The SNP arguably then gets the most rightwing main party leader in the UK.
Forbes is anti abortion, a member of an anti homosexual marriage church and anti Sturgeon's gender recognition bill and reported in the weekend press to be ready to dump the deal Sturgeon did with the Greens to shift to a more low tax, pro business, low spend agenda
The Savanta ComRes poll found that 44 per cent of voters would like to hear less from Mr Johnson, while just 21 per cent would like to hear more from him. About 54 per cent of the public think the former Tory PM should leave Parliament, while 36 per cent want him to remain an MP.
The same poll revealed even greater fatigue towards Liz Truss. About 55 percent of voters want to hear less from Liz Truss and 65 percent want her to step down as MP.
The Savanta ComRes survey of 2,201 adults was conducted between February 10th and 12th...
Do we really need a poll to tell us that most people want Johnson to stfu?
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
When you become King there’s some sort of mitochlorian empowers you with The Force. Or something.
You jest. But isn't that basically what anointment is?
Taking that to its logical extreme Charles isn’t King yet and Edward VIII never was. Nor are the European monarchs in countries where they don’t do anointment anymore. HYUFD says it’s all about “blood”.
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
In terms of the monarch the next closest relative, normally the eldest son, if no eldest son the eldest daughter. If the monarch died childless normally a first or second cousin
So Saudi and the Gulf monarchies are not Kingdoms?
King Salman of Saudi Arabia is son of the first King of Saudi Arabia
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
When you become King there’s some sort of mitochlorian empowers you with The Force. Or something.
You jest. But isn't that basically what anointment is?
Taking that to its logical extreme Charles isn’t King yet and Edward VIII never was. Nor are the European monarchs in countries where they don’t do anointment anymore. HYUFD says it’s all about “blood”.
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
In terms of the monarch the next closest relative, normally the eldest son, if no eldest son the eldest daughter. If the monarch died childless normally a first or second cousin
So Saudi and the Gulf monarchies are not Kingdoms?
King Salman of Saudi Arabia is son of the first King of Saudi Arabia
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
When you become King there’s some sort of mitochlorian empowers you with The Force. Or something.
You jest. But isn't that basically what anointment is?
In one of his Discworld novels, Terry Pratchett explains that monarchy is the one thing that travels faster than light.
These are the notes President Carter handed me after I met him at a $MRK event to celebrate the company's collaboration with the Carter Center to end river blindness. A thread... ...In 1987 Merck's CEO, Roy Vagelos, came to visit Carter with an offer.
Merck's Mectizan (ivermectin) could treat river blindness, a serious parasitic condition. If Carter could get the drug where it needed to be, Merck would donate it. Here's a picture of the two of them...
Note the date. Reagan was President at the time.
When I was first teaching US politics, ten years ago, I said my personal view was that Carter was a very poor president, admittedly partly due to bad luck. I also said that since 1980 he had probably done more good than any other single human being on the planet.
Nothing I have seen or heard since has led me to change my views on either point.
I've re-assessed my view of his presidency up quite a bit in the last few decades. I think he had a decidedly mixed record (agreed that's to an extent a matter of circumstance), but I don't think it "very poor".
His biggest fault was failing to get re-elected.
Well, perhaps.
He was very much a victim of circumstances.
But:
The foreign policy initiatives - Camp David, Salt II, China - were not fruitless, but they didn't achieve what he hoped for. Meanwhile funding the mujahideen and Eagle Claw were undoubtedly disasters.
Domestically, he was unable to sort out the economic problems. OK, so that was partly due to the oil shock, but that's what he would be judged on. Reagan's slogan 'a recession is when your neighbour loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. A recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his,' was not the less devastating for being somewhat unfair...
The Savanta ComRes poll found that 44 per cent of voters would like to hear less from Mr Johnson, while just 21 per cent would like to hear more from him. About 54 per cent of the public think the former Tory PM should leave Parliament, while 36 per cent want him to remain an MP.
The same poll revealed even greater fatigue towards Liz Truss. About 55 percent of voters want to hear less from Liz Truss and 65 percent want her to step down as MP.
The Savanta ComRes survey of 2,201 adults was conducted between February 10th and 12th...
Do we really need a poll to tell us that most people want Johnson to stfu?
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
In terms of the monarch the next closest relative, normally the eldest son, if no eldest son the eldest daughter. If the monarch died childless normally a first or second cousin
On that note: TIL (from Wikipedia) that *no* medieval-or-later monarchy had absolute primogeniture until 1980. They were all either patri- or (occasionally) matri-lineal primogeniture as per HYUFD's outline, there.
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
In terms of the monarch the next closest relative, normally the eldest son, if no eldest son the eldest daughter. If the monarch died childless normally a first or second cousin
So Saudi and the Gulf monarchies are not Kingdoms?
King Salman of Saudi Arabia is son of the first King of Saudi Arabia
25th son
The first King of Saudi Arabia's eldest son succeeded him as the second King, Saud, after his elder brother had been killed.
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
When you become King there’s some sort of mitochlorian empowers you with The Force. Or something.
You jest. But isn't that basically what anointment is?
Taking that to its logical extreme Charles isn’t King yet and Edward VIII never was. Nor are the European monarchs in countries where they don’t do anointment anymore. HYUFD says it’s all about “blood”.
Yes, all the European monarchies are hereditary
Really? The Vatican hereditary? Huge if true. Also, if so, there’s an old guy in Bavaria who is the legitimate monarch of the U.K. and we need to tell him to get back here ASAP. And what that French bunch are doing masquerading as the legitimate Royal Family of Sweden I’ve NO idea.
Ukrainian official told me: Biden arrived in Kyiv this morning and met with Zelensky and several senior ministers. The visit will end soon. A statement on new U.S. assistance to Ukraine is expected later today
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
When you become King there’s some sort of mitochlorian empowers you with The Force. Or something.
You jest. But isn't that basically what anointment is?
