The Doctor wrote:

> In article <d5b12879-3df0-483d-be84-146b221b62acn@googlegroups.com>,
> tsbru...@gmail.com <tsbrueni264@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is 96 today!
>
> God Save The Queen and LEt Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, be the
> next King!

That's not how it works.

tsbru...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 3:54:29 PM UTC-7, netk...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> > In article <t3skad$78o$2...@dont-email.me>,
> > Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> wrote:
> > > The Doctor wrote:
> > >
> > >> In article <d5b12879-3df0-483d...@googlegroups.com>,
> > >> tsbru...@gmail.com <tsbru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > Is 96 today!
> > >>
> > >> God Save The Queen and LEt Prince William, Duke of Cambridge,
> > be the >> next King!
> > >
> > > That's not how it works.
> >
> > The Prince of Wales could renounce his right ot the throne and
> > pass it to His son, if he chooses.
>
> Why would he so choose?

He won't! Charles has waited his whole life to be King, giving it up
before he even got to sit on the throne is just something he wouldn't
choose to do.

tsbru...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 5:29:51 PM UTC-7, netk...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> > In article <c218a343-e8fd-4e66...@googlegroups.com>,
> > tsbru...@gmail.com <tsbru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 3:54:29 PM UTC-7,
> > > netk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> The Prince of Wales could renounce his right ot the throne and
> > >> pass it to His son, if he chooses.
> > >
> > > Why would he so choose?
> >
> > The Prince of Wales in not exactly popular since the Death of
> > Princess diana.
>
> So?

Dave doesn't understand things that happen in the real world, the
Prince of Wales is popular enough.

His brother Andrew on the other hand...

The Doctor wrote:

> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
> > tsbru...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 3:54:29 PM UTC-7, netk...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >> > In article <t3skad$78o$2...@dont-email.me>,
> >> > Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> wrote:
> >> > > The Doctor wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> In article <d5b12879-3df0-483d...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> > >> tsbru...@gmail.com <tsbru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >> > Is 96 today!
> >> > >>
> >> > >> God Save The Queen and LEt Prince William, Duke of Cambridge,
> >> > >> be the next King!
> >> > >
> >> > > That's not how it works.
> >> >
> >> > The Prince of Wales could renounce his right ot the throne and
> >> > pass it to His son, if he chooses.
> >>
> >> Why would he so choose?
> >
> > He won't! Charles has waited his whole life to be King, giving it up
> > before he even got to sit on the throne is just something he
> > wouldn't choose to do.
>
> Depends. He is still unpopular! William is more popular.

Charles & Camilla got a warm welcome over here when they came... and we
have a history of wanting to kill them all!

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <xn0ngx4wa74gqah001@nntp.aioe.org>,
> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
> >
> > Dave doesn't understand things that happen in the real world, the
> > Prince of Wales is popular enough.
> >
> > His brother Andrew on the other hand...
>
> Duke of Cambridge even more popular.

Nobody is saying the Duke of Cambridge (& Kate )are not popular. But he
will have to wait his turn to be King.

"Blueshirt" <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote in message
news:t3us6v$9ed$1@dont-email.me...
> The Doctor wrote:
>
>> In article <xn0ngx4wa74gqah001@nntp.aioe.org>,
>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dave doesn't understand things that happen in the real world, the
>> > Prince of Wales is popular enough.
>> >
>> > His brother Andrew on the other hand...
>>
>> Duke of Cambridge even more popular.
>
> Nobody is saying the Duke of Cambridge (& Kate )are not popular. But he
> will have to wait his turn to be King.

I've nothing against them, but personally I reckon the monarchy are an
anachronistic institution. I'm not convinced they'll survive long once the
Queen has gone.

The Other Doctor wrote:

> "Blueshirt" <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote in message
> news:t3us6v$9ed$1@dont-email.me...
> > The Doctor wrote:
> > >
> > > Duke of Cambridge even more popular.
> >
> > Nobody is saying the Duke of Cambridge (& Kate )are not popular.
> > But he will have to wait his turn to be King.
>
> I've nothing against them, but personally I reckon the monarchy are
> an anachronistic institution. I'm not convinced they'll survive
> long once the Queen has gone.

