled north or south, the position of the stars in the sky changed, both of which indicated a roughly spherical world and - in the case of the latter - measurements from which could be used to calculate its size.
Therefore an unpopular theory is proven to be wrong.
Don't think so.
Sigh.
A theory becomes "popular" when more and more scientists working in the field examine the evidence and find that it supports the theory, and other competing theories are undermined by the evidence.
Anyway, like all true believers / conspiracy theorists, those who deny the science on this will never be convinced, so there's little point carrying on. Has that baby been born yet?
Didn't one of the Greek Math bods commit suicide, murder or go insane ( I forget which) because he could not accept irrational numbers .Imagine that being forced to kill because the square root of 2 is neverending
O/T Did anyone see this on Saturday, I don't recall the cameras picking it up.
Experienced French mountainbiker caused a stir on Saturday. Apparently he,d spent 6 months preparing a stunt. At the moment Froomy and Co passed him on the road he would jump with the mountainbike over the heads of the riders. Luckily it went well as you can see in the following film
With just 4.5 hrs to go before tomorrow becomes today, Corals' current 5/2 odds on the Royal baby being born tomorrow, 23 July, compared with its 1/3 odds on it being born today look distinctly out of kilter imo.
Didn't one of the Greek Math bods commit suicide, murder or go insane ( I forget which) because he could not accept irrational numbers .Imagine that being forced to kill because the square root of 2 is neverending
You are possibly thinking of Hippasus who drowned at sea as punishment by the gods for revealing the existence of irrational numbers.
Therefore an unpopular theory is proven to be wrong.
Don't think so.
A theory becomes "popular" when more and more scientists working in the field examine the evidence and find that it supports the theory, and other competing theories are undermined by the evidence.
Until this beautiful theory meets one ugly fact......that's science.....
As Andrew Neil observed:
'This [criticism of the interview] was neatly summed up in a Guardian blog by Dana Nuccitelli, who works for a multi-billion dollar US environmental business (Tetra Tech) and writes prodigiously about global warming and related matters from a very distinct perspective."
Didn't one of the Greek Math bods commit suicide, murder or go insane ( I forget which) because he could not accept irrational numbers .Imagine that being forced to kill because the square root of 2 is neverending
You are possibly thinking of Hippasus who drowned at sea as punishment by the gods for revealing the existence of irrational numbers.
When Queen Victoria succeeded in 1837 the heir presumptive was her uncle the Duke of Cumberland. He was supplanted when Princess Victoria was born in 1840 and she was supplanted when her brother Prince Edward was born the following year.
On that basis, we ought to include all first-born females whose father or mother was monarch. Queen Anne's son the Duke of Gloucester (IIRC) is another, as may be any older siblings he had who died young (I think Anne was pregnant about 17 times; most ending in stillbirths).
Henry VIII also provides fun and games. Both Mary and Elizabeth were at various times heir, delegitimised and restored. Both, however, were surpassed in the pecking order by Edward VI but then they went on to reign so don't count for Jack's list.
One that does, I think, is the Duke of York who was heir presumptive under George IV who had no surviving issue at the time.
We ought also to mention Sophia, Electress of Hanover, on whom the crown was settled in the event of Anne dying childless. She died, however, a few months before Anne so her son George I became king instead (had Anne died slightly earlier, Sophia would have been Britain's oldest monarch until Elizabeth II, and by far the oldest to ascend the throne).
Well done Herders 2/3
The Duke of York was heir presumptive to his brother George IV from 1820 until his death in 1827.
Sophia the Dowager Electress of Hanover was heir presumptive from the Act of Settlement in 1701 until her death in 1714.
Anne's son, the Duke of Gloucester, died in 1700 and so predeceased not only his mother but also King William III and thus was only ever second in line.
I remember Monty Python's Meaning of Life which turned to "birth in the third world" - Yorkshire - which was then followed by this wicked send up of Oliver!
People think of Sophia as Electress of Hannover but of course she was also a daughter of Frederick V, Elector Palatine and briefly king of Bohemia. And probably the man who started the 30 Years War. She was therefore the younger sister of Prince Rupert of the Rhine.