Taking that to its logical extreme Charles isn’t King yet and Edward VIII never was. Nor are the European monarchs in countries where they don’t do anointment anymore. HYUFD says it’s all about “blood”.
Yes, all the European monarchies are hereditary
Really? The Vatican hereditary? Huge if true. Also, if so, there’s an old guy in Bavaria who is the legitimate monarch of the U.K. and we need to tell him to get back here ASAP. And what that French bunch are doing masquerading as the legitimate Royal Family of Sweden I’ve NO idea.
Don't forget... it is ordained by GOD that the next KING is whomsoever has the ROYAL BLOOD. You can prove you have the ROYAL BLOOD by any number of mechanisms, including tactical murder, or the invitation of a cabal of powerful local thugs.
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
In terms of the monarch the next closest relative, normally the eldest son, if no eldest son the eldest daughter. If the monarch died childless normally a first or second cousin
How about GGGG.....Grandson because if so I qualify and not only qualify, but do so many, many, many times over (due to unaware (or maybe aware) incest between relatives who are so distantly related they are unaware they are related).
The thing is you do as well.
Tell you what, we can toss for it or share being king.
I know I am being silly and I know for the UK we have the Sophia of Hanover thing which stops me and I presume you as well, but it does mean we both have royal blood.
A quick bit of maths calculating how many GGGGG grandparents you have soon exceeds the population of the planet.
The significance of @POTUS visit to Kyiv today is huge. The last time the US presidents visited Ukraine was in 2008. Biden's presence is a massive show of the US support to Ukraine. First photos show him paying respects at the Wall of remembrance of 🇺🇦 soldiers killed by Russia https://mobile.twitter.com/olgatokariuk/status/1627610806899683328
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
I thought Kings acquire Royal Blood by getting the job.
Gods Anointed prove the point, by getting anointed.
I wonder how he got the Secret Service to agree to that.
Simple - he's the President. Sensible to brief beforehand that he had no intention of visiting.
When the Secret Service told Bush II, after 9/11 that he "couldn't go" to either New York of Washington - that was a moment for telling them "Me President. You not."
"In the end we're all primarily individuals" and dinner parties with Oxfordshire Tories! Are you secretly a Thatcherite 5th Columnist?
Very deep cover. I once kissed a Tory, too. What horrors await?
I’ve not just kissed a Tory, I once crashed a OUCA event and ended up having one of the filthiest liaisons of my life. If she was anything to go by, younger Conservatives have some deep issues to work through.
I once kissed a Tory MP -- she wasn't at the time either a Tory or an MP. She was a radical student. She changed....
Correlation or causation ?
Infection? On the flatworm maze running principle?
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
When you become King there’s some sort of mitochlorian empowers you with The Force. Or something.
You jest. But isn't that basically what anointment is?
Taking that to its logical extreme Charles isn’t King yet and Edward VIII never was. Nor are the European monarchs in countries where they don’t do anointment anymore. HYUFD says it’s all about “blood”.
Yes, all the European monarchies are hereditary
Really? The Vatican hereditary? Huge if true. Also, if so, there’s an old guy in Bavaria who is the legitimate monarch of the U.K. and we need to tell him to get back here ASAP. And what that French bunch are doing masquerading as the legitimate Royal Family of Sweden I’ve NO idea.
Don't forget... it is ordained by GOD that the next KING is whomsoever has the ROYAL BLOOD. You can prove you have the ROYAL BLOOD by any number of mechanisms, including tactical murder, or the invitation of a cabal of powerful local thugs.
"In the end we're all primarily individuals" and dinner parties with Oxfordshire Tories! Are you secretly a Thatcherite 5th Columnist?
Very deep cover. I once kissed a Tory, too. What horrors await?
All the "high" (not in that way) Tories, I know despise Boris and, showing that England is always England, despise equally the as they might term them "Hyacinth Buckets" who support the Conservative Party.
Just catching up on the Damian Green deselection.
Is the Conservative Party deliberately self-destructing?
I doubt they are that smart but can't claim any expert knowledge.
I wonder how he got the Secret Service to agree to that.
Simple - he's the President. Sensible to brief beforehand that he had no intention of visiting.
When the Secret Service told Bush II, after 9/11 that he "couldn't go" to either New York of Washington - that was a moment for telling them "Me President. You not."
George VI and Elizabeth came to London in the midst of the blitz.
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
When you become King there’s some sort of mitochlorian empowers you with The Force. Or something.
You jest. But isn't that basically what anointment is?
Taking that to its logical extreme Charles isn’t King yet and Edward VIII never was. Nor are the European monarchs in countries where they don’t do anointment anymore. HYUFD says it’s all about “blood”.
If it's blood it can't be the DNA, mitochondrial or otherwise, unless it's in the white cells. Or some infective virus.
I wonder how he got the Secret Service to agree to that.
Simple - he's the President. Sensible to brief beforehand that he had no intention of visiting.
When the Secret Service told Bush II, after 9/11 that he "couldn't go" to either New York of Washington - that was a moment for telling them "Me President. You not."
George VI and Elizabeth came to London in the midst of the blitz.
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
When you become King there’s some sort of mitochlorian empowers you with The Force. Or something.
You jest. But isn't that basically what anointment is?
Taking that to its logical extreme Charles isn’t King yet and Edward VIII never was. Nor are the European monarchs in countries where they don’t do anointment anymore. HYUFD says it’s all about “blood”.
Yes, all the European monarchies are hereditary
Really? The Vatican hereditary? Huge if true. Also, if so, there’s an old guy in Bavaria who is the legitimate monarch of the U.K. and we need to tell him to get back here ASAP. And what that French bunch are doing masquerading as the legitimate Royal Family of Sweden I’ve NO idea.
Don't forget... it is ordained by GOD that the next KING is whomsoever has the ROYAL BLOOD. You can prove you have the ROYAL BLOOD by any number of mechanisms, including tactical murder, or the invitation of a cabal of powerful local thugs.