Possibly, although I'm sure the British monarchy will outlive me!

On 2022-04-22 11:20:50 +0000, Blueshirt said:

> tsbru...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 3:54:29 PM UTC-7, netk...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>> In article <t3skad$78o$2...@dont-email.me>,
>>> Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <d5b12879-3df0-483d...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> tsbru...@gmail.com <tsbru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Is 96 today!
>>>>>
>>>>> God Save The Queen and LEt Prince William, Duke of Cambridge,
>>> be the >> next King!
>>>>
>>>> That's not how it works.
>>>
>>> The Prince of Wales could renounce his right ot the throne and
>>> pass it to His son, if he chooses.
>>
>> Why would he so choose?
>
> He won't! Charles has waited his whole life to be King, giving it up
> before he even got to sit on the throne is just something he wouldn't
> choose to do.

Charles is a bubble-headed, inbred, old moron, who makes idiotic
statements, and few people want him to be King.

Partly thanks to Catherine, William is a bright, young, intelligent,
and far more public-savvy. Most people would prefer him as King, but he
has already said he doesn't really want the job and doesn't want to be
telling people what to do.

"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:t40pgv$m48$17@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>> >
>>> WEll there is the constitutional vote by the PMs!
>>
>>When did they vote to make William the King?
>
> After the Queen paases to eternity and the PMs need to do
> what they did in 1938 to King Edward VIII .

How many PMs do you think the UK has, Yads?

King Edward VIII abdicated because the British government, the public, and
the Church of Englad objected to him marrying Wallis Simpson.

Charles is not going to marry Wallis Simpson. He is married to Camilla. This
is 2022, not 1936. Nobody is going to force Charles to abdicate, Yads.

The Doctor wrote on 23/4/22 8:21 am:

<Snip>

> WEll there is the constitutional vote by the PMs!
>
"vote by the PMs"?? Hmm!! Only having *ONE* PM, that vote count
shouldn't take long!!

Oh! And by the way, clown .... (AKJV) Luke 6:42 Either how canst thou
say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine
eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then
shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.
--
Daniel

"Daniel65" <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote in message
news:t410l8$mub$2@dont-email.me...
> The Doctor wrote on 23/4/22 8:21 am:
>
> <Snip>
>
>> WEll there is the constitutional vote by the PMs!
>>
> "vote by the PMs"?? Hmm!! Only having *ONE* PM, that vote count shouldn't
> take long!!

That vote won't take any time at all, because Yads, as usual, is talking
nonsense. There is no "constitutional vote by the PMs".

In the unlikely event that the Queen chooses to abdicate, the throne willl
be passed to her eldest son (making Charles the oldest ever UK monarch to be
crowned).

Alternatively, the Queen could "step down". So she would remain Queen but
Charles would do all the work. This would make him Prince Regent.

But when the Queen dies, Charles will be King, unless he dies before his
mother. The Daily Star has reported that "sensitive" planning for Charles'
coronation is underway.

"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:t41gb1$tv8$19@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> In article <t411ce$25e$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Other Doctor <stephen.wilson2004nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Daniel65" <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote in message
>>news:t410l8$mub$2@dont-email.me...
>>> The Doctor wrote on 23/4/22 8:21 am:
>>>
>>> <Snip>
>>>
>>>> WEll there is the constitutional vote by the PMs!
>>>>
>>> "vote by the PMs"?? Hmm!! Only having *ONE* PM, that vote count
>>> shouldn't
>>> take long!!
>>
>>That vote won't take any time at all, because Yads, as usual, is talking
>>nonsense. There is no "constitutional vote by the PMs".
>>
>>In the unlikely event that the Queen chooses to abdicate, the throne willl
>>be passed to her eldest son (making Charles the oldest ever UK monarch to
>>be
>>crowned).
>>
>>Alternatively, the Queen could "step down". So she would remain Queen but
>>Charles would do all the work. This would make him Prince Regent.
>>
>>But when the Queen dies, Charles will be King, unless he dies before his
>>mother. The Daily Star has reported that "sensitive" planning for Charles'
>>coronation is underway.
>>
>>
>
> Key word - sensitive.

