|
Irish Hermit
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: December 25, 2011, 03:32:24 PM » |
|
No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.
To try and retrieve this thread from lunacy and queen bashing, maybe you could explain why you find the idea of an hereditary head of state ridiculous. What system do you advocate? What countries exemplify it? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Irish Hermit
|
|
« Reply #46 on: December 25, 2011, 03:45:36 PM » |
|
I bet percentage-wise royals and others of such parasitic classes . Why do you find royals parasitic? Does not the Queen and her immediate family play a role in British society? Does she not also bring in revenue via the tourist industry? Does she not pay taxes? How many of the royal family receive an income from the public purse? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
genesisone
|
|
« Reply #47 on: December 25, 2011, 04:18:22 PM » |
|
No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.
Just remember that regardless of how ridiculous you find the idea of a hereditary head of state to be, Queen Elizabeth is still the Queen of England.  Actually, no, she isn't. It's like saying that Barack Obama is President of North Dakota. Remember what I said a few posts back about royal titles and styles ? The last "Queen of England" was Anne (from 1702-1707, when England and Scotland were united as one kingdom, as opposed to two kingdoms that shared a sovereign) and she then became Queen of Great Britain ( - 1714). You can read about Queen Elizabeth II's titles here, though, like any Wikipedia article it may have it lapses. BTW, I do appreciate that Tallitot has taken the time and trouble to research some of HM's lesser known titles. In fact, Tallitot is quite right that a "hereditary head of state" is ridiculous. "Head of state" is republican terminology. A hereditary sovereign, OTOH, is an entirely different matter. Now, to get back to the OP: I pray the HRH will recover fully and that plans for Jubilee celebrations next year will not be affected by his health (or that of any other key person, of course). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Irish Hermit
|
|
« Reply #48 on: December 25, 2011, 04:42:03 PM » |
|
In fact, Tallitot is quite right that a "hereditary head of state" is ridiculous. "Head of state" is republican terminology. Tallitot is quite wrong. Who else is the head of our state if not the Queen? We have no problem with the terminology. A web search will reveal that we commonly use the phrase. For example, on http://www.royal.gov.uk/hmthequeen/hmthequeen.aspx - "The Queen is Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms."  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 25, 2011, 04:44:07 PM by Irish Hermit »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
William
|
|
« Reply #49 on: December 25, 2011, 04:54:01 PM » |
|
No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.
What about King David and his descendants?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. - Proverbs 18:2
Delight thyself also in the Lord; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. - Psalm 36
|
|
|
|
orthonorm
|
|
« Reply #50 on: December 25, 2011, 06:45:28 PM » |
|
No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.
What about King David and his descendants? Ever read that story? Like from the beginning and all that? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
|
|
|
|
Marc1152
|
|
« Reply #51 on: December 25, 2011, 06:57:46 PM » |
|
Here ya go. Take a lesson from our Mr. Adams: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbhzrOV2HP8 |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 25, 2011, 07:01:24 PM by Marc1152 »
|
Logged
|
\"Why were so many Civil War battles fought in National Parks? \"
|
|
|
|
genesisone
|
|
« Reply #52 on: December 25, 2011, 09:29:34 PM » |
|
In fact, Tallitot is quite right that a "hereditary head of state" is ridiculous. "Head of state" is republican terminology. Tallitot is quite wrong. Who else is the head of our state if not the Queen? We have no problem with the terminology. A web search will reveal that we commonly use the phrase. For example, on http://www.royal.gov.uk/hmthequeen/hmthequeen.aspx - "The Queen is Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms." From the same website: The British Sovereign can be seen as having two roles: Head of State, and 'Head of the Nation'. Yes, the Queen acts as Head of State. That is something the sovereign does. As sovereign, the Queen ranks above a president. For example, oaths of allegiance are sworn to the Queen - but (hopefully) not to a president. Laws are enacted by the Queen; the formula at the beginning of every Canadian law begins: "Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:...." Passports are issued in the name of the Queen. There is a difference between "sovereign" and "head of state". It's the being sovereign that is hereditary. The job as "Head of State" is a responsibility of the sovereign - a distinction between the person and the job. And undoubtedly a point that is of interest only to nitpickers like me  . |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
William
|
|
« Reply #53 on: December 25, 2011, 10:31:01 PM » |
|
No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.