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
When you become King there’s some sort of mitochlorian empowers you with The Force. Or something.
You jest. But isn't that basically what anointment is?
Taking that to its logical extreme Charles isn’t King yet and Edward VIII never was. Nor are the European monarchs in countries where they don’t do anointment anymore. HYUFD says it’s all about “blood”.
Yes, all the European monarchies are hereditary
Really? The Vatican hereditary? Huge if true. Also, if so, there’s an old guy in Bavaria who is the legitimate monarch of the U.K. and we need to tell him to get back here ASAP. And what that French bunch are doing masquerading as the legitimate Royal Family of Sweden I’ve NO idea.
Don't forget... it is ordained by GOD that the next KING is whomsoever has the ROYAL BLOOD. You can prove you have the ROYAL BLOOD by any number of mechanisms, including tactical murder, or the invitation of a cabal of powerful local thugs.
Virtually every British King or Queen has been either the son or daughter or a first or second cousin of the previous monarch
"In the end we're all primarily individuals" and dinner parties with Oxfordshire Tories! Are you secretly a Thatcherite 5th Columnist?
Very deep cover. I once kissed a Tory, too. What horrors await?
All the "high" (not in that way) Tories, I know despise Boris and, showing that England is always England, despise equally the as they might term them "Hyacinth Buckets" who support the Conservative Party.
Just catching up on the Damian Green deselection.
Is the Conservative Party deliberately self-destructing?
I doubt they are that smart but can't claim any expert knowledge.
Presumably this is down to the same type of Party Members who helped instal Johnson and then Truss?
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
When you become King there’s some sort of mitochlorian empowers you with The Force. Or something.
You jest. But isn't that basically what anointment is?
Taking that to its logical extreme Charles isn’t King yet and Edward VIII never was. Nor are the European monarchs in countries where they don’t do anointment anymore. HYUFD says it’s all about “blood”.
Yes, all the European monarchies are hereditary
Really? The Vatican hereditary? Huge if true. Also, if so, there’s an old guy in Bavaria who is the legitimate monarch of the U.K. and we need to tell him to get back here ASAP. And what that French bunch are doing masquerading as the legitimate Royal Family of Sweden I’ve NO idea.
Don't forget... it is ordained by GOD that the next KING is whomsoever has the ROYAL BLOOD. You can prove you have the ROYAL BLOOD by any number of mechanisms, including tactical murder, or the invitation of a cabal of powerful local thugs.
Virtually every British King or Queen has been either the son or daughter or a first or second cousin of the previous monarch
But you were talking about Royals all over the world.
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
When you become King there’s some sort of mitochlorian empowers you with The Force. Or something.
You jest. But isn't that basically what anointment is?
Taking that to its logical extreme Charles isn’t King yet and Edward VIII never was. Nor are the European monarchs in countries where they don’t do anointment anymore. HYUFD says it’s all about “blood”.
Yes, all the European monarchies are hereditary
Really? The Vatican hereditary? Huge if true. Also, if so, there’s an old guy in Bavaria who is the legitimate monarch of the U.K. and we need to tell him to get back here ASAP. And what that French bunch are doing masquerading as the legitimate Royal Family of Sweden I’ve NO idea.
The Pope isn't a monarch, he is head of the global Roman Catholic Church and in the line of Apostolic succession from St Peter and thus the disciples of Jesus.
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
When you become King there’s some sort of mitochlorian empowers you with The Force. Or something.
You jest. But isn't that basically what anointment is?
Taking that to its logical extreme Charles isn’t King yet and Edward VIII never was. Nor are the European monarchs in countries where they don’t do anointment anymore. HYUFD says it’s all about “blood”.
Yes, all the European monarchies are hereditary
Really? The Vatican hereditary? Huge if true. Also, if so, there’s an old guy in Bavaria who is the legitimate monarch of the U.K. and we need to tell him to get back here ASAP. And what that French bunch are doing masquerading as the legitimate Royal Family of Sweden I’ve NO idea.
The Pope isn't a monarch, he is head of the global Roman Catholic Church and in the line of Apostolic succession from St Peter and thus the disciples of Jesus.
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
When you become King there’s some sort of mitochlorian empowers you with The Force. Or something.
You jest. But isn't that basically what anointment is?
Taking that to its logical extreme Charles isn’t King yet and Edward VIII never was. Nor are the European monarchs in countries where they don’t do anointment anymore. HYUFD says it’s all about “blood”.
Yes, all the European monarchies are hereditary
Really? The Vatican hereditary? Huge if true. Also, if so, there’s an old guy in Bavaria who is the legitimate monarch of the U.K. and we need to tell him to get back here ASAP. And what that French bunch are doing masquerading as the legitimate Royal Family of Sweden I’ve NO idea.
Don't forget... it is ordained by GOD that the next KING is whomsoever has the ROYAL BLOOD. You can prove you have the ROYAL BLOOD by any number of mechanisms, including tactical murder, or the invitation of a cabal of powerful local thugs.
Virtually every British King or Queen has been either the son or daughter or a first or second cousin of the previous monarch
You appear to confuse English with British but, nevertheless, William I, Henry VII and George I were none of those things. The first two got the gig by right of conquest, the last because an Act of Parliament excluded dozens of better claimants for being Catholic. That’s nothing to do with “blood”. If Parliament amended the Act of Succession tomorrow to make me King Douglas I that would make me, a mere seal, rightfully monarch.
I wonder how he got the Secret Service to agree to that.
Simple - he's the President. Sensible to brief beforehand that he had no intention of visiting.
When the Secret Service told Bush II, after 9/11 that he "couldn't go" to either New York of Washington - that was a moment for telling them "Me President. You not."
George VI and Elizabeth came to London in the midst of the blitz.
Buck House not part of London? Huge if true.
