Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
-- From: "Steven Desjardins" Subject: OT: Happy Canada Day to all our listers north of the (US) border. What goes on for Canada Day? (aside from the beer). Nothing. Canada Day is all about the beer. There are probably fireworks later. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
2010/7/1 William Robb : > > Nothing. Canada Day is all about the beer. > There are probably fireworks later. paid for by breweries then, eh? cheers ecke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: > to all our listers north of the (US) border. What goes on for Canada > Day? (aside from the beer). Thanks, Steve. Lots of barbeques, a few will toast the day with a beer or three, and fireworks in the evening. Pretty low-key stuff. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
Yes happy belated Canada Day and enjoy the Queen's visit. On Jul 1, 2010, at 12:51 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: to all our listers north of the (US) border. What goes on for Canada Day? (aside from the beer). -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Evan Hanson wrote: > Yes happy belated Canada Day and enjoy the Queen's visit. Thanks. We're having her over for tea on Tuesday. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
Why do you Canadians still put up with those silly "royals"? As the grandson of peasants, the pretension to royalty or nobility really offends me. Dan On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:00 PM, frank theriault wrote: > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Evan Hanson > wrote: >> Yes happy belated Canada Day and enjoy the Queen's visit. > > Thanks. We're having her over for tea on Tuesday. > > cheers, > frank > > -- > "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
-- From: "Daniel J. Matyola" Subject: Re: OT: Happy Canada Day Why do you Canadians still put up with those silly "royals"? As the grandson of peasants, the pretension to royalty or nobility really offends me. Technically, the Queen forms a pivotal part of our government structure, in that her representative (the Governor General) can tell the Prime Minister to go pound sand. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way in reality, but I much prefer our method of bringing down a government that is running amok (the GG signing them out of power) than your way (assassinating unpopular presidents). I have appealed to the Queen (GG) myself when I felt I was being treated unfairly by Revenue Canada, and she made them go away. Consider the awesomeness of someone having that much power.. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
I strongly object to giving anyone that kind of power simply because of their ancestry. Are you really comfortable giving someone like her son that kind of power? Dan On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:41 PM, William Robb wrote: > > -- > From: "Daniel J. Matyola" > Subject: Re: OT: Happy Canada Day > >> Why do you Canadians still put up with those silly "royals"? >> >> As the grandson of peasants, the pretension to royalty or nobility >> really offends me. >> > > Technically, the Queen forms a pivotal part of our government structure, in > that her representative (the Governor General) can tell the Prime Minister > to go pound sand. > Unfortunately it doesn't work that way in reality, but I much prefer our > method of bringing down a government that is running amok (the GG signing > them out of power) than your way (assassinating unpopular presidents). > I have appealed to the Queen (GG) myself when I felt I was being treated > unfairly by Revenue Canada, and she made them go away. > Consider the awesomeness of someone having that much power.. > > William Robb > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
-- From: "Daniel J. Matyola" Subject: Re: OT: Happy Canada Day I strongly object to giving anyone that kind of power simply because of their ancestry. Are you really comfortable giving someone like her son that kind of power? It works well enough, and as far as governments go, ours seems more honest than most. If you really want to bleat about governments, go and do something about that corruption center in D.C. You have far bigger fish to fry than we ever will. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
There is a difference: we elected the fools down there in DC. We have only ourselves to blame. We don't pay homage to someone merely because that person is a distant relative of the German House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Dan On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:20 PM, William Robb wrote: > > -- > From: "Daniel J. Matyola" > Subject: Re: OT: Happy Canada Day > >> I strongly object to giving anyone that kind of power simply because >> of their ancestry. >> >> Are you really comfortable giving someone like her son that kind of power? > > It works well enough, and as far as governments go, ours seems more honest > than most. > If you really want to bleat about governments, go and do something about that > corruption center in D.C. > You have far bigger fish to fry than we ever will. > > William Robb > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
I'd take the (extremely limited) power of a constitutional monarchy any day over the abuses of power clearly demonstrated in the American presidential system. I certainly don't see that achieving a position of power just because of who your father was is in any way inferior to achieving power because of how much money your friends, family and cronies can afford to spend. On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 05:01:41PM -0400, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: > I strongly object to giving anyone that kind of power simply because > of their ancestry. > > Are you really comfortable giving someone like her son that kind of power? > > Dan > > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:41 PM, William Robb wrote: > > > > -- > > From: "Daniel J. Matyola" > > Subject: Re: OT: Happy Canada Day > > > >> Why do you Canadians still put up with those silly "royals"? > >> > >> As the grandson of peasants, the pretension to royalty or nobility > >> really offends me. > >> > > > > Technically, the Queen forms a pivotal part of our government structure, in > > that her representative (the Governor General) can tell the Prime Minister > > to go pound sand. > > Unfortunately it doesn't work that way in reality, but I much prefer our > > method of bringing down a government that is running amok (the GG signing > > them out of power) than your way (assassinating unpopular presidents). > > I have appealed to the Queen (GG) myself when I felt I was being treated > > unfairly by Revenue Canada, and she made them go away. > > Consider the awesomeness of someone having that much power.. > > > > William Robb > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > > follow the directions. > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
How is that different than Senatorial seats that have been passed from
father to son, as if by right? Who in their right mind who voted for
Tom Dodd would have voted for Christopher if they actually were paying
attention?
On 7/2/2010 5:01 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
I strongly object to giving anyone that kind of power simply because
of their ancestry.
Are you really comfortable giving someone like her son that kind of power?
Dan
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:41 PM, William Robb wrote:
--
From: "Daniel J. Matyola"
Subject: Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
Why do you Canadians still put up with those silly "royals"?
As the grandson of peasants, the pretension to royalty or nobility
really offends me.
Technically, the Queen forms a pivotal part of our government structure, in
that her representative (the Governor General) can tell the Prime Minister
to go pound sand.
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way in reality, but I much prefer our
method of bringing down a government that is running amok (the GG signing
them out of power) than your way (assassinating unpopular presidents).
I have appealed to the Queen (GG) myself when I felt I was being treated
unfairly by Revenue Canada, and she made them go away.
Consider the awesomeness of someone having that much power..
