Princess Diana....Okay now it all makes 100% PERFECT SENSE......

reply to post by feanor411


It's a fair point, to be honest - but I think people are overplaying the Islamic 'problem'.

I agree it'd be noteworthy that King William (as he might well be one day) could have potentially had a Muslim mother, but is that really that important? Muslims are a feature of British life, so I suppose it's inevitable there'll be a very highly placed one eventually.

Of course, King William would be head of the Church of England, but even now the Archbishop of Canterbury speaks favourably of Islam's message out of inter-faith friendship.

I know some really dreadful things are done in Allah's name, but moderate Islam is hardly some obscure, inherantly evil cult.

Well, it was just "that close", just an infintesimally close event from Dodi's face being printed on all the 100 dollar bills in Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand and other places. Plus the major religion in all those countries changing to muslim. That's the kind of implications where talking about here.

reply to post by spartacus699


Wth are you talking about?

And if you are going to use big words then spell em right.

Originally posted by spartacus699
Well, it was just "that close", just an infintesimally close event from Dodi's face being printed on all the 100 dollar bills in Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand and other places. Plus the major religion in all those countries changing to muslim. That's the kind of implications where talking about here.

You have been humoured for the last 5 pages.

Surely you don't even believe your last post.

Time...to...stop...digging

Originally posted by spartacus699
Well, it was just "that close", just an infintesimally close event from Dodi's face being printed on all the 100 dollar bills in Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand and other places. Plus the major religion in all those countries changing to muslim. That's the kind of implications where talking about here.

Just that close, huh? Give me some facts to back that up. Information. You just don't give up, do you? Let me repeat: Dodi's infamous money has nothing to do with this. The Queen has more money! He couldn't buy the throne. Charles or William or anyone in line HAS MORE MONEY. Your money theory is just a red herring.

Originally posted by spartacus699
And then she'd be the first muslim queen of all of england. She could change the national religion to muslim. And she would for all women to wear a burkah, along with herself included. Plus dodi would become king of England. And their half arab son would become the next king of england. The Royals would slowly become muslims.

Are you #ten me?

A Muslim Queen of England in 1997 would have been a PIP.

The British soldiers could have done
all those actions in the Middle East
in the name of Allah!

. [color=gold] Iraq: The Sultana has declared an end to the civil war in the name of Allah and the British Crown.


. [color=gold] Pakistan: The Sultana had declared all Al-Qaeda to be Kafir, report any suspected members to her most noble Janissaries the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.


. [color=gold] Afghanistan: The Sultana calls on all true followers of Islam to support her Mu'min Troops and to resist the Murtad separatists.


. [color=gold] Lybia: The Sultana has found the Administration of Lybia to be Munafiq, and is calling on all true Muslims to support the one's Allah sends to replace him.


. [color=gold] Egypt: The Sultana finds Mubarak too Fasiq in his running of secret prisons, and welcomes the peoples resistance, and public demonstrations as the first step to becoming a truly democratic State of Islam. Please accept and support her polling officers that she is sending to help Egypt become the leader in the Middle East for the New Blessed Islam.



I mean does anyone really think the Queen has piss all to say about what gets decided anyway?



The British public relation teams would have wet the babies head over it.


MIke

Originally posted by spartacus699
Well, it was just "that close", just an infintesimally close event from Dodi's face being printed on all the 100 dollar bills in Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand and other places. Plus the major religion in all those countries changing to muslim. That's the kind of implications where talking about here.

Okay, this chap's trolling. Good wheeze, son.

Bake him away, toys!

Originally posted by expatwhite
I stand to be corrected, but no way in the world was she in line to be "queen" as they had already divorced. Which sort of spoils your whole theory - sorry

She could have become Regent.

Originally posted by teachtaire

Originally posted by expatwhite
I stand to be corrected, but no way in the world was she in line to be "queen" as they had already divorced. Which sort of spoils your whole theory - sorry

She could have become Regent.

No she could not. Regent is chosen by the previous Monarch. Much the same as stating who will be the executors of a will.

SHe was not trained for that position and would never have stood a chance.

P

Idiocy and ignorance - harder to kill than knotweed. Hilariously stupid thread, well done

reply to post by pheonix358


Hard to choose a regent if too many people die at once. Her son's weren't of age, she (being their mother,) would have become Regent, or defacto regent.

Such is succession.

Say what you like, it is the truth.

REGENT: One who rules during the minority, absence, or disability of a monarch.

reply to post by teachtaire


Parliament can determine the regency in "the absence, incapacity, or minority of the monarch". There's no guarantee that Diana would have been name regent since she was no longer in the line of succession.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by teachtaire

 

Parliament can determine the regency in "the absence, incapacity, or minority of the monarch". There's no guarantee that Diana would have been name regent since she was no longer in the line of succession.

She was the mother of two princes mate.

Paliment can vote as much as they want; she'd still be the damn regent.

reply to post by teachtaire


Wrong. Paternity or maternity doesn't automatically make you regent. It's in the British Bill of Rights.