I don't think they were in the palace after it was bombed. My father who was an ARP warden met them in their famous walkabout after the bombing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phlGssTZ3xk
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
When you become King there’s some sort of mitochlorian empowers you with The Force. Or something.
You jest. But isn't that basically what anointment is?
Taking that to its logical extreme Charles isn’t King yet and Edward VIII never was. Nor are the European monarchs in countries where they don’t do anointment anymore. HYUFD says it’s all about “blood”.
Yes, all the European monarchies are hereditary
Really? The Vatican hereditary? Huge if true. Also, if so, there’s an old guy in Bavaria who is the legitimate monarch of the U.K. and we need to tell him to get back here ASAP. And what that French bunch are doing masquerading as the legitimate Royal Family of Sweden I’ve NO idea.
Don't forget... it is ordained by GOD that the next KING is whomsoever has the ROYAL BLOOD. You can prove you have the ROYAL BLOOD by any number of mechanisms, including tactical murder, or the invitation of a cabal of powerful local thugs.
Virtually every British King or Queen has been either the son or daughter or a first or second cousin of the previous monarch
But you were talking about Royals all over the world.
Holds true for the remaining monarchies globally too.
The monarch is almost always the son or daughter or occasionally the grandchild or brother or sister or first or second cousin of the previous monarch
NY Times reporting that Biden flew in to Warsaw, landed in the middle of the night then took a train to Kiev. Only two journalists went with him.
Getting a train journey like that past the Secret Service must have have been interesting. There's a reason they prefer the President to travel by Airforce One.
All part of the globalist conspiracy against Jeremy Corbyn. We all know that America is evil, and that NATO is the oppressor here. Time for Jeremy to do another speech about how misunderstood Russia is so that the trots can call Starmer an imperialist stooge or something.
Forbes v Yousaf then - that's quite a clear choice.
If Forbes wins, Scotland will have a more rightwing FM than the UK PM and Welsh FM.
Scotland will have the most rightwing leader in the UK of any home nations government
No. When you / Labour obsessives try and categorise everyone on your own spectrum it always fails. The SNP aren't about to swing to the political right in the way you describe. They already have polices across the spectrum, but suggesting her government would try and out-shame your lot is laughable.
Forbes v Yousaf then - that's quite a clear choice.
Regan's there too
So what’s MacBeth up to @Malc? What have the three crones said to him?
It has to be Ash Regan for the SNP now. Photogenic. Human. Speaks brilliantly. Quick u turn on Trans policy. Skullsplitter Forbes would lose the coalition especially those that came to detest “red Tories” they have built the last 10 years.
"In the end we're all primarily individuals" and dinner parties with Oxfordshire Tories! Are you secretly a Thatcherite 5th Columnist?
Very deep cover. I once kissed a Tory, too. What horrors await?
All the "high" (not in that way) Tories, I know despise Boris and, showing that England is always England, despise equally the as they might term them "Hyacinth Buckets" who support the Conservative Party.
Just catching up on the Damian Green deselection.
Is the Conservative Party deliberately self-destructing?
I doubt they are that smart but can't claim any expert knowledge.
Presumably this is down to the same type of Party Members who helped instal Johnson and then Truss?
Pretty much. The inescapable problem with FPTP is that it does create very safe "donkey with a rosette" seats where party activists can choose pretty much whoever they like and be pretty sure that they will be in the next Parliament.
And, good people as many activists are, their understanding of the big political picture has always been limited. Indeed, many shouldn't be trusted with a decision more demanding than the colour scheme for the party leaflets.
Oh, for the days when Central Office could manage the candidates process with the elan and ruthless efficiency of a magician telling you to pick a card, any card you like...
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
When you become King there’s some sort of mitochlorian empowers you with The Force. Or something.
You jest. But isn't that basically what anointment is?
Taking that to its logical extreme Charles isn’t King yet and Edward VIII never was. Nor are the European monarchs in countries where they don’t do anointment anymore. HYUFD says it’s all about “blood”.
Yes, all the European monarchies are hereditary
Really? The Vatican hereditary? Huge if true. Also, if so, there’s an old guy in Bavaria who is the legitimate monarch of the U.K. and we need to tell him to get back here ASAP. And what that French bunch are doing masquerading as the legitimate Royal Family of Sweden I’ve NO idea.
Don't forget... it is ordained by GOD that the next KING is whomsoever has the ROYAL BLOOD. You can prove you have the ROYAL BLOOD by any number of mechanisms, including tactical murder, or the invitation of a cabal of powerful local thugs.
Virtually every British King or Queen has been either the son or daughter or a first or second cousin of the previous monarch
You appear to confuse English with British but, nevertheless, William I, Henry VII and George I were none of those things. The first two got the gig by right of conquest, the last because an Act of Parliament excluded dozens of better claimants for being Catholic. That’s nothing to do with “blood”. If Parliament amended the Act of Succession tomorrow to make me King Douglas I that would make me, a mere seal, rightfully monarch.
William 1 was Edward the Confessor's second cousin. George 1 was Queen Anne's second cousin too.
Even Henry VII was the 5th cousin of Richard III. So even our most distantly related successor was still a cousin of the previous monarch and far closer related than most of us are to the current King
Forbes v Yousaf then - that's quite a clear choice.
Regan's there too
So what’s MacBeth up to @Malc? What have the three crones said to him?
It has to be Ash Regan for the SNP now. Photogenic. Human. Speaks brilliantly. Quick u turn on Trans policy. Skullsplitter Forbes would lose the coalition especially those that came to detest “red Tories” they have built the last 10 years.
Wouldn't she be called a TERF now... watch the fireworks on that one.
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
When you become King there’s some sort of mitochlorian empowers you with The Force. Or something.
You jest. But isn't that basically what anointment is?
Taking that to its logical extreme Charles isn’t King yet and Edward VIII never was. Nor are the European monarchs in countries where they don’t do anointment anymore. HYUFD says it’s all about “blood”.