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
I agree. Totally. If you want to make this less serious you may want to catch up on what English Bob had to say in Unforgiven =) Cheers Ecke PS: Much of the world is very happy that Obama replaced Dubya. He is the better choice by far and we have to bear in mind that much of what he cannot achieved doesn't happen because he just doesn't have the majorities he needs to do as he pleases... 2010/7/2 John Francis : > > I'd take the (extremely limited) power of a constitutional monarchy > any day over the abuses of power clearly demonstrated in the American > presidential system. > > I certainly don't see that achieving a position of power just because > of who your father was is in any way inferior to achieving power because > of how much money your friends, family and cronies can afford to spend. > > > On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 05:01:41PM -0400, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: >> I strongly object to giving anyone that kind of power simply because >> of their ancestry. >> >> Are you really comfortable giving someone like her son that kind of power? >> >> Dan >> >> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:41 PM, William Robb wrote: >> > >> > -- >> > From: "Daniel J. Matyola" >> > Subject: Re: OT: Happy Canada Day >> > >> >> Why do you Canadians still put up with those silly "royals"? >> >> >> >> As the grandson of peasants, the pretension to royalty or nobility >> >> really offends me. >> >> >> > >> > Technically, the Queen forms a pivotal part of our government structure, in >> > that her representative (the Governor General) can tell the Prime Minister >> > to go pound sand. >> > Unfortunately it doesn't work that way in reality, but I much prefer our >> > method of bringing down a government that is running amok (the GG signing >> > them out of power) than your way (assassinating unpopular presidents). >> > I have appealed to the Queen (GG) myself when I felt I was being treated >> > unfairly by Revenue Canada, and she made them go away. >> > Consider the awesomeness of someone having that much power.. >> > >> > William Robb >> > >> > -- >> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> > PDML@pdml.net >> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> > follow the directions. >> > >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
-- From: "Daniel J. Matyola" Subject: Re: OT: Happy Canada Day There is a difference: we elected the fools down there in DC. We have only ourselves to blame. We don't pay homage to someone merely because that person is a distant relative of the German House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Whatever. Until your system works better than the ones you are bitching about, go take a flying fuck into your glass walls. Or, be as offended as you're white peasant ass wants to be, but piss off and shut the fuck up about it. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
Bill, Bill, Bill. It's not eve 6:00. On Jul 2, 2010, at 5:40 PM, William Robb wrote: > > -- > From: "Daniel J. Matyola" > Subject: Re: OT: Happy Canada Day > >> There is a difference: we elected the fools down there in DC. We >> have only ourselves to blame. We don't pay homage to someone merely >> because that person is a distant relative of the German House of >> Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. >> > > Whatever. > Until your system works better than the ones you are bitching about, go take > a flying fuck into your glass walls. > Or, be as offended as you're white peasant ass wants to be, but piss off and > shut the fuck up about it. > > William Robb > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
2010/7/2 paul stenquist : > > Bill, Bill, Bill. > It's not eve 6:00. Never mind. It isn't much of a statement w/o the expletives. *duck&run* Ecke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
-- From: "paul stenquist" Subject: Re: OT: Happy Canada Day Bill, Bill, Bill. It's not eve 6:00. In this instance, I am absolutely dead sober, if that is what you are implying. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
On Jul 2, 2010, at 6:10 PM, William Robb wrote: > > -- > From: "paul stenquist" > Subject: Re: OT: Happy Canada Day > >> Bill, Bill, Bill. >> It's not eve 6:00. >> > > In this instance, I am absolutely dead sober, if that is what you are > implying. > And I can't even spell "even." I was dead sober as well, but I'm hoping to change that soon. Paul > William Robb > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
Thank God I started this thead. Y'all can tell the Queen that Steve says "hey". -Original Message- From: "William Robb" Sender: pdml-boun...@pdml.net Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 16:10:37 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: OT: Happy Canada Day -- From: "paul stenquist" Subject: Re: OT: Happy Canada Day > Bill, Bill, Bill. > It's not eve 6:00. > In this instance, I am absolutely dead sober, if that is what you are implying. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: > Why do you Canadians still put up with those silly "royals"? > > As the grandson of peasants, the pretension to royalty or nobility > really offends me. I am personally offended that our head of state lives in a foreign land and that for a bill to become law it must first receive "royal assent". Yes, that's given by our Governor General, but she is after all the Queen's representative, and she can be recalled by the Queen at any time. I don't think we can really and truly call ourselves an independent nation as long as that goes on, and I find it humiliating. That being said, Bill's right. It works, and it works pretty well. The Constitution (both written and unwritten, ie: convention) limits what the Crown can do in reality. We are de facto an independent nation, even if a de jure we aren't. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
-- From: "paul stenquist" Subject: Re: OT: Happy Canada Day And I can't even spell "even." I was dead sober as well, but I'm hoping to change that soon. I figured you meant just before 6:00. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
2010/7/3 frank theriault : > > I don't think we can really and truly call ourselves an independent > nation as long as that goes on, and I find it humiliating. Why? What's the intrinsic value of being ruled by A over being ruled by B? Where is the gain in individual liberty, seeing that you're personally offended? Cheers Ecke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
You forgot more beer. Our town has an annual strawberry festival that kicks off July 1, with a BBQ and fireworks, then the downtown is closed for Saturday for street fair, sales etc. Lots of rides for the kids. Pretty well attended, and its free. I'll be biking down later today, look around, then beer. Dave On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: > to all our listers north of the (US) border. What goes on for Canada > Day? (aside from the beer). > > -- > Steve Desjardins > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
On 7/1/2010 7:51 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: to all our listers north of the (US) border. What goes on for Canada Day? (aside from the beer). I'd second that... Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
You realize you are getting on the case of my seventh cousin on my mother's side, who's never bothered to write. I defend her nonetheless, though, poor thing. Her family lost a war some 230 years ago when her highly trained troops and the Royal Navy were driven off by a bunch of farmers in rags and some rich kids with a borrowed ship. :-p On Jul 2, 2010, at 14:33 , Daniel J. Matyola wrote: There is a difference: we elected the fools down there in DC. We have only ourselves to blame. We don't pay homage to someone merely because that person is a distant relative of the German House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Dan On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:20 PM, William Robb wrote: -- From: "Daniel J. Matyola" Subject: Re: OT: Happy Canada Day I strongly object to giving anyone that kind of power simply because of their ancestry. Are you really comfortable giving someone like her son that kind of power? It works well enough, and as far as governments go, ours seems more honest than most. If you really want to bleat about governments, go and do something about that corruption center in D.C. You have far bigger fish to fry than we ever will. William Robb Joseph McAllister Pentaxian http://gallery.me.com/jomac -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT: Happy Canada Day
