On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 16:45:40 +1100, Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org>
wrote:

> Rod Speed wrote on 28/3/23 4:39 pm:
>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 16:35:39 +1100, Rod Speed
>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 16:17:35 +1100, Daniel65
>>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fran wrote on 28/3/23 8:19 am:
>>>>> On 27/03/2023 9:38 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>>> Fran wrote on 27/3/23 12:18 pm:
>>>> <Snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>> UK Order of Succession when Charles pops his clogs: 1.
>>>>>>> William 2. George 3. Charlotte 4. Louis 5. Harry 6. Archie
>>>>>>> 7. Lilibet
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah .... after hitting 'Send' I did a little bit of research
>>>>>> and found a page like ... https://www.royal.uk/succession
>>>>> Lets hope that nothing happens to get rid of 1 through to 5.
>>>>> I'd hate to think seeing the Ginger on the throne with the
>>>>> Whinger at his side.
>>>> Hmm!! No 5 is The Duke of Sussex and No 6 is Prince Archie of
>>>> Sussex.
>>>> 'Prince' is higher than 'Duke' isn't it?? So shouldn't "Prince
>>>> Archie" be higher up than 'Duke of Sussex'?? ;-P
>>> Its much more complicated than that, most obviously with Phil the
>>> Greek.
>
> Sorry!! How does Prince Phillip being of Greek descent alter the
> *BRITISH* line of succession??

Shit you are stupid. He was both a Prince and a Duke, fuckwit.

>> And the ranga is both too. Archie will be a duke sometime too.

> ???

Shit you are stupid. He is both a Prince and a Duke, fuckwit.

On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 19:48:55 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 08:15:54 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 07:37:16 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 16:34:06 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 12:58:37 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 12:09:36 +1100, Max <max@invalid.address> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 26/03/2023 8:47 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 18:52:37 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 18:38:31 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>>>>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Max <max@invalid.address> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ördög <newsgroup.devil@hell.incorporated.biz> wrote
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bye-bye fully corrupt NSW LNP regime.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The previous Labor govt was FAR more corrupt.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Every State and Territory except Tasmania is now with a Labor
>>>>>>>>>>>> Government
>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, interesting result.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe King Charles III, can have them sacked for treason?
>>>>>>>>>>> Big Ears gets no say on anything except that his personal
>>>>>>>>>>> toilet seat must accompany him at all times and that his ranga
>>>>>>>>>>> brat doesnt get to used that house in pomland anymore.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We are still a monarchy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and if the King wanted to he could exert power over Australia..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have any power at all even in pomland
>>>>>>>>> except to rule that his own personal toilet seat must
>>>>>>>>> be with him everywhere he goes, and who else of the
>>>>>>>>> royal parasites gets to use which royal property and
>>>>>>>>> what happens to a few royal propertys like Balmoral
>>>>>>>>> which are personally owned by the Monarch.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's just that he chooses not to.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The King's Governor General's obeys the orders given by Monarch to
>>>>>>>> dissolve parliaments State and Federal, then call another
>>>>>>>> election.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong, as always. The monarch never gets any say on that anymore..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has been practice for the monarch not be involved, but the power
>>>>>> does
>>>>>> still exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just because the monarch has chosen not to get involved doesn't mean
>>>>>> they couldn't change their mind and do something.
>>>>
>>>>> Our Monarch just orders the Govoner General what to do,
>>>>
>>>> Nope, none have actually been that stupid.
>>>>
>>>>> he does it.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>
>>>>> Don't happen often lst time was the sacking of the Whitlam Australian
>>>>> parliament both Sente and House of Representatives.
>>>>
>>>> Never happened. Kerr did it off his own bat so Whitless
>>>> couldnt go running to Liz and get Kerr sacked.
>>>>
>>>>> A care taker government was put in charge to form another election,
>>>>> that confirmed Whitlam was on the nose.
>>>>> <https://consortiumnews.com/2022/11/14/the-queens-coup/>
>>>>
>>>>> The letters confirmed that the queen through her private secretary
>>>>> Sir
>>>>> Martin Charteris, discussed the possible dismissal of the government
>>>>> with the governor-general and advised him on the use of “reserve
>>>>> powers” to do so,
>>>>
>>>> They actually said that he COULD do that.
>>>>
>>>>> against the advice of both the Australian
>>>>> solicitor-general and attorney-general.
>>>>
>>>>> No respectable historian or journalist could now accept that the
>>>>> queen
>>>>> had “no part to play” in the dismissal of the Whitlam government as
>>>>> the protectors of the royal family in Buckingham Palace continues to
>>>>> claim.
>>>>
>>>> More of your mindless bullshit and lies.
>>
>>> I didn't write it!
>>
>> But you stupidly did wave that mindless shit around.
>>
>>> The top Australian historian
>>
>> That stupid cow is nothing even remotely like that.
>>
>>> Jenny Hocking did.
>>
>> And when the documentation was eventually allowed
>> to be seen, that proves that that stupid cow never ever
>> did have a fucking clue about what actually happened.