Yes, all the European monarchies are hereditary
Really? The Vatican hereditary? Huge if true. Also, if so, there’s an old guy in Bavaria who is the legitimate monarch of the U.K. and we need to tell him to get back here ASAP. And what that French bunch are doing masquerading as the legitimate Royal Family of Sweden I’ve NO idea.
Don't forget... it is ordained by GOD that the next KING is whomsoever has the ROYAL BLOOD. You can prove you have the ROYAL BLOOD by any number of mechanisms, including tactical murder, or the invitation of a cabal of powerful local thugs.
Virtually every British King or Queen has been either the son or daughter or a first or second cousin of the previous monarch
Indeed - there is always some kind of "bloodline" justification (even when it is "cousins" - the weasel word that covers any arbitrary relationship) - but those cases are almost always accompanied by some kind of threat of assassination, murder, civil war (e.g. William I, Stephen, Henry VII, William III), or some tortuous pseudo-legal settlement to deal with long standing conflict (e.g. Henry II, George I).
NY Times reporting that Biden flew in to Warsaw, landed in the middle of the night then took a train to Kiev. Only two journalists went with him.
Getting a train journey like that past the Secret Service must have have been interesting. There's a reason they prefer the President to travel by Airforce One.
There will definitely be a good story to tell about this one. An awful lot of protocol would have been torn up, in order to make it happen. A real skeleton crew of security, with no vehicles, going by train into a foreign country that’s under attack.
Usually he goes from his plane, to his helicopter, to his car, which travels in his convoy - with everything under the control of the Secret Service, following weeks of planning and logistics. It’s been an insanely complex operation to move the President anywhere, since Kennedy and then Reagan were shot.
"In the end we're all primarily individuals" and dinner parties with Oxfordshire Tories! Are you secretly a Thatcherite 5th Columnist?
Very deep cover. I once kissed a Tory, too. What horrors await?
All the "high" (not in that way) Tories, I know despise Boris and, showing that England is always England, despise equally the as they might term them "Hyacinth Buckets" who support the Conservative Party.
Just catching up on the Damian Green deselection.
Is the Conservative Party deliberately self-destructing?
I doubt they are that smart but can't claim any expert knowledge.
Presumably this is down to the same type of Party Members who helped instal Johnson and then Truss?
Pretty much. The inescapable problem with FPTP is that it does create very safe "donkey with a rosette" seats where party activists can choose pretty much whoever they like and be pretty sure that they will be in the next Parliament.
And, good people as many activists are, their understanding of the big political picture has always been limited. Indeed, many shouldn't be trusted with a decision more demanding than the colour scheme for the party leaflets.
Oh, for the days when Central Office could manage the candidates process with the elan and ruthless efficiency of a magician telling you to pick a card, any card you like...
You're suggesting that party activists should be allowed to pick the colour scheme for leaflets?
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
When you become King there’s some sort of mitochlorian empowers you with The Force. Or something.
You jest. But isn't that basically what anointment is?
Taking that to its logical extreme Charles isn’t King yet and Edward VIII never was. Nor are the European monarchs in countries where they don’t do anointment anymore. HYUFD says it’s all about “blood”.
Yes, all the European monarchies are hereditary
Really? The Vatican hereditary? Huge if true. Also, if so, there’s an old guy in Bavaria who is the legitimate monarch of the U.K. and we need to tell him to get back here ASAP. And what that French bunch are doing masquerading as the legitimate Royal Family of Sweden I’ve NO idea.
Don't forget... it is ordained by GOD that the next KING is whomsoever has the ROYAL BLOOD. You can prove you have the ROYAL BLOOD by any number of mechanisms, including tactical murder, or the invitation of a cabal of powerful local thugs.
Virtually every British King or Queen has been either the son or daughter or a first or second cousin of the previous monarch
You appear to confuse English with British but, nevertheless, William I, Henry VII and George I were none of those things. The first two got the gig by right of conquest, the last because an Act of Parliament excluded dozens of better claimants for being Catholic. That’s nothing to do with “blood”. If Parliament amended the Act of Succession tomorrow to make me King Douglas I that would make me, a mere seal, rightfully monarch.
Forbes v Yousaf then - that's quite a clear choice.
If Forbes wins, Scotland will have a more rightwing FM than the UK PM and Welsh FM.
Scotland will have the most rightwing leader in the UK of any home nations government
No. When you / Labour obsessives try and categorise everyone on your own spectrum it always fails. The SNP aren't about to swing to the political right in the way you describe. They already have polices across the spectrum, but suggesting her government would try and out-shame your lot is laughable.
A Forbes leadership would be very good for the Scottish Greens as it would likely push the middle-class, progressive wing of the SNP over the edge.
What makes Scottish politics a lot more interesting now potentially is that you have two major dividing lines, not one - Nationalist v Unionist, Progressive v Non-Progressive
"In the end we're all primarily individuals" and dinner parties with Oxfordshire Tories! Are you secretly a Thatcherite 5th Columnist?
Very deep cover. I once kissed a Tory, too. What horrors await?
All the "high" (not in that way) Tories, I know despise Boris and, showing that England is always England, despise equally the as they might term them "Hyacinth Buckets" who support the Conservative Party.
Just catching up on the Damian Green deselection.
Is the Conservative Party deliberately self-destructing?
I doubt they are that smart but can't claim any expert knowledge.
Presumably this is down to the same type of Party Members who helped instal Johnson and then Truss?
Pretty much. The inescapable problem with FPTP is that it does create very safe "donkey with a rosette" seats where party activists can choose pretty much whoever they like and be pretty sure that they will be in the next Parliament.
And, good people as many activists are, their understanding of the big political picture has always been limited. Indeed, many shouldn't be trusted with a decision more demanding than the colour scheme for the party leaflets.
Oh, for the days when Central Office could manage the candidates process with the elan and ruthless efficiency of a magician telling you to pick a card, any card you like...
You're suggesting that party activists should be allowed to pick the colour scheme for leaflets?
