|
Post by observer on May 8, 2008 2:32:03 GMT
.....The presidential standard is the Russian tricolor of blue, white red with a golden Romanov eagle superimposed over it. ... If it is a golden eagle it is not a Romanov eagle - that was black. And the image of St George on it is reversed. Two-headed eagles are fairly common in national heraldry.
|
|
|
Post by observer on May 1, 2008 6:26:57 GMT
Women holding official positions that were once the preserve of men is nothing new, and is becoming quite common today. In Britian today, women hold official positions that were once held only by men. The unique thing is that the title of those positions has not been changed to reflect the feminine gender. Can anyone name a few current official offices held by women but which still have a male title? A formerly female job that is sometimes held by males is that of Matron in a hospital, but I doubt any are called Patron.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Apr 20, 2008 23:59:30 GMT
The law that forces the daughter of a British Monarch to make way for her younger brother is to be abolished. If, and only if, all the other countries in which the British sovereign is also monarch agree - as agreed under the 1931 Statute of Westminster. The succession rule is not actually part of the Act of Settlement, either, which the British Solicitor-General, Vera Baird, should know.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Mar 27, 2008 23:29:37 GMT
I wonder how James II was allowed to become King and head of the church of England when he was a catholic? England at that time was very anti catholic yet James had no problem at first as head of the Anglian church .So if he was allowed to become head of the church of England why cant it be allowed again.? I think the answer to that is simple: at the time there was no law against Catholics becoming sovereigns, even though many English people (and Scots, of course, as he was also King of Scotland) were anti-Catholic. In other words, there was no legal or constitutional bar to his accession?
|
|
|
Post by observer on Mar 26, 2008 23:34:21 GMT
What is it about the UK's Act of Settlement that causes it to be raised from time to time on this Board?
The United Kingdom is not the only monarchy to stipulate the religion of the king or queen. For example, the King of Cambodia must be a "fervent Buddhist," though in Thailand he needs only to be a Buddhist. The King/Queen of Norway must be an Evangelical Lutheran (as must be the majority of his/her advisers), and the two other Scandinavian monarchies have similar stipulations.
In all Islamic countries, of course, the King must be Muslim because Islam sees no separation between religion and state.
The Head of the State of the Vatican City (i.e., the Pope) must be Catholic and unmarried.
In the 1978 Spanish Constitution, the monarchy establishment clause does not specify that the King nor Spain need be of any religion, nor especially Catholic. The Dutch, Belgian, and Luxembourg Constitutions similarly have no statement about the sovereign's religion. In Liechtenstein and Monaco the Roman Catholic Church is the national church, so I assume the reigning prince must be Catholic.
So, I repeat, what is so special about the UK's arrangements?
|
|
|
Post by observer on Feb 13, 2008 3:45:23 GMT
Just a quick question. I'm just wondering why Prince Albert is still called Prince. Since he took the throne after his father should he not be called King? If you are referring to Prince Albert of Monaco, it is because the country is a Principality not a Kingdom. Liechtenstein is also a principality, while Luxembourg is a Grand Duchy, and Andorra is a co-principality. The rulers of none of these countries is titled "king."
|
|