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

Originally posted by Zaphod58
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.

I think you've misunderstood what I mean and what happens during a regency.

To sum up, the prince is a minor who has someone rule in his stead. The prince is the next in the line of succession. The power behind the throne is usually their closest relative; in this hypothetical situation that would be his mother.

The person in the next line of succession after the prince would be the younger brother, which makes placing the mother in position as regent a sound decision. Indeed, history has many many examples where this same exact thing occurred.

Even if an uncle or aunt or distant relative was placed in the position of regent (which would be unlikely,) the real power behind the throne would have been the mother. Again, history shows us this is often the case.

Granted, besides land rights, I don't see what the fuss is all about anyway in terms of the monarchy.

reply to post by teachtaire


Probably a small misunderstanding of what a Regent is.

A Regent is a person appointed by Parliament to cover for the sovereign, either because they are too young, or ill etc...

Diana would never have been Regent as she was never (ever) in line for the throne and at the time of her death was no longer a Royal. She was merely the mother of two Royal Princes and the ex-wife of Prince Charles, the second in line to the throne.

Had Charles and Diana stayed together and Charles became King and then died, Queen (consort) Diana would not have continued to be a Queen per se, i.e. the Sovereign.

To make it more complicated (for those who don't understand), when Queen Elizabeth dies and Prince Charles becomes king, he may not become King Charles III. The betting is that he will become King George VII.

It may sound complicated, but actually it is not. It is very clear.

Diana would never have sat on the throne of the UK as she was never in line of succession. Diana would never have been Regent. Diana - on her divorce - was no longer a Royal - she was a celebrity.

Regards

If you notice the memorial image of photographs with Dodi and Diana with the two circles intertwined creating the Vesica Pisces (a symbol of creation, or birth or 2 becoming one) it is split down the middle by a bird (dove? or a Gull?).

In the innocent Victims Statue memorial both Dodi and Diana form the Vesica Pisces with their outstretched arms connected again by a bird that they are giving flight...

double post

triple post???

quadruple post????

Sorry seriously I didn't do this...

Originally posted by abeverage
If you notice the memorial image of photographs with Dodi and Diana with the two circles intertwined creating the Vesica Pisces (a symbol of creation, or birth or 2 becoming one) it is split down the middle by a bird (dove? or a Gull?).

In the innocent Victims Statue memorial both Dodi and Diana form the Vesica Pisces with their outstretched arms connected again by a bird that they are giving flight...

All this really shows that Fayed has a penchent for rather creepy statues.

The guy is a nut job...

That's Bad! Fulham fans left stunned as club unveil Jackson statue

reply to post by spartacus699


I really think you need to do some research and corroborate the information before making a complete fool of yourself. Half-baked logic and speculation is all you have here. Jeez...

I really want to know what this thread has not been put in the Hoax Bin.

As several members have pointed out the number of factual inaccuracies in the OP mean it can not possibly be true.

So if we know this thread is not true

then why is it not in the Hoax Bin or even been moved to the Skunk works

Originally posted by davethebear
Just can't believe that this thread has gone on so long without being ripped from the ATS website.....It seems as if the creator of the thread has his own agenda of what he believes and will not be swayed whatsoever regardless of what truth spouts from any of our writings.....

Surely this thread was written in jest, surely it was....

I have lost the will to live.....

Yeah, I believe that that bloke called Camilla will one day be king of England even if Charles dies....All those in favour, say aye...........................Aye!!!!!!

edit on 27-8-2013 by davethebear because: spelling mistake

Neigh! Neiiiiggggghhh!
This thread is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Knobby

Originally posted by abeverage
If you notice the memorial image of photographs with Dodi and Diana with the two circles intertwined creating the Vesica Pisces (a symbol of creation, or birth or 2 becoming one) it is split down the middle by a bird (dove? or a Gull?).

In the innocent Victims Statue memorial both Dodi and Diana form the Vesica Pisces with their outstretched arms connected again by a bird that they are giving flight...

All this really shows that Fayed has a penchent for rather creepy statues.

