Breaking: Diana Death: Police Passed New Information

Originally posted by RP2SticksOfDynamite

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by RP2SticksOfDynamite
So they didnt change the law recently on succession? So that if W had had a girl she could succeed if W died which would have prevented H succeeding him. No its a boy doesnt matter!!

They changed the Law on Succession only to allow a first born Female to inherit, as it happens, the law change did nothing to the line of succession as William/Kate had a Boy. It had nothing to do with preventing Harry being King, but just trying to be an "enlightened 21st Century Monarchy" that wouldn't exclude a female simply because she was one.

You clearly do not understand what you're talking about.

edit on 18/8/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)

Oh yes it did! If W had had a boy and then died!! Harry would have been a non bloodline King!!!
Dont be so niaive!!

good grief. have you seen harry lately? just watching him for a few minutes it's clear to see that charles is his father.

reply to post by RP2SticksOfDynamite


I'm not being naive, it is clear just by looking at Harry that he is Charles son - besides, even if he wasn't, he wouldn't be the first illegitimate King on the throne.

Either way, your assertion they changed the succession laws to stop him being King is just bollocks. He was 3rd in line and was always going to be pushed down to 4th on the arrival of a son for William, all the law did was ensure that females had the same succession rights as males.

I'm sorry if this was discussed before but wouldn't Princess Anne be the next Queen if Charles didn't take the throne or did the rule only apply to children born after the change?

I sat here and watched Fox News today and listened to them cover this story. Telling me it was basically "FARFETCHED" to think that the scum inbred German "Royalty" would ever do something like this...

reply to post by stumason


Are you in every British thread to defend the monarchy? Can we separate British pride from royalty? ...is that possible with you?

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by RP2SticksOfDynamite

 

I'm not being naive, it is clear just by looking at Harry that he is Charles son - besides, even if he wasn't, he wouldn't be the first illegitimate King on the throne.

Either way, your assertion they changed the succession laws to stop him being King is just bollocks. He was 3rd in line and was always going to be pushed down to 4th on the arrival of a son for William, all the law did was ensure that females had the same succession rights as males.

You should put H's photo alongside the soldiers! Same tree!

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by RP2SticksOfDynamite

 

I'm not being naive, it is clear just by looking at Harry that he is Charles son - besides, even if he wasn't, he wouldn't be the first illegitimate King on the throne.

Either way, your assertion they changed the succession laws to stop him being King is just bollocks. He was 3rd in line and was always going to be pushed down to 4th on the arrival of a son for William, all the law did was ensure that females had the same succession rights as males.

Sorry. If not charles and not W and they both died and W had no child or a girl then H would have been in line for King!!

reply to post by micpsi


This Frank Martini Rosso is talking thru his rearside

Like Princess Diana, Prince Harry joins campaign against landmines

One of the aspects the elites did not like about her. He needs to be cautious.

More explained here:

Wittingly or unwittingly, Princess Di created a problem for the establishment. Her high-profile campaign against land mines threatened to undermine the UK's single most economically important industry - the international arms trade. Her sons are the sole heirs to the British throne, and Diana was becoming too popular and too powerful. Somehow, she had to be stopped. A few centuries ago a courtier in Diana's position could be easily disposed of at the Tower of London, but these days the authorities are more sophisticated.
Source

Originally posted by dreamingawake
Like Princess Diana, Prince Harry joins campaign against landmines

The UK has not made landmines for over 10 years....

Originally posted by dreamingawake
Like Princess Diana, Prince Harry joins campaign against landmines

One of the aspects the elites did not like about her. He needs to be cautious.

More explained here:

Wittingly or unwittingly, Princess Di created a problem for the establishment. Her high-profile campaign against land mines threatened to undermine the UK's single most economically important industry - the international arms trade. Her sons are the sole heirs to the British throne, and Diana was becoming too popular and too powerful. Somehow, she had to be stopped. A few centuries ago a courtier in Diana's position could be easily disposed of at the Tower of London, but these days the authorities are more sophisticated.
Source

edit on 19-8-2013 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)

Now why would he do this?
Harry knows the truth!
He will be aware of many things!
Hope he blows the whistle one day in his mother and living soldier fathers honour!!

reply to post by RP2SticksOfDynamite


He still is in line, he hasn't been removed.. He's just 4th instead of 3rd now, as he was always going to be onec William had a kid. The succession law change had sod all to do with removing him from the line of succession, as it turns out your point is moot as William had a boy. I am at a loss as to why you're still clinging to this.

reply to post by Schillinger


Not at all, just here to dispel total nonsense, of which there is an abundant amount.

Unlike many that have come to this site, I am not here to automatically believe every piece of crap some random spouts, but rather objectively examine the available evidence and come to my own conclusion based on logic and reason.

There was a time when the majority on ATS were like this, but over the years we seem to have accrued a sizeable following of people who will simply believe anything, no matter how fanciful or lacking in any evidence.

I think this goes all the way to the Queen of England, if they were to do some real investigations that didnt get derailed. The situation with Diane, Charles , and the failed marriage, made a big problem for the Royal family. They just wanted this mess to go away. And I think it went all the way to the top, but thats just my opinion

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by RP2SticksOfDynamite

 

He still is in line, he hasn't been removed.. He's just 4th instead of 3rd now, as he was always going to be onec William had a kid. The succession law change had sod all to do with removing him from the line of succession, as it turns out your point is moot as William had a boy. I am at a loss as to why you're still clinging to this.

You fail to get the point!
If W became next in line for the throne and he died without a child then H would then be next in line!!!!
If W became next in line for the throne and he died but left a daughter then if the law had not been changed H would then be next in line!!!!
If W became next in line for the throne and he died but left a son then if the law had not been changed W sons would then be next in line!!!!
Do you actually think that no consideration was given to this prior to law change? Of course it would have been because H is not bloodline!!
Not clinging as you suggest but making a valid point, although moot now!
Thankyou

Hear me out here.

Quickest way to get Charles out of the way so new Daddy and oh-so-lovable Prince William can take the throne and restore the goodwill towards the Monarchy?

Implicate Charles as complicit in Diana's death, or, privately threaten him with reveal of his knowledge of her death, and if he doesn't bite and abdicate, launch a new "investigation" to show him how serious you are.

This is all a play to get William on the throne faster.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Generally speaking, not really. 2001 actually saw a drop in the amount of terrorist attacks from the previous year, globally and if you're not an American, you do not quite attach the same significance to the 9/11 attacks. Aside from the obvious, 2001 was yet another year where stuff happened, same as any other.

If you believe that then you Sir are a Damn Fool!

Korg.

Originally posted by NEB0168
Hear me out here.

Quickest way to get Charles out of the way so new Daddy and oh-so-lovable Prince William can take the throne and restore the goodwill towards the Monarchy?

Implicate Charles as complicit in Diana's death, or, privately threaten him with reveal of his knowledge of her death, and if he doesn't bite and abdicate, launch a new "investigation" to show him how serious you are.

This is all a play to get William on the throne faster.

Um. You don't really believe such nonsense, do you? I mean, you don't really think the powers-that-be in Great Britain would double-cross the future king (who, supposedly, would have used their services to carry out the dastardly deed) and risk so much in having their blackmail exposed merely in order to force him to pass up the job he has spent his life preparing for merely to get the more popular William on the throne?