"The Horror.... The Horror...."
I don't think *anyone* can have been suggesting that.
Forbes v Yousaf then - that's quite a clear choice.
If Forbes wins, Scotland will have a more rightwing FM than the UK PM and Welsh FM.
Scotland will have the most rightwing leader in the UK of any home nations government
No. When you / Labour obsessives try and categorise everyone on your own spectrum it always fails. The SNP aren't about to swing to the political right in the way you describe. They already have polices across the spectrum, but suggesting her government would try and out-shame your lot is laughable.
Forbes is anti abortion unlike Sunak and belongs to an anti homosexual marriage church unlike Sunak.
Forbes is also arguably more pro tax cuts than Sunak too
NY Times reporting that Biden flew in to Warsaw, landed in the middle of the night then took a train to Kiev. Only two journalists went with him.
Getting a train journey like that past the Secret Service must have have been interesting. There's a reason they prefer the President to travel by Airforce One.
On the other hand. It's a move so unlikely that it couldn't have been anticipated. The sort of intelligence, that if it leaked, would most likely be instantly dismissed as fanciful black ops.
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
When you become King there’s some sort of mitochlorian empowers you with The Force. Or something.
You jest. But isn't that basically what anointment is?
Taking that to its logical extreme Charles isn’t King yet and Edward VIII never was. Nor are the European monarchs in countries where they don’t do anointment anymore. HYUFD says it’s all about “blood”.
Yes, all the European monarchies are hereditary
Really? The Vatican hereditary? Huge if true. Also, if so, there’s an old guy in Bavaria who is the legitimate monarch of the U.K. and we need to tell him to get back here ASAP. And what that French bunch are doing masquerading as the legitimate Royal Family of Sweden I’ve NO idea.
Don't forget... it is ordained by GOD that the next KING is whomsoever has the ROYAL BLOOD. You can prove you have the ROYAL BLOOD by any number of mechanisms, including tactical murder, or the invitation of a cabal of powerful local thugs.
Virtually every British King or Queen has been either the son or daughter or a first or second cousin of the previous monarch
You appear to confuse English with British but, nevertheless, William I, Henry VII and George I were none of those things. The first two got the gig by right of conquest, the last because an Act of Parliament excluded dozens of better claimants for being Catholic. That’s nothing to do with “blood”. If Parliament amended the Act of Succession tomorrow to make me King Douglas I that would make me, a mere seal, rightfully monarch.
Forbes v Yousaf then - that's quite a clear choice.
If Forbes wins, Scotland will have a more rightwing FM than the UK PM and Welsh FM.
Scotland will have the most rightwing leader in the UK of any home nations government
No. When you / Labour obsessives try and categorise everyone on your own spectrum it always fails. The SNP aren't about to swing to the political right in the way you describe. They already have polices across the spectrum, but suggesting her government would try and out-shame your lot is laughable.
A Forbes leadership would be very good for the Scottish Greens as it would likely push the middle-class, progressive wing of the SNP over the edge.
What makes Scottish politics a lot more interesting now potentially is that you have two major dividing lines, not one - Nationalist v Unionist, Progressive v Non-Progressive
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
When you become King there’s some sort of mitochlorian empowers you with The Force. Or something.
You jest. But isn't that basically what anointment is?
Taking that to its logical extreme Charles isn’t King yet and Edward VIII never was. Nor are the European monarchs in countries where they don’t do anointment anymore. HYUFD says it’s all about “blood”.
Yes, all the European monarchies are hereditary
Really? The Vatican hereditary? Huge if true. Also, if so, there’s an old guy in Bavaria who is the legitimate monarch of the U.K. and we need to tell him to get back here ASAP. And what that French bunch are doing masquerading as the legitimate Royal Family of Sweden I’ve NO idea.
Don't forget... it is ordained by GOD that the next KING is whomsoever has the ROYAL BLOOD. You can prove you have the ROYAL BLOOD by any number of mechanisms, including tactical murder, or the invitation of a cabal of powerful local thugs.
Virtually every British King or Queen has been either the son or daughter or a first or second cousin of the previous monarch
You appear to confuse English with British but, nevertheless, William I, Henry VII and George I were none of those things. The first two got the gig by right of conquest, the last because an Act of Parliament excluded dozens of better claimants for being Catholic. That’s nothing to do with “blood”. If Parliament amended the Act of Succession tomorrow to make me King Douglas I that would make me, a mere seal, rightfully monarch.
Forbes v Yousaf then - that's quite a clear choice.
If Forbes wins, Scotland will have a more rightwing FM than the UK PM and Welsh FM.
Scotland will have the most rightwing leader in the UK of any home nations government
No. When you / Labour obsessives try and categorise everyone on your own spectrum it always fails. The SNP aren't about to swing to the political right in the way you describe. They already have polices across the spectrum, but suggesting her government would try and out-shame your lot is laughable.
A Forbes leadership would be very good for the Scottish Greens as it would likely push the middle-class, progressive wing of the SNP over the edge.
What makes Scottish politics a lot more interesting now potentially is that you have two major dividing lines, not one - Nationalist v Unionist, Progressive v Non-Progressive
tbf it has always been like that - it's just that the two aren't independent. The Argand Diagram of policy shows that well. Left wingers tend to be more devolutionist at least. The right wingers have always beem much more likely to be Unionist, and conversely their mutial unionism has led to an assimilation: Slab are generally more right wing than the SNP because they're trying for the Tory vote. See Ian Murray.
Forbes v Yousaf then - that's quite a clear choice.
If Forbes wins, Scotland will have a more rightwing FM than the UK PM and Welsh FM.
Scotland will have the most rightwing leader in the UK of any home nations government
You KEEP assuming that Forbes views on public policy are the same as her church's. What is the evidence?
Do you assume the same about Humza Yousaf?
The legitimate point here is that while the major religions are all broad churches (!), various sub groups within them have well defined views. Which are of interest and concern the voters.
