Prince Harry and Meghan

  • Thread starter Thread starter cmodrmac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, the first two Georges, I think. The Act of Settlement says the Crown can only pass to a Protestant, and that the monarch must “join in communion with the Church of England”. The two Georges were able to meet these requirements, whatever their faith might have been in Hanover.
 
Last edited:
I know slightly less about Edgar than I do about George and George.
 
GKMotley said:
I think a more likely argument was that…
Click to expand...
Perhaps. Davis certainly overestimated just how tolerable a lack of cotton would be for the British, and was a fool for not pursuing British aid more actively.
GKMotley said:
The only thing that the US could have invaded was Canada, of course, but, as Lincoln said at the time of the Trent Affair, one war at a time.

To be a superpower would have required the ability to project commanding power well beyond its borders, and the US could only do that directly northward, if lucky.
Click to expand...
I don’t know that I agree with you there. It’s a short walk from the factory to the shipyard. If the US ever caught the desire to build ships to sail at England, the Yankees would’ve made the Thames their private leisure cruise. When motivated, they have a tendency to respond… well, zealously.

Apart from the likelihood of annexing Canada or invading the islands is the fact that the US did project power across the pond, even if only by threat, by telling off a supposed superpower.

I’ll stand by my initial points: 1) The US was a superpower well before WWI. 2) It would’ve reached that point even sooner if not for its Civil War.
 
You have to read a book about him to be aware of how little anyone knows about Edgar. But I can tell you he was crowned (possibly for the second time) in Bath before trotting up to Chester to be rowed on the Dee by seven local kings, that he was called King of All Albion, that he was called the vicar of Christ, that he appointed bishops and abbots, that he ordered the conversion and reform of England’s secular minsters into Benedictine monasteries, and that he put his wife in charge of England’s nunneries.

And that his son was Aethelraed the Unraed.
 
FrDavid96 said:
That would/will only be true if the first marriage is either declared null or is dissolved (such as by Pauline Privilege if that would apply)

Still, her upcoming (although legal) marriage will not be (cannot be) a Sacrament while the husband is still living.

Just because she is a non-Catholic, that doesn’t mean that she is exempt from the Divine Law.

Unless 1 of these happens (death of spouse, declaration of nullity or dissolved) there will not be a Sacrament of Marriage.
Click to expand...
I believe that the Archbishop of Canterbury has claimed otherwise.
 
I deny both points, and repeat that we were nascent regional, not even inchoate super, power.

Although alternate history, esp. of a military sort, is among my favorite reading. Am half way through THE DAY AFTER GETTYSBURG, by the late Robert Conroy (with J.R. Dunn). Lee can;t get back across the Potomac: floods. Attacks an unwary Meade, in pursuit, always awkward on offense. Kicks the Army of the Potomac’s teeth in. Not sure how it will end.
 
**
“ConstantLearner said:
Well, no wonder the US said no monarchy! Look at all the trouble it causes! Not to mention expense! I’m not willing to pay tax to support them! 😮
Click to expand...

You Americans get to support Melania Trump with yours. Her various lurks and perks must cost you a.pretty penmy.

Not like anyone elected her to be FLOTUS, and she does roughly the same day-to-say tasks as the.Royals.

I agree the titles thing is confusing tho.
 
Last edited:
ComplineSanFran said:
40.png
FrDavid96:
That would/will only be true if the first marriage is either declared null or is dissolved (such as by Pauline Privilege if that would apply)

Still, her upcoming (although legal) marriage will not be (cannot be) a Sacrament while the husband is still living.

Just because she is a non-Catholic, that doesn’t mean that she is exempt from the Divine Law.

Unless 1 of these happens (death of spouse, declaration of nullity or dissolved) there will not be a Sacrament of Marriage.
Click to expand...
I believe that the Archbishop of Canterbury has claimed otherwise.
Click to expand...
And since we are talking about the question of a sacrament, that’s not his decision to make.

He does not get to decide what does or does not constitute a Sacrament.

The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church does that, based on Divine laws.
 