Rupert died in 1682 without legitimate heir, but had he married earlier we might be ruled by a line of Wittelsbachs.
You've got theory A, in this case effectively that human induced CO2 emissions are warming and changing the climate.
You've got theories X,Y and Z that are effectively contrary (in this case, no warming, CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, the Earth is flat which makes it heat up when the massive heater on the moon is pointed at it, and so on)
Lots of scientists have examined the hard evidence and found that it supports theory A, but undermines X,Y and Z. This is why theory A is "popular", and X,Y and Z are not.
Therefore, the "popularity" of theory A does, indeed, suggest that there is lots of evidence supporting it (in other words, it is robust / likely to be correct).
It's the same with any "popular" scientific theory you care to name, from quantum theory to evolutionary theory.
Here's an ill-formed theory off the top of my head:
The fundamental role of the Royal family is to represent stability and mediocrity. The present Queen, bless her, does that very well, by insight or by taking advice.
This feature neatly counterbalances our really rather remarkable toleration of eccentrics, who have fueled and propelled progress, especially, but by no means exclusively, technical and scientific.
I worry, though, that this balance is now being upset by invasive bureaucracy that produces nothing and limits our freedoms.
women get subjected to patronising nonsense from politicians all the time including from other women . eg Harman becoming faux outraged over Muirfield male only policy or having a special Ministry for Women
People think of Sophia as Electress of Hannover but of course she was also a daughter of Frederick V, Elector Palatine and briefly king of Bohemia. And probably the man who started the 30 Years War. She was therefore the younger sister of Prince Rupert of the Rhine.
Rupert died in 1682 without legitimate heir, but had he married earlier we might be ruled by a line of Wittelsbachs.
Surely they would've changed it to "Newburys" or "Readings" or "Hungerfords" or some other random Berkshire town by now?
Elizabeth Electress Palatine daughter of James I/VI was heir presumptive to her brother Charles I from his accession in 1625 until his son Prince Charles was born in 1630.
Now as for science, its progress relies on verification by experiment. All very good. But the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is that measurement of small systems (that are probabilistic in their behaviour) is done by macroscopic systems, namely us (that are essentially not probabilistic).
Unfortunately the transition from small (quantum) systems to macroscopic (classical) systems is more or less continuous. So at what point do the measurements become unreliable and fuzzy? For we live in a universe with objects of all sizes.
Elizabeth Electress Palatine daughter of James I/VI was heir presumptive to her brother Charles I from his accession in 1625 until his son Prince Charles was born in 1630.
Not quite sure what the jig is with these heir presumptives but seeing as we are in the 17th C wasn't Janes II/VII heir presumptive from his birth all the way to the death of Charles II???
Now as for science, its progress relies on verification by experiment. All very good. But the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is that measurement of small systems (that are probabilistic in their behaviour) is done by macroscopic systems, namely us (that are essentially not probabilistic).
Unfortunately the transition from small (quantum) systems to macroscopic (classical) systems is more or less continuous. So at what point do the measurements become unreliable and fuzzy? For we live in a universe with objects of all sizes.
Well, the most "popular" answer would probably be that everything is inherently probabilistic (as everything is made of fuzzy particles). Just that once you get to a certain size, the probabilities add up, and it becomes vanishingly unlikely (but not impossible) that, say, you'll one day jump up and instead of landing fall clean through the planet.
I'm I right in thinking there's a team of researchers confident of performing the double-slit experiment (which shows things being in two places at once) on a living organism, a virus, in the not-too distant future?
Elizabeth Electress Palatine daughter of James I/VI was heir presumptive to her brother Charles I from his accession in 1625 until his son Prince Charles was born in 1630.
Not quite sure what the jig is with these heir presumptives but seeing as we are in the 17th C wasn't Janes II/VII heir presumptive from his birth all the way to the death of Charles II???
Hi there "welshowl"
We're looking for first in line heir apparent/presumptive who never succeeded to the throne. Thus clearly James II/VII is disqualified.
Edward Duke of York was heir presumptive to his elder brother the newly ascended George III from 1760 until the arrival of the latters first son Prince George in 1762.
You've got theory A, in this case effectively that human induced CO2 emissions are warming and changing the climate.