> You believe the ABC to much!

Nothing whatever to do with the ABC.

We now have the communications between Liz, Big Ears,
Kerr and Liz's advisors which prove that the claim that Liz
ordered Whitlam's sacking is a bare faced pig ignorant lie.

> Reality
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_Hocking#Reaction_to_Hocking's_research_on_Whitlam>
> https://tinyurl.com/2esk33r3
> As a consequence of the importance of Gough Whitlam in Australia's
> political history, Hocking's books about him, and featuring him, have
> received considerable attention from public commentators, academics
> and politicians. Overall, the response has been positive.

All completely and utterly irrelevant to what we now
know actually happened now that we have seen the
communications between Liz, Big Ears, Kerr and
Liz's advisors which prove that that fool Hocking's
claim that Liz ordered Whitlam's sacking is a bare
faced pig ignorant lie.

> According to the judges of the Barbara Ramsden Award, the Whitlam
> biography was recognised as "an unusually thorough treatment and ... a
> monumental project ... reminiscent of the glory days of publishing".

All completely and utterly irrelevant to what we now
know actually happened now that we have seen the
communications between Liz, Big Ears, Kerr and
Liz's advisors which prove that that fool Hocking's
claim that Liz ordered Whitlam's sacking is a bare
faced pig ignorant lie.

On 28/03/2023 4:34 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> Petzl wrote on 28/3/23 7:37 am:
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 16:34:06 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 12:58:37 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>
> <Snip>
>
>>>> against the advice of both the Australian solicitor-general and
>>>> attorney-general.
>>>
>>>> No respectable historian or journalist could now accept that the
>>>> queen had “no part to play” in the dismissal of the Whitlam
>>>> government as the protectors of the royal family in Buckingham
>>>> Palace continues to claim.
>>>
>>> More of your mindless bullshit and lies.
>>>
>> I didn't write it! The top Australian historian Jenny Hocking did.
>>
>> More
>> <https://consortiumnews.com/2020/06/01/john-pilger-the-forgotten-coup-against-the-most-loyal-ally/>
>>
>>
> > https://tinyurl.com/y72926tp
>> There is an historical amnesia among Australia’s polite society
>> about the catastrophic events of 1975. An Anglo-American coup
>> overthrew a democratically elected ally in a demeaning scandal in
>> which sections of the Australian elite colluded. This is largely
>> unmentionable. The stamina and achievement of the *Australian
>> historian Jenny Hocking* in forcing the High Court’s decision are
>> exceptional.
>>
> Hang on!! Hang on, Petzl!!
>
> You usually try to push that it was The Queen that sacked Gough's
> Government ..... Now you are suggesting that it was 'An Anglo-American
> coup'!!
>
> Make up your mind, please, Petzl!!
>
> Hang on!! Hang on!! Checking the link that you actually provided
>
> "John Pilger reports on a new development in the Anglo-American coup in
> which the CIA overthrew a democratically elected ally in Australia in a
> demeaning scandal in which sections of the Australian elite colluded."
>
> So it wasn't The Queen that sacked Gough's government! It wasn't even
> 'An Anglo-American coup' that sacked Gough's government ..... it was The
> CIA and 'sections of the Australian elite' that over-through Gough!!
>
> Make up your mind, please, Petzl!!
Having been a public servant and lived and worked round Canberra through
the dismissal years, I'm still of the opinion that the CIA WAS involved.
The appointment of Marsahll Green as Ambassador given his history and
the comment from the State Department that the US 'would ever again
interfere' in Australia's politics and all the scuttlebutt around at the
time are quite persuasive.