The passing of the Bill of Rights 1689 by the Parliament of England confirmed in law that Parliament, not the sovereign, decided the order of succession. By the Act of Settlement 1701, Parliament passed the line of succession to Electress Sophia of Hanover; this decision was confirmed and extended to all of Great Britain by the Acts of Union 1707. With the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy firmly established in British law, it became possible for Parliament to pass legislation to determine who would act as regent during the absence, incapacity or minority of the ruling monarch.[citation needed] Since then several Regency Acts have been passed.

en.wikipedia.org...

You can shout that she'd be regent all you want, but the law states that Parliament decides. The Regency Act of 1937 states that the person that becomes regent is the next in the line of succession. Diana was no longer in the line of succession, therefore she couldn't become regent.

Rather than pass a specific Regency Act relating to the death or incapacity of George VI only, Parliament passed the Regency Act 1937 (1 Edw. 8 & 1 Geo. 6 c. 1), which provided for the incapacity or minority of all future monarchs. It also repealed the Lords Justices Act 1837, and established in statute the office of Counsellor of State, to be appointed during the monarch's absence abroad, or temporary illness not amounting to complete incapacity.
The Act required that the regent should be the next person in the line of succession who was:
over the age of 21,
a British subject domiciled in the United Kingdom, and
capable of succeeding to the Crown under the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701.
The Counsellors of State were to consist of:
the consort of the monarch and
the next four people in the line of succession over the age of 21.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Zaphod58


I'm not shouting it, just stating simple fact. Quoting Wikipedia doesn't make it the truth. She would have probably become the straight up regent, and most definitely the de-facto regent.

reply to post by teachtaire


And not quoting any sources makes it your opinion, not fact. Prove that she would automatically become regent.

Quoted from the Act itself.

The Regent.

(1)If a Regency becomes necessary under this Act, the Regent shall be that person who, excluding any persons disqualified under this section, is next in the line of succession to the Crown.
(2)A person shall be disqualified from becoming or being Regent, if he is not a British subject of full age and domiciled in some part of the United Kingdom, or is a person who would, under section two of the M1Act of Settlement, be incapable of inheriting, possessing, and enjoying the Crown; and section three of the Act of Settlement shall apply in the case of a Regent as it applies in the case of a Sovereign.
(3)If any person who would at the commencement of a Regency have become Regent but for the fact that he was not then of full age becomes of full age during the Regency, he shall, if he is not otherwise disqualified under this section, thereupon become Regent instead of the person who has theretofore been Regent.
(4)If the Regent dies or becomes disqualified under this section, that person shall become Regent in his stead who would have become Regent if the events necessitating the Regency had occurred immediately after the death or disqualification.
(5)Section two of this Act shall apply in relation to a Regent with the substitution for references to the Sovereign of references to the Regent, and for the words “those functions shall be performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by a Regent” of the words “that person shall be Regent who would have become Regent if the Regent had died.”

www.legislation.gov.uk...

Doesn't say anything about a mother automatically becoming regent in there.

The succession to the throne is regulated not only through descent, but also by Parliamentary statute. The order of succession is the sequence of members of the Royal Family in the order in which they stand in line to the throne.

The basis for the succession was determined in the constitutional developments of the seventeenth century, which culminated in the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701).

When James II fled the country in 1688, Parliament held that he had 'abdicated the government' and that the throne was vacant. The throne was then offered, not to James's young son, but to his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange, as joint rulers.

It therefore came to be established not only that the Sovereign rules through Parliament, but that the succession to the throne can be regulated by Parliament, and that a Sovereign can be deprived of his title through misgovernment.

The succession to the throne is regulated not only through descent, but also by statute; the Act of Settlement confirmed that it was for Parliament to determine the title to the throne.

www.royal.gov.uk...

"De-facto regent" doesn't mean a damn thing. She couldn't have done anything in that role, and could have done very little as regent anyway, without Parliamentary approval.

reply to post by Zaphod58


sorry mate. Who is a 15 year old whose dad just died going to listen to, some politico appointed by the gov, or his mum?

reply to post by teachtaire


The regent doesn't replace his mother, and was never planned to. She would retain guardianship of him, but the Regent takes his place at the royal functions.

Regency while the Sovereign is under eighteen.

(1)If the Sovereign is, at His Accession, under the age of eighteen years, then, until He attains that age, the royal functions shall be performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by a Regent.
(2)For the purpose of any enactment requiring any oath or declaration to be taken, made, or subscribed, by the Sovereign on or after His Accession, the date on which the Sovereign attains the age of eighteen years shall be deemed to be the date of His Accession.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I think you put too much faith in books for political theory.

Real Politics ≠ Book Learning.

Assuming that real politics does remotely resemble what you read about, what makes you think she wouldn't be appointed regent? If anything she would have been first pick due to popular opinion and the need to avoid a power struggle.

P.S. yes, I know what a regent is and am fairly cognizant of the rules, if a bit rusty. I am the one who pointed it out in the first place after all.

reply to post by teachtaire


She wasn't eligible to be regent. She was no longer in the line of succession, popular opinion or not, under the law she couldn't be regent.