What about King David and his descendants? Ever read that story? Like from the beginning and all that? Yes. Are you referring to how God was initially reluctant to give the Hebrews a king? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 25, 2011, 10:31:08 PM by William »
|
Logged
|
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. - Proverbs 18:2
Delight thyself also in the Lord; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. - Psalm 36
|
|
|
|
orthonorm
|
|
« Reply #54 on: December 25, 2011, 10:33:03 PM » |
|
No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.
What about King David and his descendants? Ever read that story? Like from the beginning and all that? Yes. Are you referring to how God was initially reluctant to give the Hebrews a king? Reluctant? That's the word you are going to use? And how well did those Kings work out? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
|
|
|
|
orthonorm
|
|
« Reply #55 on: December 25, 2011, 10:39:14 PM » |
|
No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.
What about King David and his descendants? Ever read that story? Like from the beginning and all that? Yes. Are you referring to how God was initially reluctant to give the Hebrews a king? And with the reluctant . . . Ain't you one of the folks around here who believes God doesn't have feelings or thoughts or actions really, like really? And is like unknowable? Sorry folks, this might get old, but I will hold you to your words. Since an argument can hang on a single hymn or an icon, or a clip from a Patristic writing, why not a snippet of a posting history? Sorry William, if I have you wrong. But the name change throws me off a little. And many posters fall into the above category. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
|
|
|
|
vamrat
|
|
« Reply #56 on: December 26, 2011, 12:08:14 AM » |
|
I'm going to have to stand up for Talliot here. Was he really insulting Queen Elizabeth by calling her Elizabeth Windsor? It's her name for Pete's sake. I respect her more than any bogtrotter has any rights to, but even I didn't find it all that crass or insulting. I'll capitalize "His" when referring to God, or call a Bishop by his title, but is it really necessary for Christians (or Jews in this case) to call a royal by their title? That's just silly.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
One day we will talk about why people fetishize children, but for now I'll keep on the side of humanity that doesn't think the height of life is a drinking a juice box and eating a tater tot while defecating in their pants.
|
|
|
|
William
|
|
« Reply #57 on: December 26, 2011, 12:34:27 AM » |
|
No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.
What about King David and his descendants? Ever read that story? Like from the beginning and all that? Yes. Are you referring to how God was initially reluctant to give the Hebrews a king? Reluctant? That's the word you are going to use? Why? Did I do bad?  And how well did those Kings work out?
Politically, the first three seemed pretty good. Morally they were all pretty bad (although David repented). And with the reluctant . . . Ain't you one of the folks around here who believes God doesn't have feelings or thoughts or actions really, like really?
And is like unknowable?
Sorry folks, this might get old, but I will hold you to your words. Since an argument can hang on a single hymn or an icon, or a clip from a Patristic writing, why not a snippet of a posting history?
Sorry William, if I have you wrong. But the name change throws me off a little. And many posters fall into the above category. I'm just using an anthropomorphism. Seriously, though, I haven't really gotten into the impassibility 'controversy' and I don't really care to. It ain't all that important to me. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. - Proverbs 18:2
Delight thyself also in the Lord; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. - Psalm 36
|
|
|
|
orthonorm
|
|
« Reply #58 on: December 26, 2011, 01:02:04 AM » |
|
No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.
What about King David and his descendants? Ever read that story? Like from the beginning and all that? Yes. Are you referring to how God was initially reluctant to give the Hebrews a king? Reluctant? That's the word you are going to use? Why? Did I do bad? And how well did those Kings work out?
Politically, the first three seemed pretty good. Morally they were all pretty bad (although David repented). And with the reluctant . . . Ain't you one of the folks around here who believes God doesn't have feelings or thoughts or actions really, like really?