You've got theories X,Y and Z that are effectively contrary (in this case, no warming, CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, the Earth is flat which makes it heat up when the massive heater on the moon is pointed at it, and so on)
Lots of scientists have examined the hard evidence and found that it supports theory A, but undermines X,Y and Z. This is why theory A is "popular", and X,Y and Z are not.
Therefore, the "popularity" of theory A does, indeed, suggest that there is lots of evidence supporting it (in other words, it is robust / likely to be correct).
It's the same with any "popular" scientific theory you care to name, from quantum theory to evolutionary theory.
Has that baby been born yet?
(Note, I am not a scientist)
At a basic level you are right, but AIUI the scientific process is more complex and sadly less pure than that.
If the funding is with theory A, then you will get most of the research into theory A and not the competing theories. What is more, human nature dictates that a scientist who believes theory A is correct (especially if he has written papers in it and/or gets funding for it) is likely to dismiss rival theories. This happens a great deal, and science can apparently be very nasty.
There is also the unthinking and thinking tendency to design research to get the answer you want or expect.
Like or loathe them, some of the climate sceptics (or even believers) have found holes in the published AGW science data and methodologies, although most of these have not effected the results much.
I had a lecturer at QMW who developed some key evidence in favour of the plate tectonics theory from aquifer boreholes. It took them many years to convince the scientific establishment that continental drift had, and was, occurring. If it had not been for military research into other areas, it may have taken years longer.
A good maxim to go by is: "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof". But it also goes for both sides of the AGW discussion.
You've got theory A, in this case effectively that human induced CO2 emissions are warming and changing the climate.
You've got theories X,Y and Z that are effectively contrary (in this case, no warming, CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, the Earth is flat which makes it heat up when the massive heater on the moon is pointed at it, and so on)
Lots of scientists have examined the hard evidence and found that it supports theory A, but undermines X,Y and Z. This is why theory A is "popular", and X,Y and Z are not.
Therefore, the "popularity" of theory A does, indeed, suggest that there is lots of evidence supporting it (in other words, it is robust / likely to be correct).
It's the same with any "popular" scientific theory you care to name, from quantum theory to evolutionary theory.
Elizabeth Electress Palatine daughter of James I/VI was heir presumptive to her brother Charles I from his accession in 1625 until his son Prince Charles was born in 1630.
There's also the question of Elizabeth I's heir. Notoriously, she refused to name one but according to the terms of Henry VIII's will - which carried legal force under his Succession Act - it should have been the descendants of Henry's younger sister, Mary Tudor, who were in line. That provides several people who were legally heiress presumptive however after the debacle of the Jane Grey usurpation, the claims were not pushed too hard and as the line was ultimately passed over, arguably we shouldn't count any of them. If not, then perhaps Mary, Queen of Scots, should be included as an heir who didn't inherit. She certainly had her supporters and it was her line which - legally or not - won out.
Now as for science, its progress relies on verification by experiment. All very good. But the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is that measurement of small systems (that are probabilistic in their behaviour) is done by macroscopic systems, namely us (that are essentially not probabilistic).
Unfortunately the transition from small (quantum) systems to macroscopic (classical) systems is more or less continuous. So at what point do the measurements become unreliable and fuzzy? For we live in a universe with objects of all sizes.
Well, the most "popular" answer would probably be that everything is inherently probabilistic (as everything is made of fuzzy particles). Just that once you get to a certain size, the probabilities add up, and it becomes vanishingly unlikely (but not impossible) that, say, you'll one day jump up and instead of landing fall clean through the planet.
I'm I right in thinking there's a team of researchers confident of performing the double-slit experiment (which shows things being in two places at once) on a living organism, a virus, in the not-too distant future?
Traditionally you shouldn't say that the double slit expt shows that an electron, say, can be in two places at the same time, but only that it is where one *measures it to be*, which will be at one slit or the other with a certain probability. Certainly viruses are small and may be rather quantum probabilistic in their behaviour.
Elizabeth Electress Palatine daughter of James I/VI was heir presumptive to her brother Charles I from his accession in 1625 until his son Prince Charles was born in 1630.