On 28/03/2023 4:17 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> Fran wrote on 28/3/23 8:19 am:
>> On 27/03/2023 9:38 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>> Fran wrote on 27/3/23 12:18 pm:
>
> <Snip>
>
>>>> UK Order of Succession when Charles pops his clogs: 1. William
>>>> 2. George 3. Charlotte 4. Louis 5. Harry 6. Archie 7. Lilibet
>>>>
>>> Yeah .... after hitting 'Send' I did a little bit of research and
>>> found a page like ... https://www.royal.uk/succession
>>
>> Lets hope that nothing happens to get rid of 1 through to 5.  I'd
>> hate to think seeing the Ginger on the throne with the Whinger at his
>> side.
>
> Hmm!! No 5 is The Duke of Sussex and No 6 is Prince Archie of Sussex.
>
> 'Prince' is higher than 'Duke' isn't it?? So shouldn't "Prince Archie"
> be higher up than 'Duke of Sussex'?? ;-P

Harry is still a prince even though he is also a Duke.

On 28/03/2023 4:45 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote on 28/3/23 4:39 pm:
>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 16:35:39 +1100, Rod Speed
>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 16:17:35 +1100, Daniel65
>>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fran wrote on 28/3/23 8:19 am:
>>>>> On 27/03/2023 9:38 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>>> Fran wrote on 27/3/23 12:18 pm:
>>>>
>>>> <Snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>> UK Order of Succession when Charles pops his clogs: 1.
>>>>>>> William 2. George 3. Charlotte 4. Louis 5. Harry 6. Archie
>>>>>>> 7. Lilibet
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah .... after hitting 'Send' I did a little bit of research
>>>>>> and found a page like ... https://www.royal.uk/succession
>>>>> Lets hope that nothing happens to get rid of 1 through to 5.
>>>>> I'd hate to think seeing the Ginger on the throne with the
>>>>> Whinger at his side.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm!! No 5 is The Duke of Sussex and No 6 is Prince Archie of
>>>> Sussex.
>>>>
>>>> 'Prince' is higher than 'Duke' isn't it?? So shouldn't "Prince
>>>> Archie" be higher up than 'Duke of Sussex'?? ;-P
>>>
>>> Its much more complicated than that, most obviously with Phil the
>>> Greek.
>
> Sorry!! How does Prince Phillip being of Greek descent alter the
> *BRITISH* line of succession??

Prince Philip was a Prince from the moment of his birth but before he
married Liz, he gave up his foreign titles and became a (UK) Prince as a
result of his marriage t Liz. I'm not sure when he was given his UK
Dukedom.

>> And the ranga is both too. Archie will be a duke sometime too.
>
> ???

Archie will become Duke of Sussex on the death of his father.

On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 3:03:24 PM UTC+11, Fran wrote:
> On 28/03/2023 4:34 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> > Petzl wrote on 28/3/23 7:37 am:
> >> On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 16:34:06 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> >> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 12:58:37 +1100, Petzl <pet...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >
> > <Snip>
snip again
> > Make up your mind, please, Petzl!!
>
> Having been a public servant and lived and worked round Canberra through
> the dismissal years, I'm still of the opinion that the CIA WAS involved.
> The appointment of Marshall Green as Ambassador given his history and
> the comment from the State Department that the US 'would ever again
> interfere' in Australia's politics and all the scuttlebutt around at the
> time are quite persuasive.
>
The CIA, MI6 and UK Government did did not support the Whitlam Government
Which was found to be removing ties to USA and Britain's orbit moving towards
that of the Communist and Third World powers, with strong support for the "Arab lobby.
Queen Elizabeth would of been told it was in here interest to have the entire Whitlam
Parliament sacked. At the time there was the ANZAC treaty which Whitlam was turning
his arse on also.
--
Petzl
In a democracy of course you always get a choice.
Do you want to be governed by the red or by the blue it's entirely up to you.
Do you want to be patronized or condescended to, by liars or by crooks you get to choose.
Would you prefer your fundamental values to be insulted or ignored by con-men or by charlatans.
In short do you want your influence to be zero or nil and when would you like to be listened to, never or not at all, it's your choice
Do you want, some more choices, take-it-or-leave-it.
I'd be happy with any kind of representation wouldn't you, I would like to see a new government and part of me doesn't give a damn who's in it as long as it doesn't include anybody from the Labor, Liberal or Green party organizations that show themselves to be without shame or principle All spineless and authoritarian both cowardly and war mongering at the same time