And is like unknowable?
Sorry folks, this might get old, but I will hold you to your words. Since an argument can hang on a single hymn or an icon, or a clip from a Patristic writing, why not a snippet of a posting history?
Sorry William, if I have you wrong. But the name change throws me off a little. And many posters fall into the above category. I'm just using an anthropomorphism. Seriously, though, I haven't really gotten into the impassibility 'controversy' and I don't really care to. It ain't all that important to me. You are more sane the rest of us. Pray for me. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
|
|
|
|
Tallitot
|
|
« Reply #59 on: December 26, 2011, 02:16:42 AM » |
|
I'm going to have to stand up for Talliot here. Was he really insulting Queen Elizabeth by calling her Elizabeth Windsor? It's her name for Pete's sake. I respect her more than any bogtrotter has any rights to, but even I didn't find it all that crass or insulting. I'll capitalize "His" when referring to God, or call a Bishop by his title, but is it really necessary for Christians (or Jews in this case) to call a royal by their title? That's just silly.
And as I've said before it only seems to get everyone's knickers in a twist when it's Mrs. Windsor(*). No one seems to get all hinky if they see "Albert Grimaldi" or "Beatrix van Orange". (*) or should thayt be "Winds-r"? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Proverbs 22:7
|
|
|
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
 Offline
Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,406
EXTERMINATE!
|
|
« Reply #60 on: December 26, 2011, 02:41:01 AM » |
|
No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.
Just remember that regardless of how ridiculous you find the idea of a hereditary head of state to be, Queen Elizabeth is still the Queen of England. Actually, no, she isn't. It's like saying that Barack Obama is President of North Dakota. Actually, President Obama IS the President of North Dakota, in that he is President of the United States, of which North Dakota is a member state. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Irish Hermit
|
|
« Reply #61 on: December 26, 2011, 03:04:41 AM » |
|
I'm going to have to stand up for Talliot here. Was he really insulting Queen Elizabeth by calling her Elizabeth Windsor? It's her name for Pete's sake. If we referred to Misha Denysenko or Igor Kapral or Jimmy Paffhausen, Amby Mooney and Dusty Hudson .... well maybe you and Tallitot would be justified in being blind to the insult. But civilised people keep to certain standards.... well, I imagine you see the point? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tallitot
|
|
« Reply #62 on: December 26, 2011, 03:10:17 AM » |
|
No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.
Just remember that regardless of how ridiculous you find the idea of a hereditary head of state to be, Queen Elizabeth is still the Queen of England. Actually, no, she isn't. It's like saying that Barack Obama is President of North Dakota. Actually, President Obama IS the President of North Dakota, in that he is President of the United States, of which North Dakota is a member state. No, North Dakota doesn't have a president, it has a governor. The union of the 50 states (the USA) has a president. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Proverbs 22:7
|
|
|
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
Offline
Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,406
EXTERMINATE!
|
|
« Reply #63 on: December 26, 2011, 03:13:33 AM » |
|
No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.
