- Joined
- Sep 9, 2000
- Messages
- 181
Here's a little lite offering to make you chuckle if you are tiring of the Gore/Bush twostep...
A national newspaper in the UK (The Guardian) with a somewhat left-wing viewpoint, is preparing to legally challenge the British Crown over various acts of Parliment, dating back over three hundred or so years, that determine how the Monarch is selected. Various moral and religious standards must be met before the king or queen or whatever is crowned. They mustn't be divorced, married to a divorced person, definately being a Roman Catholic is a big no-no, as is being married to one (dated back to King Charles 1st and Queen Henrietta, also King James 2nd, who were rather naughty, and didn't cut the mustard as far as the ramrod-backed, teas-slurping British public were concerned!)
This is because Britain finally recognises that it is illegal to hold bias against anyone on religious, racial or whatever grounds, and passed the Human Rights Act, which came into force in October.
This promises to be a major source of amusement, as the Goverment have already stated they can't say they will, or won't, prosecute the paper's editors for treason, of all things!
It may also means that the succession would have to be redetermined right back to the English Revolution (1688), when the Brits kicked out James II, on the grounds he was dumb and ugly.
Who knows? I may be England's next king!
***Arise Sir Uncle Bill! I dub thee 'Baron Bir-Gorkha'***
Yours, with a little twinkle in his eye,
David
A national newspaper in the UK (The Guardian) with a somewhat left-wing viewpoint, is preparing to legally challenge the British Crown over various acts of Parliment, dating back over three hundred or so years, that determine how the Monarch is selected. Various moral and religious standards must be met before the king or queen or whatever is crowned. They mustn't be divorced, married to a divorced person, definately being a Roman Catholic is a big no-no, as is being married to one (dated back to King Charles 1st and Queen Henrietta, also King James 2nd, who were rather naughty, and didn't cut the mustard as far as the ramrod-backed, teas-slurping British public were concerned!)
This is because Britain finally recognises that it is illegal to hold bias against anyone on religious, racial or whatever grounds, and passed the Human Rights Act, which came into force in October.
This promises to be a major source of amusement, as the Goverment have already stated they can't say they will, or won't, prosecute the paper's editors for treason, of all things!
It may also means that the succession would have to be redetermined right back to the English Revolution (1688), when the Brits kicked out James II, on the grounds he was dumb and ugly.
Who knows? I may be England's next king!
***Arise Sir Uncle Bill! I dub thee 'Baron Bir-Gorkha'***
Yours, with a little twinkle in his eye,
David