Fran wrote on 29/03/2023 3:04 pm:
> On 28/03/2023 4:17 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>> Fran wrote on 28/3/23 8:19 am:
>>> On 27/03/2023 9:38 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>> Fran wrote on 27/3/23 12:18 pm:
>>
>> <Snip>
>>
>>>>> UK Order of Succession when Charles pops his clogs: 1. William
>>>>> 2. George 3. Charlotte 4. Louis 5. Harry 6. Archie 7. Lilibet
>>>>>
>>>> Yeah .... after hitting 'Send' I did a little bit of research and
>>>> found a page like ... https://www.royal.uk/succession
>>>
>>> Lets hope that nothing happens to get rid of 1 through to 5.  I'd
>>> hate to think seeing the Ginger on the throne with the Whinger at his
>>> side.
>>
>> Hmm!! No 5 is The Duke of Sussex and No 6 is Prince Archie of Sussex.
>>
>> 'Prince' is higher than 'Duke' isn't it?? So shouldn't "Prince Archie"
>> be higher up than 'Duke of Sussex'?? ;-P
>
> Harry is still a prince even though he is also a Duke.

Gee!! I must be forgetting my (Robin Hood) History!! Doesn't just the
GREATER Honour count??
--
Daniel

On 29/03/2023 5:15 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> Fran wrote on 29/03/2023 3:04 pm:
>> On 28/03/2023 4:17 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>> Fran wrote on 28/3/23 8:19 am:
>>>> On 27/03/2023 9:38 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>> Fran wrote on 27/3/23 12:18 pm:
>>>
>>> <Snip>
>>>
>>>>>> UK Order of Succession when Charles pops his clogs: 1. William
>>>>>> 2. George 3. Charlotte 4. Louis 5. Harry 6. Archie 7. Lilibet
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah .... after hitting 'Send' I did a little bit of research and
>>>>> found a page like ... https://www.royal.uk/succession
>>>>
>>>> Lets hope that nothing happens to get rid of 1 through to 5.  I'd
>>>> hate to think seeing the Ginger on the throne with the Whinger at his
>>>> side.
>>>
>>> Hmm!! No 5 is The Duke of Sussex and No 6 is Prince Archie of Sussex.
>>>
>>> 'Prince' is higher than 'Duke' isn't it?? So shouldn't "Prince
>>> Archie" be higher up than 'Duke of Sussex'?? ;-P
>>
>> Harry is still a prince even though he is also a Duke.
>
> Gee!! I must be forgetting my (Robin Hood) History!! Doesn't just the
> GREATER Honour count??

Not sure what you mean.

He'd be introduced as Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex if he was going to be
introduced at a somewhat formal occasion. Of course the rest of us
would just call him either the ranga or the ginger or the spare.

Fran wrote on 29/3/23 7:43 pm:
> On 29/03/2023 5:15 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>> Fran wrote on 29/03/2023 3:04 pm:
>>> On 28/03/2023 4:17 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>> Fran wrote on 28/3/23 8:19 am:
>>>>> On 27/03/2023 9:38 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>>> Fran wrote on 27/3/23 12:18 pm:
>>>>
>>>> <Snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>> UK Order of Succession when Charles pops his clogs: 1.
>>>>>>> William 2. George 3. Charlotte 4. Louis 5. Harry 6.
>>>>>>> Archie 7. Lilibet
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah .... after hitting 'Send' I did a little bit of
>>>>>> research and found a page like ...
>>>>>> https://www.royal.uk/succession
>>>>>
>>>>> Lets hope that nothing happens to get rid of 1 through to 5.
>>>>> I'd hate to think seeing the Ginger on the throne with the
>>>>> Whinger at his side.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm!! No 5 is The Duke of Sussex and No 6 is Prince Archie of
>>>> Sussex.
>>>>
>>>> 'Prince' is higher than 'Duke' isn't it?? So shouldn't "Prince
>>>> Archie" be higher up than 'Duke of Sussex'?? ;-P
>>>
>>> Harry is still a prince even though he is also a Duke.
>>
>> Gee!! I must be forgetting my (Robin Hood) History!! Doesn't just
>> the GREATER Honour count??
>
> Not sure what you mean.
>
> He'd be introduced as Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex if he was going
> to be introduced at a somewhat formal occasion.

