Jump to content

Update: The Stone of Destiny has departed Scotland on its way to London for the coronation of the next German pretender to the throne

b_m_b_m_b_m
 Share

Recommended Posts

AbsolutSurgen

AbsolutSurgen

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Lmao articles of confederation-ass constitution

Prior to 1982, it would have been relatively easy to amend the constitution to remove the King as head of state -- it would only have required an Act from the UK parliament.

 

The current formula (that is so restrictive, that in practically it makes the constitution unchageable) was put in place in 1982 by Pierre Trudeau when his government updated the constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CitizenVectron

CitizenVectron

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Prior to 1982, it would have been relatively easy to amend the constitution to remove the King as head of state -- it would only have required an Act from the UK parliament.

 

The current formula (that is so restrictive, that in practically it makes the constitution unchageable) was put in place in 1982 by Pierre Trudeau when his government updated the constitution.

 

lol

  • good: UK being able to amend Canada's constitution/head of state (because a Trudeau didn't do it)
  • bad: Canada having its own constitution that can't be amended single-handedly by the federal government (because a Trudeau did it)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AbsolutSurgen

AbsolutSurgen

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

lol

  • good: UK being able to amend Canada's constitution/head of state (because a Trudeau didn't do it)
  • bad: Canada having its own constitution that can't be amended single-handedly by the federal government (because a Trudeau did it)

 

I didn't make a value judgement.  I just stated the facts.  I don't particularly care if the British Monarchy keeps it's ceremonial role, I would care if they interfered with Canadian democracy (which they don't).

 

If I did care about having the King as the head of state (which I dont, but you seem to), I would probably care that PET set the bar as high as he did to remove the King.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
  • 1 month later...
Commissar SFLUFAN

Commissar SFLUFAN

Posted
Posted
charles-spice-girls-1.jpg?quality=85&w=1

King Charles Struggles to Land A-List Celebs for Coronation

TIME.COM
Adele, Ed Sheeran, Harry Styles, and the Spice Girls have turned down performing at the May 6 event.

 

Quote

 

King Charles III is learning the hard way that leaving it too late to finalize a big soiree is a bad idea. As the newly ascended British monarch prepares for his coronation on May 6, the palace is reportedly struggling to book A-list British entertainers to mark the historic event, with many citing busy schedules to explain their absence.

 

That’s a sharp break from the last major royal celebrations in June to mark the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, or 70 years on the throne, before she died aged 96 in September. A star-studded concert at Buckingham Palace had featured Queen + Adam Lambert, Diana Ross, Alicia Keys, Elton John, Craig David, Elbow, Sir Rod Stewart, Celeste, and other big names.

 

 

Quote

 

A royal source told British tabloid The Sun that “organizers are working against the clock to pull together an exciting line-up but have hit a series of challenges.” Elton John and Harry Styles—reportedly top picks for Charles—declined invitations to perform, citing scheduling conflicts. John, a lifelong friend of the late Princess Diana, will reportedly be deep into a European tour and cannot justify the excursion, while Styles, who is also touring, would not be able to get his band together during their downtime.

 

Additionally, Ed Sheeran will reportedly be too busy preparing for an upcoming gig in Houston, Texas, to take up Charles’ offer. Meanwhile, Adele—who is now based in the U.S.—has declined the offer for unspecified reasons.

 

In January, rumors emerged of a Spice Girls reunion with all five original members taking place at the coronation concert. But according to The Sun, the iconic British girl band will not be performing due to lack of rehearsal time for Melanie Brown, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Horner, Emma Bunton, and Victoria Beckham.

 

One of the more surprising rejections came from Robbie Williams, whose former Take That band members Gary Barlow, Howard Donald, and Mark Owen are set to headline the concert. Williams also cited scheduling conflicts when turning down the opportunity.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jason

Jason

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

John, a lifelong friend of the late Princess Diana

 

So this is at least as much about the celebrities disliking Charles as it is about not getting started on the organizing early enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Commissar SFLUFAN

Commissar SFLUFAN

Posted
Posted
_129534845_stoneone.jpg

Stone of Destiny heads south for coronation

WWW.BBC.COM
The ancient symbol of Scotland's monarchy leaves Edinburgh Castle on its way to London for the coronation.

 

Quote

 

The Stone of Destiny has left Edinburgh Castle for the first time in more than 25 years as it heads to London for the coronation of King Charles III.

 

The stone, an ancient symbol of Scotland's monarchy, was seized by King Edward I of England in the late 13th Century and taken to Westminster Abbey.

 

It remained in England for 700 years and formed part of the coronation chair on which kings and queens were crowned.

 

The stone was returned for permanent display in Scotland in 1996.

 

But it was was agreed it would return to Westminster Abbey for any future coronation ceremony.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Commissar SFLUFAN changed the title to Update: The Stone of Destiny has departed Scotland on its way to London for the coronation of the next German pretender to the throne
Fizzzzle

Fizzzzle

Posted
Posted

You know how you see those mcmansion houses built in the late-90's-00's that look absolutely fucking hideous? Like they're some Vegas knockoff version of Spanish colonial with gaudy wrought iron everywhere and every single surface being some hideous shade of brown? That's what I'm reminded of when I look at the crown jewels. It looks ridiculous.

  • True 1
  • Sicko Sherman 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greatoneshere

Greatoneshere

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

You know how you see those mcmansion houses built in the late-90's-00's that look absolutely fucking hideous? Like they're some Vegas knockoff version of Spanish colonial with gaudy wrought iron everywhere and every single surface being some hideous shade of brown? That's what I'm reminded of when I look at the crown jewels. It looks ridiculous.

 

Shit is goofy they take this so seriously the monarchy is hilarious to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jwheel86

Jwheel86

Posted
Posted

Very disappointed Meghan Markle didn't pull a US and UK royal coup and declare herself: Queen Meghan I, First of Her Name, by the Grace of God Queen of the Americas, Grand Admiral of the Royal American Navy, Duchess of Wallington, Duchess of Manhattan, Duchess of Long Island, Countess of Orange, Countess of O'ahu, Marquis of New Orleans, Baroness of Springfield, Baroness of Hollywood, Baroness of Central Park, Grand Socialite, Protector of Liberty, Northwest Vanguard of Alaska, Avenger of the Boston Tea Party, Terror of Washington D.C.

  • True 1
  • Sicko 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jwheel86

Jwheel86

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Jason said:

So the only thing I'm remotely curious about is why it's going to be Queen Camilla but it was Prince Philip.

 

Phillip wasn't a prince at first, he only got that years later. He had to denounce all his Greek titles before getting married. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Commissar SFLUFAN

Commissar SFLUFAN

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Jason said:

So the only thing I'm remotely curious about is why it's going to be Queen Camilla but it was Prince Philip.

 

A king is considered an inherently higher rank of nobility than a queen, so it was simply not possible for Philip to be given a title that would make him technically outrank his wife.

 

Under British law, a man married to the reigning woman monarch is only permitted to assume the title of "Prince Consort".

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...