She's on her way to New York soon, where I believe she has substantial property holdings. Perhaps you should have a word with her. She is very self-sacrificing. Look how she goes out of her way here to make her hosts feel better about their silly hats, by wearing even sillier ones: < http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10500737.stm > > > You realize you are getting on the case of my seventh cousin on my > mother's side, who's never bothered to write. I defend her > nonetheless, though, poor thing. Her family lost a war some 230 years > ago when her highly trained troops and the Royal Navy were driven off > by a bunch of farmers in rags and some rich kids with a borrowed > ship. :-p > > > On Jul 2, 2010, at 14:33 , Daniel J. Matyola wrote: > > > There is a difference: we elected the fools down there in DC. We > > have only ourselves to blame. We don't pay homage to someone merely > > because that person is a distant relative of the German House of > > Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. > > > > Dan > > > > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:20 PM, William Robb > wrote: > >> > >> -- > >> From: "Daniel J. Matyola" > >> Subject: Re: OT: Happy Canada Day > >> > >>> I strongly object to giving anyone that kind of power simply > because > >>> of their ancestry. > >>> > >>> Are you really comfortable giving someone like her son that kind > >>> of power? > >> > >> It works well enough, and as far as governments go, ours seems more > >> honest than most. > >> If you really want to bleat about governments, go and do something > >> about that corruption center in D.C. > >> You have far bigger fish to fry than we ever will. > >> > >> William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
I am not bitching about any system. I am only saying that I am offended by the concept that anyone is superior to another person by reason of birth. If we say that the Queen is superior by reason of birth and has rights that can't be taken away, then we legitimize the position of the "nobility" who claim to be superior by birth to us "commoners." That is just a short distance from saying that whites are superior to other races by reason of birth, or that English are superior to Irish, or that Japanese are superior to Koreans. Belief in status or privilege arising our of ancestry is anti-democratic, and creates artificial barriers that divide people who should seek common cause. Dan On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:40 PM, William Robb wrote: > > -- > From: "Daniel J. Matyola" > Subject: Re: OT: Happy Canada Day > >> There is a difference: we elected the fools down there in DC. We >> have only ourselves to blame. We don't pay homage to someone merely >> because that person is a distant relative of the German House of >> Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. >> > > Whatever. > Until your system works better than the ones you are bitching about, go take > a flying fuck into your glass walls. > Or, be as offended as you're white peasant ass wants to be, but piss off and > shut the fuck up about it. > > William Robb > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
Daniel J. Matyola wrote: I am not bitching about any system. I am only saying that I am offended by the concept that anyone is superior to another person by reason of birth. If we say that the Queen is superior by reason of birth and has rights that can't be taken away, then we legitimize the position of the "nobility" who claim to be superior by birth to us "commoners." That is just a short distance from saying that whites are superior to other races by reason of birth, or that English are superior to Irish, or that Japanese are superior to Koreans. Belief in status or privilege arising our of ancestry is anti-democratic, and creates artificial barriers that divide people who should seek common cause. Sadly, many people are never happier than when they have found or created an artificial barrier to divide them from others. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 02:25:51PM -0400, Daniel J. Matyola scripsit: > If we say that the Queen is superior by reason of birth and has rights > that can't be taken away, No one says any such thing. The Queen is the Queen by right of Parliament, _not_ right of birth. (This is, for instance, why there is such a thing as the Succession Act, or why it's widely acknowledged -- since Parliament has done it, twice and a half (Headless Chuck, James the Fled, and Edward the Abbreviated) -- that the elected Parliament can replace the monarch, or, for that matter, why Her Majesty has publicly stated that if she's presented with an act converting the UK into a republic, she'll sign it.) Supremacy of Parliament is a very real thing. Which is not to say I'm not -- being of a somewhat egalitarian bent -- in favour of both a stronger monarchy and a selective one in Canada, rather than one with the current hereditary succession, but the idea that the English Monarchy came down on the side of Divine Right is really laughable. -- Graydon -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
"The Queen is the Queen by right of Parliament, _not_ right of birth." Really? And you believe that? They just HAPPENED to pick the daughter of the last King? What an extraordinary coincidence! Dan On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Graydon wrote: > On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 02:25:51PM -0400, Daniel J. Matyola scripsit: >> If we say that the Queen is superior by reason of birth and has rights >> that can't be taken away, > > No one says any such thing. > > The Queen is the Queen by right of Parliament, _not_ right of birth. > (This is, for instance, why there is such a thing as the Succession > Act, or why it's widely acknowledged -- since Parliament has done it, > twice and a half (Headless Chuck, James the Fled, and Edward the > Abbreviated) -- that the elected Parliament can replace the monarch, > or, for that matter, why Her Majesty has publicly stated that if she's > presented with an act converting the UK into a republic, she'll sign > it.) > > Supremacy of Parliament is a very real thing. > > Which is not to say I'm not -- being of a somewhat egalitarian bent -- > in favour of both a stronger monarchy and a selective one in Canada, > rather than one with the current hereditary succession, but the idea > that the English Monarchy came down on the side of Divine Right is > really laughable. > > -- Graydon > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT: Happy Canada Day
> I am not bitching about any system. I am only saying that I am > offended by the concept that anyone is superior to another person by > reason of birth. > > If we say that the Queen is superior by reason of birth and has rights > that can't be taken away, well we don't. We swept all that nonsense away when we cut Charles I's head off in 1649. Bob > then we legitimize the position of the > "nobility" who claim to be superior by birth to us "commoners." That > is just a short distance from saying that whites are superior to other > races by reason of birth, or that English are superior to Irish, or > that Japanese are superior to Koreans. Belief in status or privilege > arising our of ancestry is anti-democratic, and creates artificial > barriers that divide people who should seek common cause. > > Dan > > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:40 PM, William Robb wrote: > > > > -------------- > > From: "Daniel J. Matyola" > > Subject: Re: OT: Happy Canada Day > > > >> There is a difference: we elected the fools down there in DC. We > >> have only ourselves to blame. We don't pay homage to someone merely > >> because that person is a distant relative of the German House of > >> Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. > >> > > > > Whatever. > > Until your system works better than the ones you are bitching about, > go take > > a flying fuck into your glass walls. > > Or, be as offended as you're white peasant ass wants to be, but piss > off and > > shut the fuck up about it. > > > > William Robb > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > and > > follow the directions. > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
On 4/7/10, Daniel J. Matyola, discombobulated, unleashed: > That >is just a short distance from saying that ... that English are superior to Irish Oh well I mean come on !!! -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche -- http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 03:14:23PM -0400, Daniel J. Matyola scripsit:
> "The Queen is the Queen by right of Parliament, _not_ right of birth."