So Harry is, apparently, appearing in a British Court Case where he and
others are suing one of the British Media organisations.

I would have thought he would be referred to as 'Price Harold".

> Of course the rest of us would just call him either the ranga or the
> ginger or the spare.
>
--
Daniel

On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 16:53:24 +1100, petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 3:03:24 PM UTC+11, Fran wrote:
>> On 28/03/2023 4:34 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>> > Petzl wrote on 28/3/23 7:37 am:
>> >> On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 16:34:06 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>> >> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 12:58:37 +1100, Petzl <pet...@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >
>> > <Snip>
> snip again
>
>> > Make up your mind, please, Petzl!!
>>
>> Having been a public servant and lived and worked round Canberra through
>> the dismissal years, I'm still of the opinion that the CIA WAS involved.
>> The appointment of Marshall Green as Ambassador given his history and
>> the comment from the State Department that the US 'would ever again
>> interfere' in Australia's politics and all the scuttlebutt around at the
>> time are quite persuasive.

> The CIA, MI6 and UK Government did did not support the Whitlam
> Government

Irrelevant to the stupid claim that they were involved in the
sacking o Whitlam. And MI6 doesnt 'support' anyone.

> Which was found to be removing ties to USA and Britain's orbit

BULLSHIT.

> moving towards
> that of the Communist and Third World powers,

BULLSHIT.

> with strong support for the "Arab lobby.

BULLSHIT.

> Queen Elizabeth would of been told it was in here interest to have the
> entire Whitlam
> Parliament sacked.

BULLSHIT.

> At the time there was the ANZAC treaty which Whitlam was turning
> his arse on also.

BULLSHIT.

Petz, the raging Village idiot from Shitboxville confirms:

> Fran
>> Daniel65
>
> snip again
>
You are hiding your inability to deal with posted content behind wild
snipping, eh, Petz dear?
>
>>> Make up your mind, please, Petzl!!
>
Useless to ask an obviously mindless person to do such a task, Daniel!
>>
>> Having been a public servant and lived and worked round Canberra through
>> the dismissal years, I'm still of the opinion that the CIA WAS involved.
>> The appointment of Marshall Green as Ambassador given his history and
>> the comment from the State Department that the US 'would ever again
>> interfere' in Australia's politics and all the scuttlebutt around at the
>> time are quite persuasive.
>>
> The CIA, MI6 and UK Government did did not support the Whitlam Government
> Which was found to be removing ties to USA and Britain's orbit moving towards
> that of the Communist and Third World powers, with strong support for the "Arab lobby.
> Queen Elizabeth would of been told it was in here interest to have the entire Whitlam
> Parliament sacked. At the time there was the ANZAC treaty which Whitlam was turning
> his arse on also.
>
Lots of bullshit pulled out of of the Cold War era propagandist arses.

WTF are Communist and Third World *powers*??????????????
There were NO communist powers anywhere on the planet. Yes, there was
China and the USSR that could have been considered as powers, neither of
them were *communist*. They themselves described their countries as "in
transition towards socialism". During the 1970-s, however they were both
authoritarian state capitalist regimes.
Yes, the US did not fancy Whitlam's push towards implementing social
democracy in OZ and his push for better relationships with countries in
our region in the Pacific countering some aspects of US Cold War
tactics, that is true. But the UK could not give a damn about Australia
at that time. And anyhow, the Queen had nothing to do with Australian
politics.

Stop rewriting history in such a moronic fashion!

NOTE:
Your idiot alt-right/Xtian fundy hate propaganda sig was flushed as
always without reading!

--
The ever present and ever vigilant newsgroup devil at your service.