Just remember that regardless of how ridiculous you find the idea of a hereditary head of state to be, Queen Elizabeth is still the Queen of England. Actually, no, she isn't. It's like saying that Barack Obama is President of North Dakota. Actually, President Obama IS the President of North Dakota, in that he is President of the United States, of which North Dakota is a member state. No, North Dakota doesn't have a president, it has a governor. The union of the 50 states (the USA) has a president. Picky, picky, picky. If North Dakota doesn't want a President, they can secede from the Union. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Irish Hermit
|
|
« Reply #64 on: December 26, 2011, 03:28:42 AM » |
|
Her Majesty The Queen's Christmas Message 2011Check out this video on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60Eq5sXh_Lo&feature=youtube_gdata_playerRe the "parasitic" comment from Augustine... here is a comment on the video page...... I hate it when people say that the Royals are a waste of the taxpayers money. Do people even read into the facts and figures before making such comments? The Royals cost the tax payer around 40 million pounds per year. In return, the Royals give all the profits from their lands to the government, which is around 200 million pounds per year. So in effect, the Royals make the UK a profit, which means your taxes are lower than they would be without the monarchy. That's before tourist money too.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
Offline
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504
Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей
|
|
« Reply #65 on: December 26, 2011, 08:02:10 AM » |
|
To those of us who are subjects of Her Majesty the Queen, whether here in Australia or in New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Canada, the Falkland islands etc or even dear old Great Britain, your comments are deeply offensive, verging on traitorous. Here in Australia we Orthodox continue to pray for the Sovereign and by extension for HRH Prince Phillip. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Visit my blog@ http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.comTo the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation S John of Shanghai & San Francisco |
|
|
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
Offline
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504
Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей
|
|
« Reply #66 on: December 26, 2011, 08:12:22 AM » |
|
I'm going to have to stand up for Talliot here. Was he really insulting Queen Elizabeth by calling her Elizabeth Windsor? It's her name for Pete's sake. No it is NOT Her Majesty's name because it is NEVER appropriate to refer to Her Majesty using the surname Windsor. Correct reference to Her strictly should be in Latin:: Elizabeth II, Dei Gratia Britanniarum Regnorumque Suorum Ceterorum Regina, Consortionis Populorum Princeps, Fidei Defensor or in English: Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. of course HM has appropriate titles for Her other dominions. Fixed quote tags -PtA |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 26, 2011, 12:39:21 PM by PeterTheAleut »
|
Logged
|
Visit my blog@ http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.comTo the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation S John of Shanghai & San Francisco |
|
|
|
podkarpatska
|
|
« Reply #67 on: December 26, 2011, 10:00:18 AM » |
|
I'm going to have to stand up for Talliot here. Was he really insulting Queen Elizabeth by calling her Elizabeth Windsor? It's her name for Pete's sake. I respect her more than any bogtrotter has any rights to, but even I didn't find it all that crass or insulting. I'll capitalize "His" when referring to God, or call a Bishop by his title, but is it really necessary for Christians (or Jews in this case) to call a royal by their title? That's just silly.
I don't know. i am not a royalist, i agree that a hereditary system is a vestigial left-over from older times, but... The countries which maintain royals as ceremonial heads of state made those choices. Civil norms call for one to call a Bill Smith or Jane Jones by a title if they are elected to a civil office. It is proper to call one Judge Jones or Senator Smith, even after their term of office expires (as long as they were not removed by crimes etc...) I don't like it when my fellow citizens show disrespect for an office by not referring to their president as President Doe rather than that as 'darn jerk Doe' - an all too common occurence today - regardless of partisan affiliation. I would be mildly offended if an unrepentant royalist "dissed" the head of state of a republic by refusing to acknowledge his or her honorific title. We owe our British, Swedish, Japanese etc... friends the same courtesy. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 26, 2011, 10:02:30 AM by podkarpatska »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vamrat
|
|
« Reply #68 on: December 26, 2011, 02:19:08 PM » |
|
I'm going to have to stand up for Talliot here. Was he really insulting Queen Elizabeth by calling her Elizabeth Windsor? It's her name for Pete's sake. No it is NOT Her Majesty's name because it is NEVER appropriate to refer to Her Majesty using the surname Windsor. Correct reference to Her strictly should be in Latin:: Elizabeth II, Dei Gratia Britanniarum Regnorumque Suorum Ceterorum Regina, Consortionis Populorum Princeps, Fidei Defensor or in English: Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. of course HM has appropriate titles for Her other dominions. Fixed quote tags -PtAWell, I guess I just don't understand. I will give respect to (our) religious leaders, Saints, and to God, but I take the "trust ye not in princes, in the sons of men" thing seriously and don't see any reason to show the same deference to a Queen, Emperor, Count, Baron, Shogun, Kniaz, or whatever as I do to God or one of His Saints. Perhaps it's cultural as well. I noticed in her full title a chunk of land between the St. Lawrence and the Gulf of Mexico was missing. I would be interested to see how Irishmen from the Free State, Afrikaners, and Indians might feel on this matter. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
One day we will talk about why people fetishize children, but for now I'll keep on the side of humanity that doesn't think the height of life is a drinking a juice box and eating a tater tot while defecating in their pants.
|
|
|
|
Marc1152
|
|
« Reply #69 on: December 26, 2011, 02:25:46 PM » |
|
Wasn't Prince Harry referred to as "Harry Wales" or "Cadet Wales" when he was at Sandhurst and then in the Army Tank Corp?