>
> Really? And you believe that? They just HAPPENED to pick the
> daughter of the last King? What an extraordinary coincidence!
If Parliament says she stops being Queen, she stops being Queen. This
happened to her Uncle Edward. It could certainly happen to her and if
the general run of the British public weren't generally of a mind to see
Princess Di's kids get the throne it might well have.
Way back -- in the days of Alfred born in Wantage, way back -- being
king rested on three things; divine approval, the consent of the
governed, and descent. In France -- where about the same thing, for
about the same reasons -- held true at that time, "divine favour" and
"descent" won out, and you eventually wind up at the Terror after some
really extremely statistically improbable runs of male primogeniture.
In England, up until German George, you get something like half of the
kings (and Queen) being the son or grandson of the previous king; you
get a remarkable lack of associated piety, cult sites, and so on (mostly
due to Devil Henry, Henry II; not only did he have turbulent priest
issues, it appears absolutely no one was capable of believing in his
personal piety in any way, nor that of his sons, and by the time that
was done with it was a remarkably secular monarchy) and you *do* get the
consent of the governed, in the form of the approval of Parliament,
becoming the one thing that matters. ("If Parliament sets the crown on
a stook, I will fight for the stook", and that's from the time of Henry
VII, fifteenth century.)
The remarkably good order since Victoria is mostly just a side effect of
the idea of not giving the constitutional monarchy any real power beyond
moral suasion reducing the political focus on the office.
-- Graydon
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
From: "Daniel J. Matyola" I am not bitching about any system. I am only saying that I am offended by the concept that anyone is superior to another person by reason of birth. If we say that the Queen is superior by reason of birth and has rights that can't be taken away, then we legitimize the position of the "nobility" who claim to be superior by birth to us "commoners." That is just a short distance from saying that whites are superior to other races by reason of birth, or that English are superior to Irish, or that Japanese are superior to Koreans. Belief in status or privilege arising our of ancestry is anti-democratic, and creates artificial barriers that divide people who should seek common cause. Dan The only flaw I see is the supposition that inherited wealth and position are a claim of inherited superiority. No democracy is perfect. The British and Canadian versions have more flaws than an idealized, perfect democracy, but fewer flaws than some other actual implementations. Seems to me it's a workable way of choosing a titular "head of state", i.e. who represents the nation ... as opposed to who governs the nation. As I understand it, the Queen has little actual power, merely some formal prerogatives. I understand the Queen appoints a Governor General for Canada, but I believe she appoints whoever the Prime Minister of Canada recommends. And that the Governor General "approves" legislation from the Canadian Parliament in the Queen's name. But does the Governor General have absolute veto power? What happens if the Governor General declines to approve legislation? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
It's a very real CURRENT issue. The heir-apparent Prince of Wales, Charles Windsor, appears to have run afoul of the Succession Act himself. He's divorced, he's married to a divorcee and she's a [former] Roman Catholic. (Three strikes.) Just being the first born son of the current monarch isn't enough to put him on the throne. Charles doesn't inherit unless he can convince Parliament to say he can inherit, which from this distance appears less and less likely. There's a very real chance the succession will skip over Charles to his eldest son because he will not get the consent of Parliament. You also might consider how the "last king" ended up on the throne, as he was not first in the line of succession when his father died. Hint: Wallace Simpson was also a divorcee and a Roman Catholic. From: "Daniel J. Matyola" "The Queen is the Queen by right of Parliament, _not_ right of birth." Really? And you believe that? They just HAPPENED to pick the daughter of the last King? What an extraordinary coincidence! Dan On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Graydon wrote: > On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 02:25:51PM -0400, Daniel J. Matyola scripsit: >> If we say that the Queen is superior by reason of birth and has rights >> that can't be taken away, > > No one says any such thing. > > The Queen is the Queen by right of Parliament, _not_ right of birth. > (This is, for instance, why there is such a thing as the Succession > Act, or why it's widely acknowledged -- since Parliament has done it, > twice and a half (Headless Chuck, James the Fled, and Edward the > Abbreviated) -- that the elected Parliament can replace the monarch, > or, for that matter, why Her Majesty has publicly stated that if she's > presented with an act converting the UK into a republic, she'll sign > it.) > > Supremacy of Parliament is a very real thing. > > Which is not to say I'm not -- being of a somewhat egalitarian bent -- > in favour of both a stronger monarchy and a selective one in Canada, > rather than one with the current hereditary succession, but the idea > that the English Monarchy came down on the side of Divine Right is > really laughable. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
Me thinks she should turn herself over to some of the NY fashionistas for a make-over! On Jul 4, 2010, at 03:06 , Bob W wrote: She's on her way to New York soon, where I believe she has substantial property holdings. Perhaps you should have a word with her. She is very self-sacrificing. Look how she goes out of her way here to make her hosts feel better about their silly hats, by wearing even sillier ones: < http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10500737.stm > Joseph McAllister Pentaxian http://gallery.me.com/jomac -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT: Happy Canada Day
> It's a very real CURRENT issue. The heir-apparent Prince of Wales, > Charles Windsor, appears to have run afoul of the Succession Act > himself. > > He's divorced, he's married to a divorcee and she's a [former] Roman > Catholic. (Three strikes.) > nobody gives a shit about that sort of thing any more. > Just being the first born son of the current monarch isn't enough to > put > him on the throne. Charles doesn't inherit unless he can convince > Parliament to say he can inherit, which from this distance appears less > and less likely. There's a very real chance the succession will skip > over Charles to his eldest son because he will not get the consent of > Parliament. > Nobody in Parliament gives a flying fuck. The only people who care are the editors of supermarket magazines who think this sort of rubbish increases sales to Daily Express and Daily Mail readers. > You also might consider how the "last king" ended up on the throne, as > he was not first in the line of succession when his father died. > > Hint: Wallace Simpson was also a divorcee and a Roman Catholic. nobody gave a shit about that. What counted against her was being American. It was 80 years ago. Do you really think people in Britain still have those sort of views? There are probably about 16 people in Britain who care about the religion and divorced status of the royal family, and they're all over 110 and living in secure accommodation. Prince Charles could divorce Camilla and marry a gay Muslim leper from Somalia and nobody would give a toss or think it should affect whether he becomes king. In fact, we'd probably celebrate his diversity awareness. What matters is that he should stop interfering in matters that don't concern him. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