Key word to what?

"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:t41g5f$tv8$16@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>
>>> WEll there is the constitutional vote by the PMs!
>>>
>>"vote by the PMs"?? Hmm!! Only having *ONE* PM, that vote count
>>shouldn't take long!!
>
> 4 PMs force the crisis of 1938!
>
> Not 1, Dannyboy.

Liar.

"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:t41fv3$tv8$11@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> In article <t40vql$ljq$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Other Doctor <stephen.wilson2004nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
>>news:t40pgv$m48$17@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>>>> >
>>>>> WEll there is the constitutional vote by the PMs!
>>>>
>>>>When did they vote to make William the King?
>>>
>>> After the Queen paases to eternity and the PMs need to do
>>> what they did in 1938 to King Edward VIII .
>>
>>How many PMs do you think the UK has, Yads?
>>
>>King Edward VIII abdicated because the British government, the public, and
>>the Church of Englad objected to him marrying Wallis Simpson.
>>
>>Charles is not going to marry Wallis Simpson. He is married to Camilla.
>>This
>>is 2022, not 1936. Nobody is going to force Charles to abdicate, Yads.
>>
>>
>
> Oh?

Yes, Yads. Oh.

"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:t41hbd$tv8$59@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> In article <t41h9p$3ps$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Other Doctor <stephen.wilson2004nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
>>news:t41fv3$tv8$11@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>> In article <t40vql$ljq$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Other Doctor <stephen.wilson2004nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
>>>>news:t40pgv$m48$17@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> WEll there is the constitutional vote by the PMs!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>When did they vote to make William the King?
>>>>>
>>>>> After the Queen paases to eternity and the PMs need to do
>>>>> what they did in 1938 to King Edward VIII .
>>>>
>>>>How many PMs do you think the UK has, Yads?
>>>>
>>>>King Edward VIII abdicated because the British government, the public,
>>>>and
>>>>the Church of Englad objected to him marrying Wallis Simpson.
>>>>
>>>>Charles is not going to marry Wallis Simpson. He is married to Camilla.
>>>>This
>>>>is 2022, not 1936. Nobody is going to force Charles to abdicate, Yads.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh?
>>
>>Yes, Yads. Oh.
>>
>>
>
> Are you in government, SW? No.

Are you an idiot, Yads? Yes.

"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:t41h9g$tv8$57@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> In article <t41h6d$2ur$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Other Doctor <stephen.wilson2004nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
>>news:t41g5f$tv8$16@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>>>
>>>>> WEll there is the constitutional vote by the PMs!
>>>>>
>>>>"vote by the PMs"?? Hmm!! Only having *ONE* PM, that vote count
>>>>shouldn't take long!!
>>>
>>> 4 PMs force the crisis of 1938!
>>>
>>> Not 1, Dannyboy.
>>
>>Liar.
>>
>>
>
> Check your history, SW!

I checked my history. There was only 1 PM in 1938 - Neville Chamberlain.
There is only 1 PM now - Boris Johnson. And no PM has ever had any vote
regarding the monarchy. Britain's monarchy is hereditary. It's not elective.
I don't know where you get your info from. But I do know that you're an
idiot.

"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:t41h8s$tv8$56@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> In article <t41h5a$2iq$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Other Doctor <stephen.wilson2004nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
>>news:t41gb1$tv8$19@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>> In article <t411ce$25e$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Other Doctor <stephen.wilson2004nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"Daniel65" <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:t410l8$mub$2@dont-email.me...
>>>>> The Doctor wrote on 23/4/22 8:21 am:
>>>>>
>>>>> <Snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> WEll there is the constitutional vote by the PMs!
>>>>>>
>>>>> "vote by the PMs"?? Hmm!! Only having *ONE* PM, that vote count
>>>>> shouldn't
>>>>> take long!!
>>>>
>>>>That vote won't take any time at all, because Yads, as usual, is talking
>>>>nonsense. There is no "constitutional vote by the PMs".
>>>>
>>>>In the unlikely event that the Queen chooses to abdicate, the throne
>>>>willl
>>>>be passed to her eldest son (making Charles the oldest ever UK monarch
>>>>to
>>>>be
>>>>crowned).
>>>>
>>>>Alternatively, the Queen could "step down". So she would remain Queen
>>>>but
>>>>Charles would do all the work. This would make him Prince Regent.
>>>>
>>>>But when the Queen dies, Charles will be King, unless he dies before his
>>>>mother. The Daily Star has reported that "sensitive" planning for
>>>>Charles'
>>>>coronation is underway.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Key word - sensitive.
>>
>>Key word to what?
>
> Look above.