As all RCs should certainly affirm and assert the same. I agree.

I bet Cantuar has another opinion on the matter. He certainly has a variety of them…
 
Last edited:
Could the US have devoted resources to shipyards, built a vast navy, and exercised dominion in Europe and Asia as far back as the early to mid 19th century? Possibly. But they didn’t. Surely you recognize that the British Empire exercised far more global influence during that era than the US did… the US was busy with North American concerns. We are talking about actual imperial influence exercised… not “could have been’s”, right?
The US basically stepped up to the plate and filled the void left by the diminishing British Empire during and after the World Wars.
 
Ahhh. The ill-advised.

Never knew who his Da was. That’s far removed from Hank’s day.
 
twf said:
Could the US have devoted resources to shipyards, built a vast navy, and exercised dominion in Europe and Asia as far back as the early to mid 19th century? Possibly. But they didn’t. Surely you recognize that the British Empire exercised far more global influence during that era than the US did… the US was busy with North American concerns. We are talking about actual imperial influence exercised… not “could have been’s”, right?
The US basically stepped up to the plate and filled the void left by the diminishing British Empire during and after the World Wars.
Click to expand...
Not quite.

The Monroe Doctrine dates to 1823.

It certainly took a lot of military power to enforce that. At least potential military power. And it was effective, so that says something. History shows that the European empires did not respond “we don’t care what you think, we’re going ahead anyway.”

It wasn’t just caused by the World Wars either.

10 years before WWI, Roosevelt showed the battleship fleet to the rest of the world. The message was clear: stay away.

So the military power was certainly there before the World Wars.

U.S. power in the Pacific was also pretty strong well before WWI. Philippines and Guam were US territories before the war.
 
Precisely. Thank you, Father.

Nations needn’t enforce their will everywhere to qualify as ‘superpower;’ rather, they need only have the power to enforce it where it pleases them. What was it Teddy said about carrying a stick?

And Monroe was merely the first to eloquently express anti-European-interference; his administration certainly was not the first to put it into practice. I think it’s fair to say the War of 1812 was the last time a European power had any actual influence over the US. And even by the end of that conflict, the US was showing considerable dominance on the battlefield (Plattsburgh, the Battle of New Orleans, the Mississippi Campaign, etc.).
 
But the battleship fleet shown was obsolescent, and worse, after the Dreadnought revolution. BB-26 (SOUTH CAROLINA) was launched the year following the world tour, starting the growth of a modern battle fleet, not one of ships wet in any sort of sea-way. Secondary armament, placement of armor belts, also were less than acceptable. Hence it was a good cruise to see where we need to go next. SOUTH CAROLINA and DELAWARE were the next tentative steps, and by just before WWI we were off. Before that we were a nascent naval power. Spain was not much of an obstacle.

Naval development, particularly capital ships, from pre-dreadnought to the retiring of the IOWAs is a long time hobby of mine. Have not yet finished the 5th volume of Marder’s FROM DREADNOUGHT TO SCAPA FLOW, but I’ll get there.

Have a fair number of reading hobbies I never expected to see in this sort of venue. Like this sub-topic
 
I have an image of you reading in a large arm chain in a private library with a monocle and a tweed suit. I mean that in the most complimentary way.
 
I thank you, and wish it were so. I abandoned my plans to add a separate library wing to the house, a dream for over 45 years, recently. Not practical. I stack the books in rows in the house, put them in boxes in the attic, and the 2 rented storage units, garage and shed. Maybe 30K+, the fruit of 60 years collecting, my children.

Picture me in a lawn chair in the back yard, smoking a pipe, and trying to get through the last of Marder, and moving on.
 
Poor Spanish. Blamed for the results of a coal bunker fire. Consensus of investigations conclude.

Me, I wasn’t there.
 
If the ability to turn disinformation into a frenzied quest for Manifest Destiny that immediately dissolved one European empire, expanded reach across four continents, and eventually led to the gentle decline of another European empire isn’t evidence of superpower, I don’t know what is.

Apologies to the thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top