On 29/03/2023 10:02 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> Fran wrote on 29/3/23 7:43 pm:
>> On 29/03/2023 5:15 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>> Fran wrote on 29/03/2023 3:04 pm:
>>>> On 28/03/2023 4:17 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>> Fran wrote on 28/3/23 8:19 am:
>>>>>> On 27/03/2023 9:38 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>>>> Fran wrote on 27/3/23 12:18 pm:
>>>>>
>>>>> <Snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> UK Order of Succession when Charles pops his clogs: 1. William
>>>>>>>> 2. George 3. Charlotte 4. Louis 5. Harry 6. Archie 7. Lilibet
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah .... after hitting 'Send' I did a little bit of research and
>>>>>>> found a page like ... https://www.royal.uk/succession
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lets hope that nothing happens to get rid of 1 through to 5. I'd
>>>>>> hate to think seeing the Ginger on the throne with the Whinger at
>>>>>> his side.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm!! No 5 is The Duke of Sussex and No 6 is Prince Archie of Sussex.
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Prince' is higher than 'Duke' isn't it?? So shouldn't "Prince
>>>>> Archie" be higher up than 'Duke of Sussex'?? ;-P
>>>>
>>>> Harry is still a prince even though he is also a Duke.
>>>
>>> Gee!! I must be forgetting my (Robin Hood) History!! Doesn't just the
>>> GREATER Honour count??
>>
>> Not sure what you mean.
>>
>> He'd be introduced as Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex if he was going
>> to be introduced at a somewhat formal occasion.
>
> So Harry is, apparently, appearing in a British Court Case where he and
> others are suing one of the British Media organisations.
>
> I would have thought he would be referred to as 'Price Harold".

He was christened Henry but has always been called Harry. I don't
understand why you say he'd be called Price Harold? Is he for sale?

Fran wrote on 30/3/23 8:45 am:
> On 29/03/2023 10:02 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>> Fran wrote on 29/3/23 7:43 pm:
>>> On 29/03/2023 5:15 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>> Fran wrote on 29/03/2023 3:04 pm:
>>>>> On 28/03/2023 4:17 pm, Daniel65 wrote:

<Snip>

>>>>>> 'Prince' is higher than 'Duke' isn't it?? So shouldn't
>>>>>> "Prince Archie" be higher up than 'Duke of Sussex'?? ;-P
>>>>>
>>>>> Harry is still a prince even though he is also a Duke.
>>>>
>>>> Gee!! I must be forgetting my (Robin Hood) History!! Doesn't
>>>> just the GREATER Honour count??
>>>
>>> Not sure what you mean.
>>>
>>> He'd be introduced as Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex if he was
>>> going to be introduced at a somewhat formal occasion.
>>
>> So Harry is, apparently, appearing in a British Court Case where he
>> and others are suing one of the British Media organisations.
>>
>> I would have thought he would be referred to as 'Price Harold".
>
> He was christened Henry but has always been called Harry. I don't
> understand why you say he'd be called Price Harold? Is he for sale?

There WAS an 'n' there .... I'm sure of it! ;-)
--
Daniel

On 30/03/2023 9:16 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> Fran wrote on 30/3/23 8:45 am:
>> On 29/03/2023 10:02 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>> Fran wrote on 29/3/23 7:43 pm:
>>>> On 29/03/2023 5:15 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>> Fran wrote on 29/03/2023 3:04 pm:
>>>>>> On 28/03/2023 4:17 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>
> <Snip>
>
>>>>>>> 'Prince' is higher than 'Duke' isn't it?? So shouldn't
>>>>>>> "Prince Archie" be higher up than 'Duke of Sussex'?? ;-P
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Harry is still a prince even though he is also a Duke.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gee!! I must be forgetting my (Robin Hood) History!! Doesn't
>>>>> just the GREATER Honour count??
>>>>
>>>> Not sure what you mean.
>>>>
>>>> He'd be introduced as Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex if he was
>>>> going to be introduced at a somewhat formal occasion.
>>>
>>> So Harry is, apparently, appearing in a British Court Case where he
>>> and others are suing one of the British Media organisations.
>>>
>>> I would have thought he would be referred to as 'Price Harold".
>>
>> He was christened Henry but has always been called Harry.  I don't
>> understand why you say he'd be called Price Harold?  Is he for sale?
>
> There WAS an 'n' there .... I'm sure of it! ;-)

LOL. Now Daniel, stop trying to use the old petz tactic as it wont'
wash. We can all go back up the thread and read what was put in.....