On Jul 4, 2010, at 5:30 PM, John Sessoms wrote: > It's a very real CURRENT issue. The heir-apparent Prince of Wales, Charles > Windsor, appears to have run afoul of the Succession Act himself. > > He's divorced, he's married to a divorcee and she's a [former] Roman > Catholic. (Three strikes.) > > Just being the first born son of the current monarch isn't enough to put him > on the throne. Charles doesn't inherit unless he can convince Parliament to > say he can inherit, which from this distance appears less and less likely. > There's a very real chance the succession will skip over Charles to his > eldest son because he will not get the consent of Parliament. > > You also might consider how the "last king" ended up on the throne, as he was > not first in the line of succession when his father died. > > Hint: Wallace Simpson was also a divorcee and a Roman Catholic. > If those factors are really relevant, it's all the more damning, isn't it? What if she were black? Horrors! Paul > > > From: "Daniel J. Matyola" >> "The Queen is the Queen by right of Parliament, _not_ right of birth." >> Really? And you believe that? They just HAPPENED to pick the >> daughter of the last King? What an extraordinary coincidence! >> Dan >> On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Graydon wrote: >>> > On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 02:25:51PM -0400, Daniel J. Matyola scripsit: >> If we say that the Queen is superior by reason of birth and has rights >> that can't be taken away, >>> > >>> > No one says any such thing. >>> > >>> > The Queen is the Queen by right of Parliament, _not_ right of birth. >>> > (This is, for instance, why there is such a thing as the Succession >>> > Act, or why it's widely acknowledged -- since Parliament has done it, >>> > twice and a half (Headless Chuck, James the Fled, and Edward the >>> > Abbreviated) -- that the elected Parliament can replace the monarch, >>> > or, for that matter, why Her Majesty has publicly stated that if she's >>> > presented with an act converting the UK into a republic, she'll sign >>> > it.) >>> > >>> > Supremacy of Parliament is a very real thing. >>> > >>> > Which is not to say I'm not -- being of a somewhat egalitarian bent -- >>> > in favour of both a stronger monarchy and a selective one in Canada, >>> > rather than one with the current hereditary succession, but the idea >>> > that the English Monarchy came down on the side of Divine Right is >>> > really laughable. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
On 4/7/10, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed: >nobody gave a shit about that. What counted against her was being American. >It was 80 years ago. Do you really think people in Britain still have those >sort of views? There are probably about 16 people in Britain who care about >the religion and divorced status of the royal family, and they're all over >110 and living in secure accommodation. Prince Charles could divorce Camilla >and marry a gay Muslim leper from Somalia and nobody would give a toss or >think it should affect whether he becomes king. In fact, we'd probably >celebrate his diversity awareness. The sad reality is that this is not the case. I walk into scenarios every day that convince me otherwise - really - believe me! -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche -- http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
No you didn't. You just imported some German "aristocrats" to take his place. Dan > well we don't. We swept all that nonsense away when we cut Charles I's head > off in 1649. > > Bob > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
Do the English really want Prince Charles for their king? Dan On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 6:35 PM, paul stenquist wrote: > > On Jul 4, 2010, at 5:30 PM, John Sessoms wrote: > >> It's a very real CURRENT issue. The heir-apparent Prince of Wales, Charles >> Windsor, appears to have run afoul of the Succession Act himself. >> >> He's divorced, he's married to a divorcee and she's a [former] Roman >> Catholic. (Three strikes.) >> >> Just being the first born son of the current monarch isn't enough to put him >> on the throne. Charles doesn't inherit unless he can convince Parliament to >> say he can inherit, which from this distance appears less and less likely. >> There's a very real chance the succession will skip over Charles to his >> eldest son because he will not get the consent of Parliament. >> >> You also might consider how the "last king" ended up on the throne, as he >> was not first in the line of succession when his father died. >> >> Hint: Wallace Simpson was also a divorcee and a Roman Catholic. >> > > If those factors are really relevant, it's all the more damning, isn't it? > What if she were black? Horrors! > Paul >> >> >> From: "Daniel J. Matyola" >>> "The Queen is the Queen by right of Parliament, _not_ right of birth." >>> Really? And you believe that? They just HAPPENED to pick the >>> daughter of the last King? What an extraordinary coincidence! >>> Dan >>> On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Graydon wrote: > On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 02:25:51PM -0400, Daniel J. Matyola scripsit: > >> If we say that the Queen is superior by reason of birth and has rights > >> that can't be taken away, > > No one says any such thing. > > The Queen is the Queen by right of Parliament, _not_ right of birth. > (This is, for instance, why there is such a thing as the Succession > Act, or why it's widely acknowledged -- since Parliament has done it, > twice and a half (Headless Chuck, James the Fled, and Edward the > Abbreviated) -- that the elected Parliament can replace the monarch, > or, for that matter, why Her Majesty has publicly stated that if she's > presented with an act converting the UK into a republic, she'll sign > it.) > > Supremacy of Parliament is a very real thing. > > Which is not to say I'm not -- being of a somewhat egalitarian bent -- > in favour of both a stronger monarchy and a selective one in Canada, > rather than one with the current hereditary succession, but the idea > that the English Monarchy came down on the side of Divine Right is > really laughable. >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
-- From: "Daniel J. Matyola" Subject: Re: OT: Happy Canada Day I am not bitching about any system. I am only saying that I am offended by the concept that anyone is superior to another person by reason of birth. If we say that the Queen is superior by reason of birth and has rights that can't be taken away, then we legitimize the position of the "nobility" who claim to be superior by birth to us "commoners." That is just a short distance from saying that whites are superior to other races by reason of birth, or that English are superior to Irish, or that Japanese are superior to Koreans. Belief in status or privilege arising our of ancestry is anti-democratic, and creates artificial barriers that divide people who should seek common cause. We already have a system that says that some people are superior to to others, I think more so in the USA than most other places. Money buys privilege and in your system gives the wealthy a lot of advantages. Think access to health care as an example. If your rich, your golden, if your poor, your pretty much screwed. Now, one could argue that the rich are more deserving because in theory they work harder or are smarter, but if you truly believe in equality, then it should no more matter that your daddy's last name is Hilton than that your daddy was a king. But, being born to a wealthy person is guaranteed to give you advantages to being born to someone with no money. Think same shit, different pile. Consider that royalty knows that at some point they are going to lead their people, and should be spending a lot of time learning how to be a good leader. In a political system, you just need money and power will come to you, whether you are fit to lead or not. Think of your last several presidents, particularly your last one as a prime example of someone who was unfit to lead, but was made into a leader anyway. Quite honestly, I am far prouder of our recent Governor General, and would much rather have her as Canada's representative on the world stage than that slimy little bastard that is our present Prime Minister. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