The key word is the key word to what?

On 2022-04-23 22:06:59 +0000, tsbr...@gmail.com said:

> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 7:10:24 AM UTC-7, The Other Doctor wrote:
>> "Daniel65" <dani...@eternal-september.org> wrote in message
>> news:t410l8$mub$2...@dont-email.me...
>>> The Doctor wrote on 23/4/22 8:21 am:
>>>
>>> <Snip>
>>>
>>>> WEll there is the constitutional vote by the PMs!
>>>>
>>> "vote by the PMs"?? Hmm!! Only having *ONE* PM, that vote count shouldn't
>>> take long!!
>> That vote won't take any time at all, because Yads, as usual, is talking
>> nonsense. There is no "constitutional vote by the PMs".
>>
>> In the unlikely event that the Queen chooses to abdicate, the throne willl
>> be passed to her eldest son (making Charles the oldest ever UK monarch to be
>> crowned).
>>
>> Alternatively, the Queen could "step down". So she would remain Queen but
>> Charles would do all the work. This would make him Prince Regent.
>>
>> But when the Queen dies, Charles will be King, unless he dies before his
>> mother. The Daily Star has reported that "sensitive" planning for Charles'
>> coronation is underway.
>
> Is the Queen in imminent danger of death? (I heard that she had Covid
> a few weeks ago).

No more "imminent" than any other relatively healthy 96 year olds.

On 2022-04-24 00:21:46 +0000, tsbr...@gmail.com said:
> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 3:31:24 PM UTC-7, Your Name wrote:
>> On 2022-04-23 22:06:59 +0000, tsbr...@gmail.com said:
>>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 7:10:24 AM UTC-7, The Other Doctor wrote:
>>>> "Daniel65" <dani...@eternal-september.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:t410l8$mub$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>>> The Doctor wrote on 23/4/22 8:21 am:
>>>>>
>>>>> <Snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> WEll there is the constitutional vote by the PMs!
>>>>>>
>>>>> "vote by the PMs"?? Hmm!! Only having *ONE* PM, that vote count
>>>>> shouldn't take long!!
>>>>
>>>> That vote won't take any time at all, because Yads, as usual, is talking
>>>> nonsense. There is no "constitutional vote by the PMs".
>>>>
>>>> In the unlikely event that the Queen chooses to abdicate, the throne
>>>> willl be passed to her eldest son (making Charles the oldest ever UK
>>>> monarch to be crowned).
>>>>
>>>> Alternatively, the Queen could "step down". So she would remain Queen but
>>>> Charles would do all the work. This would make him Prince Regent.
>>>>
>>>> But when the Queen dies, Charles will be King, unless he dies before his
>>>> mother. The Daily Star has reported that "sensitive" planning for
>>>> Charles' coronation is underway.
>>>
>>> Is the Queen in imminent danger of death? (I heard that she had Covid
>>> a few weeks ago).
>>
>> No more "imminent" than any other relatively healthy 96 year olds.
>
> I was wondering why the UK government chose this particular moment to
> begin planning for the Charles' Coronation?

The plans for the Queen's funeral and Charles' Coronation have been
"planned" for a long time, but are constantly updated. It's not really
any different to the obituaries that the media has on file for
celebrities (including the Queen) ready to go as soon as needed.

It would be rather silly for the to Queen die and *then* they all have
to rush around and/or spend many months working out what they're going
to do. The public will expect something almost immediately.

It's a bit like families are supposed to have an "escape plan" or
"emergency plan" so that they know what to do in the case of a house
fire, earthquake, etc.