Being a Christian, Jew, Muslim or Hindu isn't an issue.
Membership of various denominations within those religions is rightfully a matter of debate for political candidates.
If a putative political leader is a member of Opus Dei, for example, that would be a legitimate issue for many. Due to their clear, well articulated and devout beliefs on certain issues.
NY Times reporting that Biden flew in to Warsaw, landed in the middle of the night then took a train to Kiev. Only two journalists went with him.
Getting a train journey like that past the Secret Service must have have been interesting. There's a reason they prefer the President to travel by Airforce One.
On the other hand. It's a move so unlikely that it couldn't have been anticipated. The sort of intelligence, that if it leaked, would most likely be instantly dismissed as fanciful black ops.
The date could.
A day of commemoration, reflection & prayer
20 Feb, 2014 marks the deadliest day of the Euromaidan protests: 48 protesters killed.
Overall, over 100 people lost their lives in the Euromaidan Revolution.
Data nearly 5 years old, but nevertheless a thought-provoking map:
Focaldata/UnHerd 2018
Good to see we now live in the 6th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK. So we are now living with the top 1% of UK monarchy supporters
Might help explain why you think Francoism is the way forward.
No, Spain was a republic under Franco.
He just agreed to restore constitutional monarchy before he died
That’s completely wrong. Spain was from 1947 until 1975 a Kingdom without a king- similar to the way Horthy was Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary in the absence of a recognised monarch. On 26 July 1947, Spain was declared a kingdom, but no monarch was designated until 1969 Franco when made Juan Carlos of Bourbon his official heir-apparent. With the death of Franco on 20 November 1975, Juan Carlos became the King of Spain.
Franco was head of state of Spain from 1936 to 1975.
Franco declared the state a Kingdom in 1947. He was effectively Regent.
Your reply is intellectually shallow. Plenty of Kingdoms have kings without “royal blood” -
-England when William I (Norman Duke) took over; -Sweden when Bernadotte (French General) took over; -various Bonapartist kingdoms (brothers of French General) - the ancient Roman Kingdom the kings were elected by the Roman assemblies; - in Ireland succession was determined by an elective system based on patrilineal relationship known as tanistry; - the King of Bohemia was elected by the Estates of Lands of the Bohemian Crown; - The Holy Roman Empire was elective
I could go on…
Still, this is all wasted, because you’re never wrong are you?
He could declare it but it was not a Kingdon, Franco had no royal blood and the King was not Head of State so he was not regent either. He was dictator.
William I had royal blood, he was Edward the Confessor's cousin once removed. The Holy Roman Emperors had royal blood, either Spanish or German.
The Roman and Bonapartist Emperors were more heads of Empires than Kings with royal blood.
The Kings of Bohemia were still hereditary
Ok I'm now going to pontificate on something I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop many on PB.
How do you define Royal Blood? Because of the wonders of the power of two we are all descendents of Royals, multiple times over. Sadly most of us can't prove it, but it is still true.
In terms of the monarch the next closest relative, normally the eldest son, if no eldest son the eldest daughter. If the monarch died childless normally a first or second cousin
How about GGGG.....Grandson because if so I qualify and not only qualify, but do so many, many, many times over (due to unaware (or maybe aware) incest between relatives who are so distantly related they are unaware they are related).
The thing is you do as well.
Tell you what, we can toss for it or share being king.
I know I am being silly and I know for the UK we have the Sophia of Hanover thing which stops me and I presume you as well, but it does mean we both have royal blood.
A quick bit of maths calculating how many GGGGG grandparents you have soon exceeds the population of the planet.
It’s quite amusing to read on some genealogical websites about people claiming descent from Alfred the great or similar. Adequate records, just don’t exist!
Forbes v Yousaf then - that's quite a clear choice.
If Forbes wins, Scotland will have a more rightwing FM than the UK PM and Welsh FM.
Scotland will have the most rightwing leader in the UK of any home nations government
No. When you / Labour obsessives try and categorise everyone on your own spectrum it always fails. The SNP aren't about to swing to the political right in the way you describe. They already have polices across the spectrum, but suggesting her government would try and out-shame your lot is laughable.
Forbes is anti abortion unlike Sunak and belongs to an anti homosexual marriage church unlike Sunak.
Forbes is also arguably more pro tax cuts than Sunak too
Any chance she could head the UK Conservatives ? They could do with someone in charge who's an actual conservative.
NY Times reporting that Biden flew in to Warsaw, landed in the middle of the night then took a train to Kiev. Only two journalists went with him.
Getting a train journey like that past the Secret Service must have have been interesting. There's a reason they prefer the President to travel by Airforce One.
There will definitely be a good story to tell about this one. An awful lot of protocol would have been torn up, in order to make it happen. A real skeleton crew of security, with no vehicles, going by train into a foreign country that’s under attack.
Usually he goes from his plane, to his helicopter, to his car, which travels in his convoy - with everything under the control of the Secret Service, following weeks of planning and logistics. It’s been an insanely complex operation to move the President anywhere, since Kennedy and then Reagan were shot.
I would be very surprised if there wasn't a significant US special forces presence in Ukraine for the duration of the visit, with further forces in Poland at a moment's notice to head in.
I am today launching my bid to become Scotland's next First Minister, with the vision, experience and competence to inspire voters across Scotland. #Forbes4FM
Forbes v Yousaf then - that's quite a clear choice.
If Forbes wins, Scotland will have a more rightwing FM than the UK PM and Welsh FM.
Scotland will have the most rightwing leader in the UK of any home nations government
No. When you / Labour obsessives try and categorise everyone on your own spectrum it always fails. The SNP aren't about to swing to the political right in the way you describe. They already have polices across the spectrum, but suggesting her government would try and out-shame your lot is laughable.
Forbes is anti abortion unlike Sunak and belongs to an anti homosexual marriage church unlike Sunak.