"Consider that royalty knows that at some point they are going to lead their people, and should be spending a lot of time learning how to be a good leader." So, is that what Prince Charles has been doing for all these years? Yes, money buys influence, but it does that in England as easily as in the US. So, in a monarchy, one has two systems of privilege instead of just one. How is that better? My ancestors fled an aristocratic monarchy for a place where their descendants could could be free of the class prejudice they faced in Europe. I am proud of that, and I resent any system that claims certain members of society are better than others simply by accident of birth. Dan On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 2:57 PM, William Robb wrote: > We already have a system that says that some people are superior to to > others, I think more so in the USA than most other places. > Money buys privilege and in your system gives the wealthy a lot of > advantages. Think access to health care as an example. > If your rich, your golden, if your poor, your pretty much screwed. > Now, one could argue that the rich are more deserving because in theory they > work harder or are smarter, but if you truly believe in equality, then it > should no more matter that your daddy's last name is Hilton than that your > daddy was a king. > But, being born to a wealthy person is guaranteed to give you advantages to > being born to someone with no money. > > Think same shit, different pile. > > Consider that royalty knows that at some point they are going to lead their > people, and should be spending a lot of time learning how to be a good > leader. > In a political system, you just need money and power will come to you, > whether you are fit to lead or not. > Think of your last several presidents, particularly your last one as a prime > example of someone who was unfit to lead, but was made into a leader anyway. > > Quite honestly, I am far prouder of our recent Governor General, and would > much rather have her as Canada's representative on the world stage than that > slimy little bastard that is our present Prime Minister. > > William Robb > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
-- From: "Daniel J. Matyola" Subject: Re: OT: Happy Canada Day My ancestors fled an aristocratic monarchy for a place where their descendants could could be free of the class prejudice they faced in Europe. I am proud of that, and I resent any system that claims certain members of society are better than others simply by accident of birth. Yup, and they came to a country whose economy was built on slave labour and until fairly recently, had racial segregation legally entrenched in it's system. IOW, they fled one system of class prejudice for one where they would fit into the ruling class a bit better, being white and all. Your ancestors were, perhaps, not as pious and sanctimonious as you make them out to be. Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, your attack on the political system of other countries when the one you live in is as fucked up as anywhere other than the ones it has actively fucked up is ludicrous and ironic to the point of absurdity. And, by pushing your unwelcome views repeatedly, you are showing that arrogance and contempt that makes Americans of your ilk so popular throughout the world. Goodbye Dan, you are going places where few on this list have gone before. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
"Yup, and they came to a country whose economy was built on slave labour and until fairly recently, had racial segregation legally entrenched in it's system." And, of course, it was our English colonial masters who established that system of slavery to develop their royal colonies here. Then English monarch has created havoc and devastation all over the world. A good summary can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Evil-Empire-England-Ruined-World/dp/1594741735 Dan On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 9:56 PM, William Robb wrote: > > -- > From: "Daniel J. Matyola" > Subject: Re: OT: Happy Canada Day > > >> My ancestors fled an aristocratic monarchy for a place where their >> descendants could could be free of the class prejudice they faced in >> Europe. I am proud of that, and I resent any system that claims >> certain members of society are better than others simply by accident >> of birth. > > Yup, and they came to a country whose economy was built on slave labour and > until fairly recently, had racial segregation legally entrenched in it's > system. > IOW, they fled one system of class prejudice for one where they would fit > into the ruling class a bit better, being white and all. > Your ancestors were, perhaps, not as pious and sanctimonious as you make > them out to be. > Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, your attack on the political system of other > countries when the one you live in is as fucked up as anywhere other than > the ones it has actively fucked up is ludicrous and ironic to the point of > absurdity. > And, by pushing your unwelcome views repeatedly, you are showing that > arrogance and contempt that makes Americans of your ilk so popular > throughout the world. > Goodbye Dan, you are going places where few on this list have gone before. > > William Robb > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT: Happy Canada Day
It doesn't make any difference who we have as king. It could be Shirley Bassey's hairdresser for all it matters. It's just a figurehead position. Besides, if there's to be a monarch at all, what's wrong with Prince Charles? He's a harmless old sod, by and large, and should keep his nose out of architectural matters, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with him as an individual. Bob > > Do the English really want Prince Charles for their king? > > Dan > > On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 6:35 PM, paul stenquist > wrote: > > > > On Jul 4, 2010, at 5:30 PM, John Sessoms wrote: > > > >> It's a very real CURRENT issue. The heir-apparent Prince of Wales, > Charles Windsor, appears to have run afoul of the Succession Act > himself. > >> > >> He's divorced, he's married to a divorcee and she's a [former] Roman > Catholic. (Three strikes.) > >> > >> Just being the first born son of the current monarch isn't enough to > put him on the throne. Charles doesn't inherit unless he can convince > Parliament to say he can inherit, which from this distance appears less > and less likely. There's a very real chance the succession will skip > over Charles to his eldest son because he will not get the consent of > Parliament. > >> > >> You also might consider how the "last king" ended up on the throne, > as he was not first in the line of succession when his father died. > >> > >> Hint: Wallace Simpson was also a divorcee and a Roman Catholic. > >> > > > > If those factors are really relevant, it's all the more damning, > isn't it? What if she were black? Horrors! > > Paul > >> > >> > >> From: "Daniel J. Matyola" > >>> "The Queen is the Queen by right of Parliament, _not_ right of > birth." > >>> Really? And you believe that? They just HAPPENED to pick the > >>> daughter of the last King? What an extraordinary coincidence! > >>> Dan > >>> On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Graydon wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 02:25:51PM -0400, Daniel J. Matyola > scripsit: > > >> If we say that the Queen is superior by reason of birth and > has rights > > >> that can't be taken away, > > > > No one says any such thing. > > > > The Queen is the Queen by right of Parliament, _not_ right of > birth. > > (This is, for instance, why there is such a thing as the > Succession > > Act, or why it's widely acknowledged -- since Parliament has > done it, > > twice and a half (Headless Chuck, James the Fled, and Edward the > > Abbreviated) -- that the elected Parliament can replace the > monarch, > > or, for that matter, why Her Majesty has publicly stated that if > she's > > presented with an act converting the UK into a republic, she'll > sign > > it.) > > > > Supremacy of Parliament is a very real thing. > > > > Which is not to say I'm not -- being of a somewhat egalitarian > bent -- > > in favour of both a stronger monarchy and a selective one in > Canada, > > rather than one with the current hereditary succession, but the > idea > > that the English Monarchy came down on the side of Divine Right > is > > really laughable. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> PDML@pdml.net > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > and follow the directions. > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > and follow the directions. > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