"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:t421ir$6so$8@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> In article <t41lp1$6ql$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Other Doctor <stephen.wilson2004nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
>>news:t41h9g$tv8$57@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>> In article <t41h6d$2ur$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Other Doctor <stephen.wilson2004nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
>>>>news:t41g5f$tv8$16@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WEll there is the constitutional vote by the PMs!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>"vote by the PMs"?? Hmm!! Only having *ONE* PM, that vote count
>>>>>>shouldn't take long!!
>>>>>
>>>>> 4 PMs force the crisis of 1938!
>>>>>
>>>>> Not 1, Dannyboy.
>>>>
>>>>Liar.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Check your history, SW!
>>
>>I checked my history. There was only 1 PM in 1938 - Neville Chamberlain.
>>There is only 1 PM now - Boris Johnson. And no PM has ever had any vote
>>regarding the monarchy. Britain's monarchy is hereditary. It's not
>>elective.
>>I don't know where you get your info from. But I do know that you're an
>>idiot.
>>
>>
>
> And Chamberlain needed the help of the PMs of Australia, NZ and Canada
> to block The Then Prince of Wales from
> ascending tt the throne.

Liar. Check your history, DY!

1. As I've already said, Chamberlain was the PM in 1938. Edward abdicated in
1936, when Stanley Baldwin was PM.

2. Edward ABDICATED, Yads. He was not blocked from the throne. He was the
king (and not the Prince of Wales) from January 1936 until December 1936. He
could have continued being king. But if he had, Baldwin's government would
have resigned.

"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:t421je$6so$9@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> In article <t41lqg$74s$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Other Doctor <stephen.wilson2004nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
>>news:t41h8s$tv8$56@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>> In article <t41h5a$2iq$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Other Doctor <stephen.wilson2004nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
>>>>news:t41gb1$tv8$19@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>>>> In article <t411ce$25e$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> The Other Doctor <stephen.wilson2004nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Daniel65" <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:t410l8$mub$2@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>> The Doctor wrote on 23/4/22 8:21 am:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <Snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WEll there is the constitutional vote by the PMs!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "vote by the PMs"?? Hmm!! Only having *ONE* PM, that vote count
>>>>>>> shouldn't
>>>>>>> take long!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That vote won't take any time at all, because Yads, as usual, is
>>>>>>talking
>>>>>>nonsense. There is no "constitutional vote by the PMs".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In the unlikely event that the Queen chooses to abdicate, the throne
>>>>>>willl
>>>>>>be passed to her eldest son (making Charles the oldest ever UK monarch
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>be
>>>>>>crowned).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Alternatively, the Queen could "step down". So she would remain Queen
>>>>>>but
>>>>>>Charles would do all the work. This would make him Prince Regent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But when the Queen dies, Charles will be King, unless he dies before
>>>>>>his
>>>>>>mother. The Daily Star has reported that "sensitive" planning for
>>>>>>Charles'
>>>>>>coronation is underway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Key word - sensitive.
>>>>
>>>>Key word to what?
>>>
>>> Look above.
>>
>>The key word is the key word to what?
>>
>>
>
> You put it in quotes yourselfSW!

And why's the word sensitive the key word?

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <t41lp1$6ql$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Other Doctor <stephen.wilson2004nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> >"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote
> > >
> >> Check your history, SW!
> >
> > I checked my history. There was only 1 PM in 1938 - Neville
> > Chamberlain. There is only 1 PM now - Boris Johnson. And no PM has
> > ever had any vote regarding the monarchy. Britain's monarchy is
> > hereditary. It's not elective. I don't know where you get your
> > info from. But I do know that you're an idiot.
>
> And Chamberlain needed the help of the PMs of Australia, NZ and Canada
> to block The Then Prince of Wales from ascending tt the throne.

For a start Chamberlain wasn't the British PM at the time of the
abdication, Stanley Baldwin was, but yes the PM's of the five Dominions
(inc our own Mr de Valera) were part of the process as they had to be
consulted on serious constitutional matters like that. I don't think
they had an actual vote but their opinions were sought.