Not quite sure what the jig is with these heir presumptives but seeing as we are in the 17th C wasn't Janes II/VII heir presumptive from his birth all the way to the death of Charles II???
Hi there "welshowl"
We're looking for first in line heir apparent/presumptive who never succeeded to the throne. Thus clearly James II/VII is disqualified.
Edward Duke of York was heir presumptive to his elder brother the newly ascended George III from 1760 until the arrival of the latters first son Prince George in 1762.
Ah I see. Ok do we need to rewind a tad in mid 18thC? Wasn't there a prince Frederick son of George II who didn't succeed? Was he GIII's father???
Elizabeth Electress Palatine daughter of James I/VI was heir presumptive to her brother Charles I from his accession in 1625 until his son Prince Charles was born in 1630.
There's also the question of Elizabeth I's heir. Notoriously, she refused to name one but according to the terms of Henry VIII's will - which carried legal force under his Succession Act - it should have been the descendants of Henry's younger sister, Mary Tudor, who were in line. That provides several people who were legally heiress presumptive however after the debacle of the Jane Grey usurpation, the claims were not pushed too hard and as the line was ultimately passed over, arguably we shouldn't count any of them. If not, then perhaps Mary, Queen of Scots, should be included as an heir who didn't inherit. She certainly had her supporters and it was her line which - legally or not - won out.
Oh gawd !!
The potential heirs of Elizabeth I are a nightmare .... but fortunately us Scots sorted the mess out !!
Elizabeth Electress Palatine daughter of James I/VI was heir presumptive to her brother Charles I from his accession in 1625 until his son Prince Charles was born in 1630.
Not quite sure what the jig is with these heir presumptives but seeing as we are in the 17th C wasn't Janes II/VII heir presumptive from his birth all the way to the death of Charles II???
Hi there "welshowl"
We're looking for first in line heir apparent/presumptive who never succeeded to the throne. Thus clearly James II/VII is disqualified.
Edward Duke of York was heir presumptive to his elder brother the newly ascended George III from 1760 until the arrival of the latters first son Prince George in 1762.
Ah I see. Ok do we need to rewind a tad in mid 18thC? Wasn't there a prince Frederick son of George II who didn't succeed? Was he GIII's father???
Correct, although we've already noted Prince Frederick.
Babs Windsor has already been signed up to be a member of Unite and yet Ed Miliband has called for a judge-led public enquiry as to why this cynical news-stunt was timed to co-ordinate with his important speech on union funding changes for Labour.
Elizabeth Electress Palatine daughter of James I/VI was heir presumptive to her brother Charles I from his accession in 1625 until his son Prince Charles was born in 1630.
Not quite sure what the jig is with these heir presumptives but seeing as we are in the 17th C wasn't Janes II/VII heir presumptive from his birth all the way to the death of Charles II???
Hi there "welshowl"
We're looking for first in line heir apparent/presumptive who never succeeded to the throne. Thus clearly James II/VII is disqualified.
Edward Duke of York was heir presumptive to his elder brother the newly ascended George III from 1760 until the arrival of the latters first son Prince George in 1762.
Ah I see. Ok do we need to rewind a tad in mid 18thC? Wasn't there a prince Frederick son of George II who didn't succeed? Was he GIII's father???
Correct, although we've already noted Prince Frederick.
Jack, you do know there's a whole Wiki page listing "Heirs apparent who never inherited the throne"?
Henry V is one - he died before he could inherit the throne of France - that would have been interesting.
Edit: Scar was heir presumptive until the heir apparent Simba was born.
Elizabeth Electress Palatine daughter of James I/VI was heir presumptive to her brother Charles I from his accession in 1625 until his son Prince Charles was born in 1630.
Not quite sure what the jig is with these heir presumptives but seeing as we are in the 17th C wasn't Janes II/VII heir presumptive from his birth all the way to the death of Charles II???
Hi there "welshowl"
We're looking for first in line heir apparent/presumptive who never succeeded to the throne. Thus clearly James II/VII is disqualified.
Edward Duke of York was heir presumptive to his elder brother the newly ascended George III from 1760 until the arrival of the latters first son Prince George in 1762.