On Jul 4, 2010, at 10:41 PM, Bob W wrote: > It doesn't make any difference who we have as king. It could be Shirley > Bassey's hairdresser for all it matters. It's just a figurehead position. > Besides, if there's to be a monarch at all, what's wrong with Prince Charles? > He's a harmless old sod, by and large, and should keep his nose out of > architectural matters, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with him as an > individual. > I find him somewhat humorous. Certainly no harm in that. And I had to admire him for finally going with his heart and making Camille his wife. Men have done worse. Paul > Bob > >> >> Do the English really want Prince Charles for their king? >> >> Dan >> >> On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 6:35 PM, paul stenquist >> wrote: >>> >>> On Jul 4, 2010, at 5:30 PM, John Sessoms wrote: >>> It's a very real CURRENT issue. The heir-apparent Prince of Wales, >> Charles Windsor, appears to have run afoul of the Succession Act >> himself. He's divorced, he's married to a divorcee and she's a [former] Roman >> Catholic. (Three strikes.) Just being the first born son of the current monarch isn't enough to >> put him on the throne. Charles doesn't inherit unless he can convince >> Parliament to say he can inherit, which from this distance appears less >> and less likely. There's a very real chance the succession will skip >> over Charles to his eldest son because he will not get the consent of >> Parliament. You also might consider how the "last king" ended up on the throne, >> as he was not first in the line of succession when his father died. Hint: Wallace Simpson was also a divorcee and a Roman Catholic. >>> >>> If those factors are really relevant, it's all the more damning, >> isn't it? What if she were black? Horrors! >>> Paul From: "Daniel J. Matyola" > "The Queen is the Queen by right of Parliament, _not_ right of >> birth." > Really? And you believe that? They just HAPPENED to pick the > daughter of the last King? What an extraordinary coincidence! > Dan > On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Graydon wrote: >>> On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 02:25:51PM -0400, Daniel J. Matyola >> scripsit: > If we say that the Queen is superior by reason of birth and >> has rights > that can't be taken away, >>> >>> No one says any such thing. >>> >>> The Queen is the Queen by right of Parliament, _not_ right of >> birth. >>> (This is, for instance, why there is such a thing as the >> Succession >>> Act, or why it's widely acknowledged -- since Parliament has >> done it, >>> twice and a half (Headless Chuck, James the Fled, and Edward the >>> Abbreviated) -- that the elected Parliament can replace the >> monarch, >>> or, for that matter, why Her Majesty has publicly stated that if >> she's >>> presented with an act converting the UK into a republic, she'll >> sign >>> it.) >>> >>> Supremacy of Parliament is a very real thing. >>> >>> Which is not to say I'm not -- being of a somewhat egalitarian >> bent -- >>> in favour of both a stronger monarchy and a selective one in >> Canada, >>> rather than one with the current hereditary succession, but the >> idea >>> that the English Monarchy came down on the side of Divine Right >> is >>> really laughable. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >> and follow the directions. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >> and follow the directions. >>> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT: Happy Canada Day
You really haven't a clue about English history, have you? The point is, cutting off Charles I's head put an end to the notion of the divine right of kings and established the supremacy of Parliament. When the crown was restored it was to Charles's son, not to some Germans. Several monarchs later Parliament offered the crown to William of Orange and Mary, who were joint monarchs and grandchildren of Charles I. The Germans, the Hanovers, did not come into the picture until after the death of Queen Anne, who succeeded William and Mary. All of them, including the Hanovers, succeeded because they were either offered the Crown by Parliament or because they were next in line according to the laws established by Parliament. This means that none of them, to use your phrase that I was replying to "is superior by reason of birth and has rights that can't be taken away". They are subject to the will of Parliament. > > No you didn't. You just imported some German "aristocrats" to take his > place. > > Dan > > > well we don't. We swept all that nonsense away when we cut Charles > I's head off in 1649. > > > > Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
From: paul stenquist On Jul 4, 2010, at 5:30 PM, John Sessoms wrote: It's a very real CURRENT issue. The heir-apparent Prince of Wales, Charles Windsor, appears to have run afoul of the Succession Act himself. He's divorced, he's married to a divorcee and she's a [former] Roman Catholic. (Three strikes.) Just being the first born son of the current monarch isn't enough to put him on the throne. Charles doesn't inherit unless he can convince Parliament to say he can inherit, which from this distance appears less and less likely. There's a very real chance the succession will skip over Charles to his eldest son because he will not get the consent of Parliament. You also might consider how the "last king" ended up on the throne, as he was not first in the line of succession when his father died. Hint: Wallace Simpson was also a divorcee and a Roman Catholic. If those factors are really relevant, it's all the more damning, isn't it? What if she were black? Horrors! Paul If it were up to me, I wouldn't care one way or another. But what I think doesn't matter to the British Parliament who get to make the decision. OTOH, from what I read, under the succession law it wouldn't matter if she were black, as long as she wasn't Roman Catholic or a divorcee. I think it has something to do with England having a STATE religion. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
From: "Daniel J. Matyola" Do the English really want Prince Charles for their king? You know, I don't really have any idea. I was just pointing out that their law could be an impediment to him becoming King. I don't know what Parliament's going to do when the time comes. OTOH, I think it's at least as interesting as the final episode of "Lost". -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
Bill, You have to stop accusing us of slave labor and racial segregation. Slavery was an economic fact in the cotton farming southern states. Look across the border, do they raise much cotton in Wyoming or North Dakota? Were these states built on 'slave labor'? And my ancestors weren't even resident in this country when slavery was practiced, so I'm deriving some great benefit from it??? As to segregation, I've never believed in it or seen it practiced in the states I lived in. Stop pretending you're all good because your Canadian and we're all bad. It just isn't so... Regards, Bob S. On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 8:56 PM, William Robb wrote: > Yup, and they came to a country whose economy was built on slave labour and > until fairly recently, had racial segregation legally entrenched in it's > system. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
Yeah Bill. The Yanks eventually wised up and did away with slavery. They realised using illegal aliens was less hassle... (this crap reminds my why I unsubed from the list) On 05/07/2010, Bob Sullivan wrote: > Bill, > You have to stop accusing us of slave labor and racial segregation. > Slavery was an economic fact in the cotton farming southern states. > Look across the border, do they raise much cotton in Wyoming or North > Dakota? > Were these states built on 'slave labor'? > And my ancestors weren't even resident in this country when slavery > was practiced, > so I'm deriving some great benefit from it??? > As to segregation, I've never believed in it or seen it practiced in > the states I lived in. > Stop pretending you're all good because your Canadian and we're all bad. > It just isn't so... > Regards, Bob S. > > On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 8:56 PM, William Robb wrote: >> Yup, and they came to a country whose economy was built on slave labour >> and >> until fairly recently, had racial segregation legally entrenched in it's >> system. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
On 7/4/2010 6:09 PM, Bob W wrote:
It's a very real CURRENT issue. The heir-apparent Prince of Wales,
Charles Windsor, appears to have run afoul of the Succession Act
himself.