He didn't go by Windsor...
Very confusing.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\"Why were so many Civil War battles fought in National Parks? \"
|
|
|
|
Cavaradossi
|
|
« Reply #70 on: December 26, 2011, 03:56:55 PM » |
|
I'm going to have to stand up for Talliot here. Was he really insulting Queen Elizabeth by calling her Elizabeth Windsor? It's her name for Pete's sake. No it is NOT Her Majesty's name because it is NEVER appropriate to refer to Her Majesty using the surname Windsor. Correct reference to Her strictly should be in Latin:: Elizabeth II, Dei Gratia Britanniarum Regnorumque Suorum Ceterorum Regina, Consortionis Populorum Princeps, Fidei Defensor or in English: Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. of course HM has appropriate titles for Her other dominions. Fixed quote tags -PtADo you call her that during the liturgy? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 26, 2011, 03:57:47 PM by Cavaradossi »
|
Logged
|
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
|
|
|
|
Irish Hermit
|
|
« Reply #71 on: December 26, 2011, 04:10:47 PM » |
|
I'm going to have to stand up for Talliot here. Was he really insulting Queen Elizabeth by calling her Elizabeth Windsor? It's her name for Pete's sake. No it is NOT Her Majesty's name because it is NEVER appropriate to refer to Her Majesty using the surname Windsor. Correct reference to Her strictly should be in Latin:: Elizabeth II, Dei Gratia Britanniarum Regnorumque Suorum Ceterorum Regina, Consortionis Populorum Princeps, Fidei Defensor or in English: Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. of course HM has appropriate titles for Her other dominions. Fixed quote tags -PtADo you call her that during the liturgy? The formula used in our parish has been "For our God-fearing Queen Elizabeth the Second and for all the Royal household....." This came in several decades ago when the Diocese had a debate about commemorating her and it was decided to do so, following the requirement of Saint Paul to pray for our rulers. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Schultz
|
|
« Reply #72 on: December 26, 2011, 04:26:22 PM » |
|
Wasn't Prince Harry referred to as "Harry Wales" or "Cadet Wales" when he was at Sandhurst and then in the Army Tank Corp?
He didn't go by Windsor...
Very confusing.
Not really once you understand how the English nobility often adopt the surname of the seat they are lord or lady of. A quick and dirty explanation is at Yahoo Answers! : Why are Harry and William know as Wales?As to the title of this thread, Tallitot could have knowingly avoided any and all controversy AND kept his conscience clean by titling it, "The Queen of England's husband is in hospital." The fact that he did not choose that or some similar neutral term shows that he was being deliberately provocative and should, therefore, be able to take what the royalist types among us dish out. Happy Christmas. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 26, 2011, 04:29:41 PM by Schultz »
|
Logged
|
"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
|
|
|
|
podkarpatska
|
|
« Reply #73 on: December 26, 2011, 04:49:25 PM » |
|
Wasn't Prince Harry referred to as "Harry Wales" or "Cadet Wales" when he was at Sandhurst and then in the Army Tank Corp?
He didn't go by Windsor...
Very confusing.
Not really once you understand how the English nobility often adopt the surname of the seat they are lord or lady of. A quick and dirty explanation is at Yahoo Answers! : Why are Harry and William know as Wales?As to the title of this thread, Tallitot could have knowingly avoided any and all controversy AND kept his conscience clean by titling it, "The Queen of England's husband is in hospital." The fact that he did not choose that or some similar neutral term shows that he was being deliberately provocative and should, therefore, be able to take what the royalist types among us dish out. Happy Christmas. and Boxing Day! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Irish Hermit
|
|
« Reply #74 on: December 26, 2011, 04:52:38 PM » |
|
B U M P !