Ah I see. Ok do we need to rewind a tad in mid 18thC? Wasn't there a prince Frederick son of George II who didn't succeed? Was he GIII's father???
Correct, although we've already noted Prince Frederick.
Elizabeth Electress Palatine daughter of James I/VI was heir presumptive to her brother Charles I from his accession in 1625 until his son Prince Charles was born in 1630.
Not quite sure what the jig is with these heir presumptives but seeing as we are in the 17th C wasn't Janes II/VII heir presumptive from his birth all the way to the death of Charles II???
Hi there "welshowl"
We're looking for first in line heir apparent/presumptive who never succeeded to the throne. Thus clearly James II/VII is disqualified.
Edward Duke of York was heir presumptive to his elder brother the newly ascended George III from 1760 until the arrival of the latters first son Prince George in 1762.
Ah I see. Ok do we need to rewind a tad in mid 18thC? Wasn't there a prince Frederick son of George II who didn't succeed? Was he GIII's father???
Correct, although we've already noted Prince Frederick.
Jack, you do know there's a whole Wiki page listing "Heirs apparent who never inherited the throne"?
Henry V is one - he died before he could inherit the throne of France - that would have been interesting.
Wiki is cheating !! .... and not inclusive of all !!
Here's a Henry VIII double ....
In 1511 and 1514 Catherine of Aragon gave birth to a son that both lived for a month and that were both heir apparent, named Henry and titled Duke of Cornwall.
King Cole, that's interesting. There have been some mutterings about the Sochi race, largely because of the immense overspend, due to corruption, of the Winter Olympics (we're talking billions of pounds). However, the Sirotkin deal with Sauber does suggest Russia is serious.
King Cole, that's interesting. There have been some mutterings about the Sochi race, largely because of the immense overspend, due to corruption, of the Winter Olympics (we're talking billions of pounds). However, the Sirotkin deal with Sauber does suggest Russia is serious.
Mr Dancer, I can assure you my source is totally genuine. I understand the reported doubts but I saw my source after his return form Sochi.
Elizabeth Electress Palatine daughter of James I/VI was heir presumptive to her brother Charles I from his accession in 1625 until his son Prince Charles was born in 1630.
There's also the question of Elizabeth I's heir. Notoriously, she refused to name one but according to the terms of Henry VIII's will - which carried legal force under his Succession Act - it should have been the descendants of Henry's younger sister, Mary Tudor, who were in line. That provides several people who were legally heiress presumptive however after the debacle of the Jane Grey usurpation, the claims were not pushed too hard and as the line was ultimately passed over, arguably we shouldn't count any of them. If not, then perhaps Mary, Queen of Scots, should be included as an heir who didn't inherit. She certainly had her supporters and it was her line which - legally or not - won out.
Oh gawd !!
The potential heirs of Elizabeth I are a nightmare .... but fortunately us Scots sorted the mess out !!
Indeed. I think that legally, the heiresses presumptive would have been
1558-68: Catherine Grey (Jane Grey's younger sister. Catherine's marriage was annulled in 1562, resulting in her children and line becoming illegitimate). 1568-78: Mary Grey (Catherine Grey's youngest sister) 1578-96: Margaret Stanley (Daughter of the younger daughter of Mary Tudor) 1596-1603: Anne Stanley (Granddaughter of the above; her father having predeceased her grandmother).
Belated congrats to Chris Froome. The best man won le Tour.I have read that the main language spoken in the "peloton" nowadays is English. As for cycling, what superb weather for it today, just pleasantly warm. Took a long way home from the office.
Edited extra bit: although my German A-level did teach me useful terms like die Peitsche (whip) and Molotow Cocktails, I learnt this one recently whilst researching German words starting with Pel- for a river name (for lore reasons).
Edited extra bit: although my German A-level did teach me useful terms like die Peitsche (whip) and Molotow Cocktails, I learnt this one recently whilst researching German words starting with Pel- for a river name (for lore reasons).
How amusing! Also, more mundanely, this from the online dictiionary:
cycle racing the main field of riders in a road race
Elizabeth Electress Palatine daughter of James I/VI was heir presumptive to her brother Charles I from his accession in 1625 until his son Prince Charles was born in 1630.
