Author Topic: I discovered who the actual rightful heir to the throne of England is.  (Read 221 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lana Reverse

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 938
  • Gender: Female
How successful do you think your little plan will be if you talk about it openly like this?
Beware those who hate the rich more than they love the poor.

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
  • Gender: Male
How successful do you think your little plan will be if you talk about it openly like this?

Well what if Tolpuddle Martyr founds the organization without you knowing. Then nobody will be able to stop the plan.

Offline Tolpuddle Martyr

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2924
  • Have you got thumbs? SHOW ME YOUR FUCKING THUMBS!
How successful do you think your little plan will be if you talk about it openly like this?

Well what if Tolpuddle Martyr founds the organization without you knowing. Then nobody will be able to stop the plan.
The Tolpuddle Martyr organisation has just passed a binding resolution to fart in your general direction!

Offline dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4362
You do realize that all the republican movement in Australia (which is alive and vibrant) wants to do is find a republican model of government that enough people can agree on, get it put to the people as a proposed constitutional amendment, and pass said amendment? They couldn't give a flying fuck who the "rightful heir" is (hint: the body representative of the people has spoken on that, multiple times now) and certainly don't need England's "permission" to ditch the monarchy. (For that matter, the UK could ditch the monarchy if they wanted.)
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada
Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
  • Gender: Male
You do realize that all the republican movement in Australia (which is alive and vibrant) wants to do is find a republican model of government that enough people can agree on, get it put to the people as a proposed constitutional amendment, and pass said amendment? They couldn't give a flying fuck who the "rightful heir" is (hint: the body representative of the people has spoken on that, multiple times now) and certainly don't need England's "permission" to ditch the monarchy. (For that matter, the UK could ditch the monarchy if they wanted.)

The majority of the people of Australia keep voting on staying a monarchy so a quicker way for it to become a Republic is for England to get rid of the system of having an appointed Governor General which is the main thing that Tolpuddle Martyr complained about and change it’s own monarchy, which will cause Australia to abolish it’s own monarchy since the Windsors will no longer be in power in England.

Offline dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4362
You do realize that all the republican movement in Australia (which is alive and vibrant) wants to do is find a republican model of government that enough people can agree on, get it put to the people as a proposed constitutional amendment, and pass said amendment? They couldn't give a flying fuck who the "rightful heir" is (hint: the body representative of the people has spoken on that, multiple times now) and certainly don't need England's "permission" to ditch the monarchy. (For that matter, the UK could ditch the monarchy if they wanted.)

The majority of the people of Australia keep voting on staying a monarchy so a quicker way for it to become a Republic is for England to get rid of the system of having an appointed Governor General which is the main thing that Tolpuddle Martyr complained about and change it’s own monarchy, which will cause Australia to abolish it’s own monarchy since the Windsors will no longer be in power in England.

1. They voted once on the matter and it probably failed because it had (necessarily) to be a choice between the status quo and the alternate system proposed. Finding a majority who want to ditch the monarchy is far easier than finding a majority who will agree on which alternative is best.

2. Nothing says that the other Commonwealth Realms couldn't continue to recognize the current legitimate (as per properly passed law, which you are willfully ignoring, you antidemocratic fucktard) line of succession to their thrones. They can go live permanently in any of their other realms. (This is why the Queen says "It's good to be home" when she comes to Canada or any of her other realms--she's speaking as Queen of that realm, and as such lives there; she's just not home very often.)
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada
Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
  • Gender: Male
You do realize that all the republican movement in Australia (which is alive and vibrant) wants to do is find a republican model of government that enough people can agree on, get it put to the people as a proposed constitutional amendment, and pass said amendment? They couldn't give a flying fuck who the "rightful heir" is (hint: the body representative of the people has spoken on that, multiple times now) and certainly don't need England's "permission" to ditch the monarchy. (For that matter, the UK could ditch the monarchy if they wanted.)

The majority of the people of Australia keep voting on staying a monarchy so a quicker way for it to become a Republic is for England to get rid of the system of having an appointed Governor General which is the main thing that Tolpuddle Martyr complained about and change it’s own monarchy, which will cause Australia to abolish it’s own monarchy since the Windsors will no longer be in power in England.

1. They voted once on the matter and it probably failed because it had (necessarily) to be a choice between the status quo and the alternate system proposed. Finding a majority who want to ditch the monarchy is far easier than finding a majority who will agree on which alternative is best.