The guy is a nut job...

That's Bad! Fulham fans left stunned as club unveil Jackson statue

Just pointing out something that has esoteric meaning in their memorial and since Diana was only 36 she could have easily been pregnant. But the rest I don't think is very plausible...

Well Spartacus, judging by everyone's reactions, you're on to something.

Look into the Crown Lands, or whatever the hell it is called these days. Basically, the crown owns all of the lands not being used in it's territories or some such thing foolishness, i.e. all of that frozen wasteland with resources in Canada is held by the Crown.

Originally posted by teachtaire
Well Spartacus, judging by everyone's reactions, you're on to something.

Look into the Crown Lands, or whatever the hell it is called these days. Basically, the crown owns all of the lands not being used in it's territories or some such thing foolishness, i.e. all of that frozen wasteland with resources in Canada is held by the Crown.

I think that that only thing that spartibartfast has proved is that he has a bizarre fetish with a muslim being the King of Great Britain.

It didn't happen, it will not happen ( obvoiusly).

Spit it out...your turn

reply to post by spartacus699


You heard wrong. She was completely stripped of her royal title, and never could havebeen queen. She wasn't even a princess anymore

reply to post by Knobby


I never said that that man would take the crown or become royalty. I never said that Diana would have become royalty again.

I never even said that I believe someone besides bad luck killed her. I don't believe that in fact.

However, he could have had access to the prince(s) selling off large tracts of the crown land at a discount.

Originally posted by teachtaire
reply to post by Knobby

 

I never said that that man would take the crown or become royalty. I never said that Diana would have become royalty again.

I never even said that I believe someone besides bad luck killed her. I don't believe that in fact.

However, he could have had access to the prince(s) selling off large tracts of the crown land at a discount.

Which is why I asked you if you had something to say or not?

Originally posted by teachtaire
Well Spartacus, judging by everyone's reactions, you're on to something.

Look into the Crown Lands, or whatever the hell it is called these days. Basically, the crown owns all of the lands not being used in it's territories or some such thing foolishness, i.e. all of that frozen wasteland with resources in Canada is held by the Crown.

Well you got that right!!!!

It was a muslim cuuuww for the monarch

Originally posted by spartacus699

Originally posted by teachtaire
Well Spartacus, judging by everyone's reactions, you're on to something.

Look into the Crown Lands, or whatever the hell it is called these days. Basically, the crown owns all of the lands not being used in it's territories or some such thing foolishness, i.e. all of that frozen wasteland with resources in Canada is held by the Crown.

Well you got that right!!!!

It was a muslim cuuuww for the monarch

edit on 29-8-2013 by spartacus699 because: (no reason given)

Utter garbage. The Monarch can not sell land in other countries because they do not own it. It is called Crown Land and simply means it is unalientated, ie, it is owned by the respective Governments. In Australia, Crown Land is owned by the State. The Queen has no say in what happens to t.

This whole thread is just stupid, bloody stupid and a few posters just don't get it even after all the decent info being provided.

Next you will tell us that they can sell the Crown Jewels. They can't! They can wear them, they can clean them, they can admire them but they can't sell 'em.

This is one of the craziest threads I have seen.

It was amusing tripe, now it is just BS

P

reply to post by spartacus699


Charles said he won't become king? Au contraire, he has actually stated that WHEN he becomes king, he will take the name George VII in honour of his grandfather.

reply to post by Khaleesi


I seem to remember that HRH Diana had made a will leaving some money to William, but the bulk of her estate to Harry. Charles did not benefit if my memory is right because she, as a Spencer would probably also have had money of her own.

If you consider the meagre settlement of something around 15K per year for Fergie who was also a 'Royal' divorced from probably the only one of the Royals who actually makes money, albeit through nefarious means, and their on-off lives Diana if she had not had her own money could have been left pretty high and dry.

I will always feel sorry for that lady because she never had a chance of happiness with her marriage and she made a terrible mistake at a very young age. Head-hunted brides do not always work out well for all.