There's also the question of Elizabeth I's heir. Notoriously, she refused to name one but according to the terms of Henry VIII's will - which carried legal force under his Succession Act - it should have been the descendants of Henry's younger sister, Mary Tudor, who were in line. That provides several people who were legally heiress presumptive however after the debacle of the Jane Grey usurpation, the claims were not pushed too hard and as the line was ultimately passed over, arguably we shouldn't count any of them. If not, then perhaps Mary, Queen of Scots, should be included as an heir who didn't inherit. She certainly had her supporters and it was her line which - legally or not - won out.
Oh gawd !!
The potential heirs of Elizabeth I are a nightmare .... but fortunately us Scots sorted the mess out !!
Indeed. I think that legally, the heiresses presumptive would have been
1558-68: Catherine Grey (Jane Grey's younger sister. Catherine's marriage was annulled in 1562, resulting in her children and line becoming illegitimate). 1568-78: Mary Grey (Catherine Grey's youngest sister) 1578-96: Margaret Stanley (Daughter of the younger daughter of Mary Tudor) 1596-1603: Anne Stanley (Granddaughter of the above; her father having predeceased her grandmother).
Excellent Herders.
The only other potential candidate is Francis Duchess of Suffolk who was the eldest daughter of Henry VIII's sister Mary and was heir presumptive for I think some months after Queen Elizabeth succeeded until Francis died in 1559.
Some might dispute her claim as she renounced her claim in favour of Queen Jane Grey but might be considered reinstated after the latters execution.
Comments
Bild ;
http://www.bild.de/
Washingto Post ;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/duchess-admitted-to-hospital-in-labor/2013/07/22/675f4458-f29d-11e2-8464-57e57af86290_story.html?hpid=z1
New York Times ;
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/world/europe/royal-baby.html?hp&_r=0
Le Monde ;
http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2013/07/22/le-guardian-propose-un-site-expurge-des-informations-sur-le-royal-baby_3451210_3214.html
LA Times ;
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-royal-baby-fever-worth-millions-20130722,0,3373344.story
Corriere della Sera ;
http://www.corriere.it/esteri/13_luglio_22/kate-royal-baby-iniziato-il-travaglio_2a28b7ce-f29b-11e2-8506-64ec07f27631.shtml
BTW the death of William IV also saw one of those quirks of history as whilst Victoria succeeded to the UK throne under male preference cognatic primogeniture she did not inherit from William IV the Kingdom of Hanover.
Hanover practised semi salic also known as agnatic primogeniture whereby the male line must be extinct before a female may succeeed. Thus William IV's younger brother, the Duke of Cumberland, became King Ernst of Hanover as well as heir presumptive to his niece, the new Queen Victoria.
Mr. Pubgoer, I'm afraid I'm rather ignorant of Ancient Egypt and can't answer that. It would not surprise me, some Greeks got similar astronomical calculations more or less correct.
Did you know the Ancient Greeks had steam power? They just used it for making toys, though.
Edit: Yes, you were. Linkage en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
He was Greek
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
Edit @GeoffM has beaten me to it.
http://www.gresham.ac.uk/making-the-weather-six-politicians-who-shaped-our-age
While British citizens can vote in local, European and Dáil (Seanad while it exists / applies) elections they do not get a vote in the Presidential election (or in referendums). Presumably because there would be no reciprocation
Edited extra bit:
F1: I'll put up an early discussion piece for Hungary tomorrow. Because we lost, er, somewhere (New Jersey?) from the calendar it's in rather isolated. The last race was 3 weeks before it, the next race will be 4 weeks after it.
Re: Royal Birth:
With just 4.5 hrs to go before tomorrow becomes today, Corals' current 5/2 odds on the Royal baby being born tomorrow, 23 July, compared with its 1/3 odds on it being born today look distinctly out of kilter imo.
DYOR
Anyway the coverage reminds me of the "Panda Watch" bit in "Anchorman"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjT2afb78Y0
Henry VIII also provides fun and games. Both Mary and Elizabeth were at various times heir, delegitimised and restored. Both, however, were surpassed in the pecking order by Edward VI but then they went on to reign so don't count for Jack's list.