2. Nothing says that the other Commonwealth Realms couldn't continue to recognize the current legitimate (as per properly passed law, which you are willfully ignoring, you antidemocratic fucktard) line of succession to their thrones. They can go live permanently in any of their other realms. (This is why the Queen says "It's good to be home" when she comes to Canada or any of her other realms--she's speaking as Queen of that realm, and as such lives there; she's just not home very often.)

Well if the Queen loses power in England, she will lose the power to appoint Governor generals, so even if Australia remains a monarchy under the Windsors, they will be free from the Windsors influence in politics.

Offline dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4362
You do realize that all the republican movement in Australia (which is alive and vibrant) wants to do is find a republican model of government that enough people can agree on, get it put to the people as a proposed constitutional amendment, and pass said amendment? They couldn't give a flying fuck who the "rightful heir" is (hint: the body representative of the people has spoken on that, multiple times now) and certainly don't need England's "permission" to ditch the monarchy. (For that matter, the UK could ditch the monarchy if they wanted.)

The majority of the people of Australia keep voting on staying a monarchy so a quicker way for it to become a Republic is for England to get rid of the system of having an appointed Governor General which is the main thing that Tolpuddle Martyr complained about and change it’s own monarchy, which will cause Australia to abolish it’s own monarchy since the Windsors will no longer be in power in England.

1. They voted once on the matter and it probably failed because it had (necessarily) to be a choice between the status quo and the alternate system proposed. Finding a majority who want to ditch the monarchy is far easier than finding a majority who will agree on which alternative is best.

2. Nothing says that the other Commonwealth Realms couldn't continue to recognize the current legitimate (as per properly passed law, which you are willfully ignoring, you antidemocratic fucktard) line of succession to their thrones. They can go live permanently in any of their other realms. (This is why the Queen says "It's good to be home" when she comes to Canada or any of her other realms--she's speaking as Queen of that realm, and as such lives there; she's just not home very often.)

Well if the Queen loses power in England, she will lose the power to appoint Governor generals, so even if Australia remains a monarchy under the Windsors, they will be free from the Windsors influence in politics.

...that's not how that works at all.

She appoints viceroys for her other realms because she's not home very often as Queen of those realms, but she appoints them as such, not as Queen of the United Kingdom. Losing her status as Queen of the United Kingdom would not, itself, in any way diminish her role in her other realms.
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada
Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
  • Gender: Male
You do realize that all the republican movement in Australia (which is alive and vibrant) wants to do is find a republican model of government that enough people can agree on, get it put to the people as a proposed constitutional amendment, and pass said amendment? They couldn't give a flying fuck who the "rightful heir" is (hint: the body representative of the people has spoken on that, multiple times now) and certainly don't need England's "permission" to ditch the monarchy. (For that matter, the UK could ditch the monarchy if they wanted.)

The majority of the people of Australia keep voting on staying a monarchy so a quicker way for it to become a Republic is for England to get rid of the system of having an appointed Governor General which is the main thing that Tolpuddle Martyr complained about and change it’s own monarchy, which will cause Australia to abolish it’s own monarchy since the Windsors will no longer be in power in England.

1. They voted once on the matter and it probably failed because it had (necessarily) to be a choice between the status quo and the alternate system proposed. Finding a majority who want to ditch the monarchy is far easier than finding a majority who will agree on which alternative is best.

2. Nothing says that the other Commonwealth Realms couldn't continue to recognize the current legitimate (as per properly passed law, which you are willfully ignoring, you antidemocratic fucktard) line of succession to their thrones. They can go live permanently in any of their other realms. (This is why the Queen says "It's good to be home" when she comes to Canada or any of her other realms--she's speaking as Queen of that realm, and as such lives there; she's just not home very often.)

Well if the Queen loses power in England, she will lose the power to appoint Governor generals, so even if Australia remains a monarchy under the Windsors, they will be free from the Windsors influence in politics.

...that's not how that works at all.

She appoints viceroys for her other realms because she's not home very often as Queen of those realms, but she appoints them as such, not as Queen of the United Kingdom. Losing her status as Queen of the United Kingdom would not, itself, in any way diminish her role in her other realms.

But the new government of England will prevent her from being able to leave the country, so it will diminish her role in the other realms.

Offline dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4362
You do realize that all the republican movement in Australia (which is alive and vibrant) wants to do is find a republican model of government that enough people can agree on, get it put to the people as a proposed constitutional amendment, and pass said amendment? They couldn't give a flying fuck who the "rightful heir" is (hint: the body representative of the people has spoken on that, multiple times now) and certainly don't need England's "permission" to ditch the monarchy. (For that matter, the UK could ditch the monarchy if they wanted.)