Forbes is also arguably more pro tax cuts than Sunak too
It is clear to me that Kate Forbes is the potential First Minister for Scotland that Brit Nat unionists most fear. I doubt that the nature of her religious affiliation will prove fatal (Ian Blackford is apparently a member of the same church) as I will be surprised if she does not have an acceptable response available e.g. she will not be imposing her religious views on anyone else and if a vote on abortion or whatever she will allow a free vote.
Biden making the big speech in Kyiv is positive for my Biden heavy 2024 book I think.
There is a natural bias on this site to take every event like this as a 'gotcha' moment for Biden / against Trump. Then, when we look in hindsight, it turns out it didn't really impact at all or went tits up (anyone talking about the document finds anymore?)
The simple fact is that, for all his supposedly amazing acts, Biden still has fairly substantial net negative ratings and - on average - net level with Trump in the PV.
Comments
The SNP arguably then gets the most rightwing main party leader in the UK.
Forbes is anti abortion, a member of an anti homosexual marriage church and anti Sturgeon's gender recognition bill and reported in the weekend press to be ready to dump the deal Sturgeon did with the Greens to shift to a more low tax, pro business, low spend agenda
There’s going to one hell of a story to tell, about how Biden just turned up in the middle of Kiev.
A lot of people will be way outside their comfort zone at the moment!
I'm going to have to raise my game.
Much of what you've heard about Carter and Reagan is wrong
https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/much-of-what-youve-heard-about-carter
So all were sons of the King, not even cousins
https://twitter.com/BarakRavid/status/1627610298629730304?s=20
He's on team "continuity Sturgeon".
https://twitter.com/myroslavapetsa/status/1627611324111880192?s=20
http://data.spectator.co.uk
https://twitter.com/Simmons__/status/1627613086394851330?s=20
… and not just electorally.
The thing is you do as well.
Tell you what, we can toss for it or share being king.
I know I am being silly and I know for the UK we have the Sophia of Hanover thing which stops me and I presume you as well, but it does mean we both have royal blood.
A quick bit of maths calculating how many GGGGG grandparents you have soon exceeds the population of the planet.
BREAKING: Holyrood Finance Secretary Kate Forbes WILL stand to replace Nicola Sturgeon - as bookies' favourite Angus Robertson rules himself out
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1627609284832907264?s=20
https://mobile.twitter.com/olgatokariuk/status/1627610806899683328
I'd read on here that Biden was too old to construct a coherent sentence, let alone travel all the way to Kyiv.
Follow the latest here: https://trib.al/N9xqPyD
📺 Sky 501, Virgin 602, Freeview 233 and YouTube
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1627615365722255361?s=20
Gods Anointed prove the point, by getting anointed.
So far he’s done a decent job.
Always underestimated.
It's his greatest strength.
Scotland will have the most rightwing leader in the UK of any home nations government
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phlGssTZ3xk
The monarch is almost always the son or daughter or occasionally the grandchild or brother or sister or first or second cousin of the previous monarch
It has to be Ash Regan for the SNP now. Photogenic. Human. Speaks brilliantly. Quick u turn on Trans policy. Skullsplitter Forbes would lose the coalition especially those that came to detest “red Tories” they have built the last 10 years.
Do you assume the same about Humza Yousaf?
And, good people as many activists are, their understanding of the big political picture has always been limited. Indeed, many shouldn't be trusted with a decision more demanding than the colour scheme for the party leaflets.
Oh, for the days when Central Office could manage the candidates process with the elan and ruthless efficiency of a magician telling you to pick a card, any card you like...
Even Henry VII was the 5th cousin of Richard III. So even our most distantly related successor was still a cousin of the previous monarch and far closer related than most of us are to the current King
Usually he goes from his plane, to his helicopter, to his car, which travels in his convoy - with everything under the control of the Secret Service, following weeks of planning and logistics. It’s been an insanely complex operation to move the President anywhere, since Kennedy and then Reagan were shot.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1627622552452431872?s=20
"The Horror.... The Horror...."
What makes Scottish politics a lot more interesting now potentially is that you have two major dividing lines, not one - Nationalist v Unionist, Progressive v Non-Progressive
Forbes is also arguably more pro tax cuts than Sunak too
Ms Forbes is to cut short her maternity leave to take part in the contest to replace Ms Sturgeon as first minister.
Health Secretary Humza Yousaf and former minister Ash Regan have already confirmed they will stand.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64702474
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16280747.snp-rising-star-kate-forbes-made-pro-life-call-brian-souter-prayer-breakfast-event/
Along with Bernard Cribbins.
It's a move so unlikely that it couldn't have been anticipated.
The sort of intelligence, that if it leaked, would most likely be instantly dismissed as fanciful black ops.
Buit the correlation isn't perfect of course.
Being a Christian, Jew, Muslim or Hindu isn't an issue.
Membership of various denominations within those religions is rightfully a matter of debate for political candidates.
If a putative political leader is a member of Opus Dei, for example, that would be a legitimate issue for many. Due to their clear, well articulated and devout beliefs on certain issues.
A day of commemoration, reflection & prayer
20 Feb, 2014 marks the deadliest day of the Euromaidan protests: 48 protesters killed.
Overall, over 100 people lost their lives in the Euromaidan Revolution.
They became known as the “Heavenly Hundred”.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1627588034077118465
But the briefing beforehand, that any visit was considered way too dangerous, was pretty widespread.
Don't assume she'll blindly follow the Church teaching. As a Catholic, I'd be happy with a female Pope - as long as she's a looker.
Then a big focus on children. Interesting.
I am today launching my bid to become Scotland's next First Minister, with the vision, experience and competence to inspire voters across Scotland. #Forbes4FM
The simple fact is that, for all his supposedly amazing acts, Biden still has fairly substantial net negative ratings and - on average - net level with Trump in the PV.
https://twitter.com/_KateForbes/status/1627624249069371392?s=20
Slickly produced video - have either of the other candidates done anything similar?