One that does, I think, is the Duke of York who was heir presumptive under George IV who had no surviving issue at the time.
We ought also to mention Sophia, Electress of Hanover, on whom the crown was settled in the event of Anne dying childless. She died, however, a few months before Anne so her son George I became king instead (had Anne died slightly earlier, Sophia would have been Britain's oldest monarch until Elizabeth II, and by far the oldest to ascend the throne).
Don't do logic do you?
A theory proven to be wrong is unpopular.
Therefore an unpopular theory is proven to be wrong.
Don't think so.
He was from Cyrene so Libyan. Sort of. A Greek-Libyan if you like. You weren't far out with Egyptian.
A theory becomes "popular" when more and more scientists working in the field examine the evidence and find that it supports the theory, and other competing theories are undermined by the evidence.
Anyway, like all true believers / conspiracy theorists, those who deny the science on this will never be convinced, so there's little point carrying on. Has that baby been born yet?
Experienced French mountainbiker caused a stir on Saturday. Apparently he,d spent 6 months preparing a stunt. At the moment Froomy and Co passed him on the road he would jump with the mountainbike over the heads of the riders. Luckily it went well as you can see in the following film
http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/9091/Time-out/article/detail/1673328/2013/07/22/Waaghals-zoeft-over-hoofd-van-Froome-co.dhtml
No, you don't do logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippasus
As Andrew Neil observed:
'This [criticism of the interview] was neatly summed up in a Guardian blog by Dana Nuccitelli, who works for a multi-billion dollar US environmental business (Tetra Tech) and writes prodigiously about global warming and related matters from a very distinct perspective."
The Duke of York was heir presumptive to his brother George IV from 1820 until his death in 1827.
Sophia the Dowager Electress of Hanover was heir presumptive from the Act of Settlement in 1701 until her death in 1714.
Anne's son, the Duke of Gloucester, died in 1700 and so predeceased not only his mother but also King William III and thus was only ever second in line.
http://youtu.be/fUspLVStPbk
People think of Sophia as Electress of Hannover but of course she was also a daughter of Frederick V, Elector Palatine and briefly king of Bohemia. And probably the man who started the 30 Years War. She was therefore the younger sister of Prince Rupert of the Rhine.
Rupert died in 1682 without legitimate heir, but had he married earlier we might be ruled by a line of Wittelsbachs.
Morris - I trust your cheque's in the post.
You've got theory A, in this case effectively that human induced CO2 emissions are warming and changing the climate.
You've got theories X,Y and Z that are effectively contrary (in this case, no warming, CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, the Earth is flat which makes it heat up when the massive heater on the moon is pointed at it, and so on)
Lots of scientists have examined the hard evidence and found that it supports theory A, but undermines X,Y and Z. This is why theory A is "popular", and X,Y and Z are not.
Therefore, the "popularity" of theory A does, indeed, suggest that there is lots of evidence supporting it (in other words, it is robust / likely to be correct).
It's the same with any "popular" scientific theory you care to name, from quantum theory to evolutionary theory.
Has that baby been born yet?
The fundamental role of the Royal family is to represent stability and mediocrity. The present Queen, bless her, does that very well, by insight or by taking advice.
This feature neatly counterbalances our really rather remarkable toleration of eccentrics, who have fueled and propelled progress, especially, but by no means exclusively, technical and scientific.
I worry, though, that this balance is now being upset by invasive bureaucracy that produces nothing and limits our freedoms.
Just rambling.
Elizabeth Electress Palatine daughter of James I/VI was heir presumptive to her brother Charles I from his accession in 1625 until his son Prince Charles was born in 1630.
"examined the hard evidence and found that it supports"
Note that you haven't used the word "proved", quite rightly in my opinion.
Surely we need to remain sceptic and to keep challenging the hypothesis.
Unfortunately the transition from small (quantum) systems to macroscopic (classical) systems is more or less continuous. So at what point do the measurements become unreliable and fuzzy? For we live in a universe with objects of all sizes.
I'm I right in thinking there's a team of researchers confident of performing the double-slit experiment (which shows things being in two places at once) on a living organism, a virus, in the not-too distant future?