Tallitot, just bumping this in the hope you will find time for the questions.No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.
To try and retrieve this thread from lunacy and queen bashing, maybe you could explain why you find the idea of an hereditary head of state ridiculous. What system do you advocate? What countries exemplify it?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Irish Hermit
|
|
« Reply #75 on: December 26, 2011, 04:59:07 PM » |
|
Wasn't Prince Harry referred to as "Harry Wales" or "Cadet Wales" when he was at Sandhurst and then in the Army Tank Corp?
He didn't go by Windsor...
Very confusing.
Not really once you understand how the English nobility often adopt the surname of the seat they are lord or lady of. A quick and dirty explanation is at Yahoo Answers! : Why are Harry and William know as Wales?As to the title of this thread, Tallitot could have knowingly avoided any and all controversy AND kept his conscience clean by titling it, "The Queen of England's husband is in hospital." The fact that he did not choose that or some similar neutral term shows that he was being deliberately provocative and should, therefore, be able to take what the royalist types among us dish out. Happy Christmas. Tallitot seems to want to use the illness of the Duke to make some kind of political statement. But so far he has not given us any coherent statement. We have no idea why a monarchy offends him. We have no idea what political system he prefers in its stead. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 26, 2011, 05:00:18 PM by Irish Hermit »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Irish Hermit
|
|
« Reply #76 on: December 26, 2011, 06:05:17 PM » |
|
No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state. Any thoughts on the God-King of Tibet? Now there's a very unique way of securing a stable political succession. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
Offline
Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 11,356
|
|
« Reply #77 on: December 26, 2011, 06:45:03 PM » |
|
So, if one were against the hereditary state of royalty....what of one's own heredity?
Does not a Jew define Jewishness through their parents? Mother's side, no?
What of the big deal made of Abraham having his own son of Sarah? Might heredity come in to play there?
Remember, God is still in charge of who gets born when and where and into which of life's situations.
If he places a child in a royal family, He must have a plan for them there.
Who are you or I to second guess God and the choices He has made?
Besides, there will always be people who are richer than you are, have better jobs, drive better cars, have yachts, party in Monaco, etc.
We are planted where we are planted. We are to flourish and grow as tall and strong and produce as much good fruit as we can in the soil that God has planted us in.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
|
|
|
|
orthonorm
|
|
« Reply #78 on: December 26, 2011, 06:56:53 PM » |
|
Wow. This thread is becoming a gold mine.
Tallitot can sure twist all your knickers or whatever ridiculous word you call them.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
|
|
|
|
Schultz
|
|
« Reply #79 on: December 26, 2011, 06:59:16 PM » |
|
for the record, I don't care if Tallitot is a bomb wielding anarchist hell bent on assassinating each and every hereditary monarch on the planet in the name of removing the concept of monarchsim.
I'm just offended by the "Who? Li'l ol' ME?!" tactics he repeatedly employs in his hit and run political statements out in the public fora.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
|
|
|
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
Offline
Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 11,356
|
|
« Reply #80 on: December 26, 2011, 07:01:59 PM » |
|
Wow. This thread is becoming a gold mine.
Tallitot can sure twist all your knickers or whatever ridiculous word you call them.
Nothing of mine is twisted (and I won't use the word in polite company. ). I don't rely on any royal family. However, I would just like to clarify the whole "heredity" issue he has. Is it just with royalty or heredity in general? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
|
|
|
|
orthonorm
|
|
« Reply #81 on: December 26, 2011, 07:04:23 PM » |
|
for the record, I don't care if Tallitot is a bomb wielding anarchist hell bent on assassinating each and every hereditary monarch on the planet in the name of removing the concept of monarchsim.
I'm just offended by the "Who? Li'l ol' ME?!" tactics he repeatedly employs in his hit and run political statements out in the public fora.