He's divorced, he's married to a divorcee and she's a [former] Roman
Catholic. (Three strikes.)
nobody gives a shit about that sort of thing any more.
Just being the first born son of the current monarch isn't enough to
put
him on the throne. Charles doesn't inherit unless he can convince
Parliament to say he can inherit, which from this distance appears less
and less likely. There's a very real chance the succession will skip
over Charles to his eldest son because he will not get the consent of
Parliament.
Nobody in Parliament gives a flying fuck. The only people who care are the
editors of supermarket magazines who think this sort of rubbish increases
sales to Daily Express and Daily Mail readers.
You also might consider how the "last king" ended up on the throne, as
he was not first in the line of succession when his father died.
Hint: Wallace Simpson was also a divorcee and a Roman Catholic.
nobody gave a shit about that. What counted against her was being American.
It was 80 years ago. Do you really think people in Britain still have those
sort of views? There are probably about 16 people in Britain who care about
the religion and divorced status of the royal family, and they're all over
110 and living in secure accommodation. Prince Charles could divorce Camilla
and marry a gay Muslim leper from Somalia and nobody would give a toss or
think it should affect whether he becomes king. In fact, we'd probably
celebrate his diversity awareness.
What matters is that he should stop interfering in matters that don't
concern him.
Bob
What counted against him was that he was suspected of being a
Nazi/German sympathizer, all else was a convenient excuse.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote: > Stop pretending you're all good because your Canadian and we're all bad. But it's true, isn't it? That's what we were taught in school, anyway... ;-) But seriously, your argument has some merit, Bob. There were actually slaves in Canada back before confederation, certainly in parts of what's now Ontario and Nova Scotia. Of course it wasn't institutionalized to the extent that it was in the American South, but it was still here. We need to keep in mind that 1/2 the US fought ~against~ slavery in the Civil War (I know it's not quite that simple, but still...). cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
From: "P. J. Alling" On 7/4/2010 6:09 PM, Bob W wrote: > > What matters is that he should stop interfering in matters that don't > concern him. > > Bob What counted against him was that he was suspected of being a Nazi/German sympathizer, all else was a convenient excuse. That was Edward VIII and I don't think he was seen as a Nazi sympathizer at the time he abdicated. That came later. I think Bob's fussing about the current Prince of Wales. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 07:03:36PM -0400, John Sessoms scripsit: > From: "P. J. Alling" > >On 7/4/2010 6:09 PM, Bob W wrote: > >>> What matters is that he should stop interfering in matters that don't > >>> concern him. > > >What counted against him was that he was suspected of being a > >Nazi/German sympathizer, all else was a convenient excuse. > > That was Edward VIII and I don't think he was seen as a Nazi > sympathizer at the time he abdicated. That came later. As I recall, what came out when the 50 year hold period on cabinet archives expired was that they knew there was a leak near the king, suspected a mistress, bugged the bedroom, and found out that the leak to the Nazis was the king. There was a discussion about how to deal with it that included utilizing the precedent of Headless Chuck; it was decided that abdication worked better. And then they stuck him in some Caribbean location through WWII, because he didn't quite take the hint. > I think Bob's fussing about the current Prince of Wales. There are a bunch of people singing "Wha'll be king but Charlie?" with rather different emphasis these days, to be sure. -- Graydon -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
On 7/5/2010 7:03 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: "P. J. Alling"
On 7/4/2010 6:09 PM, Bob W wrote:
>
> What matters is that he should stop interfering in matters that don't
> concern him.
>
> Bob
What counted against him was that he was suspected of being a
Nazi/German sympathizer, all else was a convenient excuse.
That was Edward VIII and I don't think he was seen as a Nazi
sympathizer at the time he abdicated. That came later.
I think Bob's fussing about the current Prince of Wales.
I thought it was both actually...
I'm also sure that Edward's sympathies were well known in the right circles.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
Re: OT: Happy Canada Day
From: Graydon On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 07:03:36PM -0400, John Sessoms scripsit: > From: "P. J. Alling" > >On 7/4/2010 6:09 PM, Bob W wrote: > >>> What matters is that he should stop interfering in matters that don't > >>> concern him. > > >What counted against him was that he was suspected of being a > >Nazi/German sympathizer, all else was a convenient excuse. > > That was Edward VIII and I don't think he was seen as a Nazi > sympathizer at the time he abdicated. That came later. As I recall, what came out when the 50 year hold period on cabinet archives expired was that they knew there was a leak near the king, suspected a mistress, bugged the bedroom, and found out that the leak to the Nazis was the king. There was a discussion about how to deal with it that included utilizing the precedent of Headless Chuck; it was decided that abdication worked better. And then they stuck him in some Caribbean location through WWII, because he didn't quite take the hint. I believe that incident took place after he had abdicated. He wasn't so much pro-Nazi as he was irked at the British government for their treatment of his wife ... denying her any claim to peerage. He was "His Royal Highness, The Duke of Windsor", while she was merely "The Duchess of Windsor". He was a supporter of the policies of appeasement because of his experience in the first World War, but I don't think an actual Nazi sympathizer. Most of the "evidence" for his being pro-Nazi comes from Nazi propaganda. I don't know how reliable that would really be. They thought they could use him because of his estrangement from his family & his anger at the British government for what he perceived as their mistreatment of his wife. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