"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:t42237$6so$28@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> In article <t41uno$igt$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>On 2022-04-23 22:06:59 +0000, tsbr...@gmail.com said:
>>
>>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 7:10:24 AM UTC-7, The Other Doctor wrote:
>>>> "Daniel65" <dani...@eternal-september.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:t410l8$mub$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>>> The Doctor wrote on 23/4/22 8:21 am:
>>>>>
>>>>> <Snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> WEll there is the constitutional vote by the PMs!
>>>>>>
>>>>> "vote by the PMs"?? Hmm!! Only having *ONE* PM, that vote count
>>>>> shouldn't
>>>>> take long!!
>>>> That vote won't take any time at all, because Yads, as usual, is
>>>> talking
>>>> nonsense. There is no "constitutional vote by the PMs".
>>>>
>>>> In the unlikely event that the Queen chooses to abdicate, the throne
>>>> willl
>>>> be passed to her eldest son (making Charles the oldest ever UK monarch
>>>> to be
>>>> crowned).
>>>>
>>>> Alternatively, the Queen could "step down". So she would remain Queen
>>>> but
>>>> Charles would do all the work. This would make him Prince Regent.
>>>>
>>>> But when the Queen dies, Charles will be King, unless he dies before
>>>> his
>>>> mother. The Daily Star has reported that "sensitive" planning for
>>>> Charles'
>>>> coronation is underway.
>>>
>>> Is the Queen in imminent danger of death? (I heard that she had Covid
>>> a few weeks ago).
>>
>>No more "imminent" than any other relatively healthy 96 year olds.
>>
>>
>
> And strong.

Strong? No, Yads. She's frail.

"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:t4263g$q9n$1@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> In article <d3c5eb5a-5bd7-4d8b-87f2-29c46ebdd412n@googlegroups.com>,
> tsbr...@gmail.com <tsbrueni@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 3:31:24 PM UTC-7, Your Name wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-23 22:06:59 +0000, tsbr...@gmail.com said:
>>>
>>> > On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 7:10:24 AM UTC-7, The Other Doctor
>>> > wrote:
>>> >> "Daniel65" <dani...@eternal-september.org> wrote in message
>>> >> news:t410l8$mub$2...@dont-email.me...
>>> >>> The Doctor wrote on 23/4/22 8:21 am:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> <Snip>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> WEll there is the constitutional vote by the PMs!
>>> >>>>
>>> >>> "vote by the PMs"?? Hmm!! Only having *ONE* PM, that vote count
>>> >>> shouldn't
>>> >>> take long!!
>>> >> That vote won't take any time at all, because Yads, as usual, is
>>> >> talking
>>> >> nonsense. There is no "constitutional vote by the PMs".
>>> >>
>>> >> In the unlikely event that the Queen chooses to abdicate, the throne
>>> >> willl
>>> >> be passed to her eldest son (making Charles the oldest ever UK
>>monarch to be
>>> >> crowned).
>>> >>
>>> >> Alternatively, the Queen could "step down". So she would remain Queen
>>> >> but
>>> >> Charles would do all the work. This would make him Prince Regent.
>>> >>
>>> >> But when the Queen dies, Charles will be King, unless he dies before
>>> >> his
>>> >> mother. The Daily Star has reported that "sensitive" planning for
>>> >> Charles'
>>> >> coronation is underway.
>>> >
>>> > Is the Queen in imminent danger of death? (I heard that she had Covid
>>> > a few weeks ago).
>>> No more "imminent" than any other relatively healthy 96 year olds.
>>
>>I was wondering why the UK government chose this particular moment to
>>begin planning for the Charles' Coronation?
>
> In case of sudden state of mourning.

You plan for a coronation because people might suddenly start mourning? What
are you waffling on about, Yads?

tsbr...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 3:31:24 PM UTC-7, Your Name wrote:
> > On 2022-04-23 22:06:59 +0000, tsbr...@gmail.com said:
> > > Is the Queen in imminent danger of death? (I heard that she had
> > > Covid a few weeks ago).
> >
> > No more "imminent" than any other relatively healthy 96 year olds.
>
> I was wondering why the UK government chose this particular moment to
> begin planning for the Charles' Coronation?

Nobody lives forever. 96 is a good innings, but...