What I can't never find enough laughter in his the four(?) times over seemingly contradictory identity. When he topped it off by eschewing the extravagance of monarchy in all its forms, it was a clincher. Tallitot might truly be a singular creature. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 26, 2011, 07:05:05 PM by orthonorm »
|
Logged
|
Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
|
|
|
|
Tallitot
|
|
« Reply #82 on: December 26, 2011, 07:34:33 PM » |
|
for the record, I don't care if Tallitot is a bomb wielding anarchist hell bent on assassinating each and every hereditary monarch on the planet in the name of removing the concept of monarchsim.
I'm just offended by the "Who? Li'l ol' ME?!" tactics he repeatedly employs in his hit and run political statements out in the public fora.
What I can't never find enough laughter in his the four(?) times over seemingly contradictory identity. When he topped it off by eschewing the extravagance of monarchy in all its forms, it was a clincher. Tallitot might truly be a singular creature. True praise indeed, I am humbled sir. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Proverbs 22:7
|
|
|
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
Offline
Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,406
EXTERMINATE!
|
|
« Reply #83 on: December 26, 2011, 07:49:53 PM » |
|
I believe in a hereditary monarchy. Jesus Christ is the Son (well, great great great ... grandson) of David and therefore heir to the throne of Israel. Not only that, He has claimed the throne of His forefathers.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
Offline
Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 11,356
|
|
« Reply #84 on: December 26, 2011, 07:53:39 PM » |
|
^ Exactly!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
|
|
|
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
Offline
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504
Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей
|
|
« Reply #85 on: December 26, 2011, 10:02:20 PM » |
|
I'm going to have to stand up for Talliot here. Was he really insulting Queen Elizabeth by calling her Elizabeth Windsor? It's her name for Pete's sake. No it is NOT Her Majesty's name because it is NEVER appropriate to refer to Her Majesty using the surname Windsor. Correct reference to Her strictly should be in Latin:: Elizabeth II, Dei Gratia Britanniarum Regnorumque Suorum Ceterorum Regina, Consortionis Populorum Princeps, Fidei Defensor or in English: Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. of course HM has appropriate titles for Her other dominions. Fixed quote tags -PtADo you call her that during the liturgy? In the litanies Her Majesty is prayed for thus: Ее Величества Королевы Елизаветы IIe or in English as Our Sovereign, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth In the Great Entrance I think it is the same. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 26, 2011, 10:04:08 PM by SubdeaconDavid »
|
Logged
|
Visit my blog@ http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.comTo the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation S John of Shanghai & San Francisco |
|
|
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
 Online
Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 11,911
Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου
|
|
« Reply #86 on: January 01, 2012, 06:01:57 PM » |
|
Update: Prince Philip seems to be doing better. He made it to church today. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16376986 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be? Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied. http://spcasuncoast.org/ |
|
|
Antonis
Prodigal
High Elder
Offline
Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 741
"My Lord and my God!"
|
|
« Reply #87 on: January 10, 2012, 12:21:24 AM » |
|
No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.
Solomon and David do not approve. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
For peace in the whole world,
for the stability of the holy churches of God,
and for the unity of all,
let us pray to the Lord.
|
|
|
|
primuspilus
|
|
« Reply #88 on: January 10, 2012, 12:07:26 PM » |
|
No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.
Solomon and David do not approve. God does too actually...something about the seed of David....hrm, I cant remember where I heard that...... PP |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
|
|
|
|
Marc1152
|
|
« Reply #89 on: January 10, 2012, 01:35:13 PM » |
|
FYI:
The position of Head of State is purely ceremonial. They attend funerals and launch ships etc.
In many places the Head of the Government and the Head of State are two different people.
In the USA the function of Head of State and Head of the Government is combined and performed by the President and often Head of State duties are passed off to the Vice President.
So it makes no difference what so ever if the King or Queen is the Head of State, none what so ever, except that they are pretty good at it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\"Why were so many Civil War battles fought in National Parks? \"
|
|
|
|