We're looking for first in line heir apparent/presumptive who never succeeded to the throne. Thus clearly James II/VII is disqualified.
.........................................................
Moving on to the 18th century ....
Edward Duke of York was heir presumptive to his elder brother the newly ascended George III from 1760 until the arrival of the latters first son Prince George in 1762.
At a basic level you are right, but AIUI the scientific process is more complex and sadly less pure than that.
If the funding is with theory A, then you will get most of the research into theory A and not the competing theories. What is more, human nature dictates that a scientist who believes theory A is correct (especially if he has written papers in it and/or gets funding for it) is likely to dismiss rival theories. This happens a great deal, and science can apparently be very nasty.
There is also the unthinking and thinking tendency to design research to get the answer you want or expect.
Like or loathe them, some of the climate sceptics (or even believers) have found holes in the published AGW science data and methodologies, although most of these have not effected the results much.
I had a lecturer at QMW who developed some key evidence in favour of the plate tectonics theory from aquifer boreholes. It took them many years to convince the scientific establishment that continental drift had, and was, occurring. If it had not been for military research into other areas, it may have taken years longer.
A good maxim to go by is: "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof". But it also goes for both sides of the AGW discussion.
8 pounds 6 oz
can be in two places at the same time, but only that it is where one *measures it to be*, which
will be at one slit or the other with a certain probability.
Certainly viruses are small and may be rather quantum probabilistic in their behaviour.
http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/06/22/a-guessing-game-name-the-royal-baby/
The potential heirs of Elizabeth I are a nightmare .... but fortunately us Scots sorted the mess out !!
Text from George Osborne: "It's a baby!" Absolute moron. #RoyalBaby
doesn't seem to be able to find a single English person in the crowd outside the hospital...
Babs Windsor has already been signed up to be a member of Unite and yet Ed Miliband has called for a judge-led public enquiry as to why this cynical news-stunt was timed to co-ordinate with his important speech on union funding changes for Labour.
Blinking conservative monarchists!
Henry V is one - he died before he could inherit the throne of France - that would have been interesting.
Edit: Scar was heir presumptive until the heir apparent Simba was born.
Time to raise a glass.
@govgg "Congratulations to the Duchess of Cambridge and the Prince of Wales on the birth of their baby boy."
https://mobile.twitter.com/GaryBurgessITV/status/359401761326379009/photo/1
Hoping for Prince Peter to weigh in at 250/1...
Here's a Henry VIII double ....
In 1511 and 1514 Catherine of Aragon gave birth to a son that both lived for a month and that were both heir apparent, named Henry and titled Duke of Cornwall.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/23414036
God Save the Queen.
And yet another period of Labour that Rex the country.
We've still got YouGov to go!
1558-68: Catherine Grey (Jane Grey's younger sister. Catherine's marriage was annulled in 1562, resulting in her children and line becoming illegitimate).
1568-78: Mary Grey (Catherine Grey's youngest sister)
1578-96: Margaret Stanley (Daughter of the younger daughter of Mary Tudor)
1596-1603: Anne Stanley (Granddaughter of the above; her father having predeceased her grandmother).
So, first time since early 1901 that four generations of monarch/heir presumptives are alive at once?
that's a shame, he's one of their best batsmen.
On Sirotkin, he's acknowledge he may be too young but doesn't feel he could pass up the (currently theoretical) chance of a seat in F1.
Peloton means 'firing squad' in German.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Peloton
Edited extra bit: although my German A-level did teach me useful terms like die Peitsche (whip) and Molotow Cocktails, I learnt this one recently whilst researching German words starting with Pel- for a river name (for lore reasons).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfZqZlUN1qE
For unto us a son is born.
cycle racing the main field of riders in a road race
[C20: French, literally: pack]
The only other potential candidate is Francis Duchess of Suffolk who was the eldest daughter of Henry VIII's sister Mary and was heir presumptive for I think some months after Queen Elizabeth succeeded until Francis died in 1559.
Some might dispute her claim as she renounced her claim in favour of Queen Jane Grey but might be considered reinstated after the latters execution.