The majority of the people of Australia keep voting on staying a monarchy so a quicker way for it to become a Republic is for England to get rid of the system of having an appointed Governor General which is the main thing that Tolpuddle Martyr complained about and change it’s own monarchy, which will cause Australia to abolish it’s own monarchy since the Windsors will no longer be in power in England.

1. They voted once on the matter and it probably failed because it had (necessarily) to be a choice between the status quo and the alternate system proposed. Finding a majority who want to ditch the monarchy is far easier than finding a majority who will agree on which alternative is best.

2. Nothing says that the other Commonwealth Realms couldn't continue to recognize the current legitimate (as per properly passed law, which you are willfully ignoring, you antidemocratic fucktard) line of succession to their thrones. They can go live permanently in any of their other realms. (This is why the Queen says "It's good to be home" when she comes to Canada or any of her other realms--she's speaking as Queen of that realm, and as such lives there; she's just not home very often.)

Well if the Queen loses power in England, she will lose the power to appoint Governor generals, so even if Australia remains a monarchy under the Windsors, they will be free from the Windsors influence in politics.

...that's not how that works at all.

She appoints viceroys for her other realms because she's not home very often as Queen of those realms, but she appoints them as such, not as Queen of the United Kingdom. Losing her status as Queen of the United Kingdom would not, itself, in any way diminish her role in her other realms.

But the new government of England will prevent her from being able to leave the country, so it will diminish her role in the other realms.

How and why the fuck would they prevent her from leaving the country? If she were deposed in the United Kingdom, she'd be a private citizen there.
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada
Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
  • Gender: Male
You do realize that all the republican movement in Australia (which is alive and vibrant) wants to do is find a republican model of government that enough people can agree on, get it put to the people as a proposed constitutional amendment, and pass said amendment? They couldn't give a flying fuck who the "rightful heir" is (hint: the body representative of the people has spoken on that, multiple times now) and certainly don't need England's "permission" to ditch the monarchy. (For that matter, the UK could ditch the monarchy if they wanted.)

The majority of the people of Australia keep voting on staying a monarchy so a quicker way for it to become a Republic is for England to get rid of the system of having an appointed Governor General which is the main thing that Tolpuddle Martyr complained about and change it’s own monarchy, which will cause Australia to abolish it’s own monarchy since the Windsors will no longer be in power in England.

1. They voted once on the matter and it probably failed because it had (necessarily) to be a choice between the status quo and the alternate system proposed. Finding a majority who want to ditch the monarchy is far easier than finding a majority who will agree on which alternative is best.

2. Nothing says that the other Commonwealth Realms couldn't continue to recognize the current legitimate (as per properly passed law, which you are willfully ignoring, you antidemocratic fucktard) line of succession to their thrones. They can go live permanently in any of their other realms. (This is why the Queen says "It's good to be home" when she comes to Canada or any of her other realms--she's speaking as Queen of that realm, and as such lives there; she's just not home very often.)

Well if the Queen loses power in England, she will lose the power to appoint Governor generals, so even if Australia remains a monarchy under the Windsors, they will be free from the Windsors influence in politics.

...that's not how that works at all.

She appoints viceroys for her other realms because she's not home very often as Queen of those realms, but she appoints them as such, not as Queen of the United Kingdom. Losing her status as Queen of the United Kingdom would not, itself, in any way diminish her role in her other realms.

But the new government of England will prevent her from being able to leave the country, so it will diminish her role in the other realms.

How and why the fuck would they prevent her from leaving the country? If she were deposed in the United Kingdom, she'd be a private citizen there.

Because the government of England will be members of the organization and they will keep her under extreme supervision to prevent her from leaving so prevent her from organizing resistance to the New Regime.

Offline dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4362
Because the government of England will be members of the organization and they will keep her under extreme supervision to prevent her from leaving so prevent her from organizing resistance to the New Regime.

Got it. You're an authoritarian antidemocratic theocrat with delusions of living in the Middle Ages.

Go wank to niam deflowering your second cousin.
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada
Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

Offline Tolpuddle Martyr

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2924
  • Have you got thumbs? SHOW ME YOUR FUCKING THUMBS!
Because the government of England will be members of the organization and they will keep her under extreme supervision to prevent her from leaving so prevent her from organizing resistance to the New Regime.

Got it. You're an authoritarian antidemocratic theocrat with delusions of living in the Middle Ages.

Go wank to niam deflowering your second cousin.
Well, we knew both of those things are indisputably true.

Again Jacob, Brits are a relative rarity here. In your next youtube video can you film the responses of various Brits reacting to your manifesto for rape, regicide and war in western Europe?

You get extra credit if you find some Millwall ultras and lay it on them after their team lost one nil!