Talk:Queen Elizabeth II - Revision history

Elessar: /* re Acts */

2017-08-21T06:45:16Z

re Acts

NeilWalker: re

2017-08-20T22:14:12Z

1990'sguy: /* re Acts */

2017-08-20T21:20:41Z

re Acts

NeilWalker: upper case

2017-08-20T21:18:29Z

upper case

NeilWalker: typo

2017-08-20T21:17:52Z

typo

NeilWalker: c'est la vie

2017-08-20T21:14:05Z

c'est la vie

1990'sguy: /* re Acts */ Move for readability.

2017-08-20T20:44:51Z

re Acts: Move for readability.

1990'sguy: /* re Acts */

2017-08-20T20:44:21Z

re Acts

NeilWalker: re re re

2017-08-20T20:39:46Z

re re re

NeilWalker: re re

2017-08-20T20:36:01Z

re re

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:45, August 21, 2017
Line 30:		Line 30:
	:::::What do you think about this: we keep the fact that the Queen has signed these pieces of legislation, but we include the fact that there is a precedent not to interfere with Parliament, regardless of what they pass? --[[User:1990'sguy\|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy\|talk]]) 17:20, 20 August 2017 (EDT)		:::::What do you think about this: we keep the fact that the Queen has signed these pieces of legislation, but we include the fact that there is a precedent not to interfere with Parliament, regardless of what they pass? --[[User:1990'sguy\|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy\|talk]]) 17:20, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
	::::::As I stated, it makes no difference to me; it is a silly claim, based upon ignorance of the limits of executive power, ignorance of history, ignorance of the constitutional brake, and ignorance of the overriding principle of [[representative democracy]]. I've attempted to "fix" it, my "fix" was rejected. It's clear that you have subversive editors here who are making your articles appear silly. I don't have time to debate this any further: I must instead telephone all of my friends in NYC to warn them of the apocalypse. [[User:NeilWalker\|NeilWalker]] ([[User talk:NeilWalker\|talk]]) 18:14, 20 August 2017 (EDT)		::::::As I stated, it makes no difference to me; it is a silly claim, based upon ignorance of the limits of executive power, ignorance of history, ignorance of the constitutional brake, and ignorance of the overriding principle of [[representative democracy]]. I've attempted to "fix" it, my "fix" was rejected. It's clear that you have subversive editors here who are making your articles appear silly. I don't have time to debate this any further: I must instead telephone all of my friends in NYC to warn them of the apocalypse. [[User:NeilWalker\|NeilWalker]] ([[User talk:NeilWalker\|talk]]) 18:14, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
		+
		+	:::::::Alright, we learn that new user is a liberal and like most of them he acts in typically liberal manner. Let's block him, we don't need this worst sort of liberals here. --[[User:Elessar\|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar\|talk]]) 02:45, 21 August 2017 (EDT)

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 :::::Perhaps we're more civil because they learned their lesson and didn't attempt to override the will of Parliament/the people. And, no offense, but observing/discussing what hats/dresses/coats/shoes that royals choose to wear seems to be a peculiar fascination limited just to Americans. Most Britons don't notice and don't care. We see her on the stamps and the banknotes, is about all. [[User:NeilWalker|NeilWalker]] ([[User talk:NeilWalker|talk]]) 16:39, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
 ::::::The UK media seemed to care, both on the Left[http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-40356113][https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2017/jun/21/queens-hat-alludes-to-brexit][http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/queens-speech-ascot-eu-flag-hat-a7801611.html] and Right.[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4625130/Queen-speech-hat-looks-suspiciously-like-EU-flag.html][http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/21/queen-trying-tell-us-something-brexit-hat/] --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 16:44, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
 ::The Queen does not "veto" Acts because, like America, Britain is what we call "a democracy". The Queen does not attempt to exercise her personal will over the will of the people. The experience of the American Revolution is just one of the reasons why. Meanwhile, the ignorant are allowed to edit war the article to insert their fallacious opinions. Hmm, I begin to see the problem here. [[User:NeilWalker|NeilWalker]] ([[User talk:NeilWalker|talk]]) 16:36, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
 :::What I'm saying is that it seems that the Queen has the ability to veto (or "not sign" or whatever you call it in the UK). Of course it would be unprecedented, but I think someone with more guts would do it. We could not the precedent of not vetoing legislation along with that paragraph, explaining why she did not veto the bills. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 16:44, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
 ::::I'm not really interested in arguing over it; the addition claiming that the Queen is a pro-abortion liberal is so silly that any educated reader will see it for what it is. Far be it for me, a mere history teacher, to override the fallacious opinions of ''Lord of the Rings'' fans' edits (between their warning of tomorrow's nuclear attack on New York City.) I believe your nemesis Wikipedia suffers similar problems, saying: "For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War—and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge—get all pi**y when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment." [[User:NeilWalker|NeilWalker]] ([[User talk:NeilWalker|talk]]) 17:14, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
 :::::What do you think about this: we keep the fact that the Queen has signed these pieces of legislation, but we include the fact that there is a precedent not to interfere with Parliament, regardless of what they pass? --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 17:20, 20 August 2017 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:20, August 20, 2017
Line 27:		Line 27:
	:::What I'm saying is that it seems that the Queen has the ability to veto (or "not sign" or whatever you call it in the UK). Of course it would be unprecedented, but I think someone with more guts would do it. We could not the precedent of not vetoing legislation along with that paragraph, explaining why she did not veto the bills. --[[User:1990'sguy\|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy\|talk]]) 16:44, 20 August 2017 (EDT)		:::What I'm saying is that it seems that the Queen has the ability to veto (or "not sign" or whatever you call it in the UK). Of course it would be unprecedented, but I think someone with more guts would do it. We could not the precedent of not vetoing legislation along with that paragraph, explaining why she did not veto the bills. --[[User:1990'sguy\|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy\|talk]]) 16:44, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
	::::I'm not really interested in arguing over it; the addition claiming that the Queen is a pro-abortion liberal is so silly that any educated reader will see it for what it is. Far be it for me, a mere history teacher, to override the fallacious opinions of ''Lord of the Rings'' fans' edits (between their warning of tomorrow's nuclear attack on New York City.) I believe your nemesis Wikipedia suffers similar problems, saying: "For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War—and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge—get all pi**y when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment." [[User:NeilWalker\|NeilWalker]] ([[User talk:NeilWalker\|talk]]) 17:14, 20 August 2017 (EDT)		::::I'm not really interested in arguing over it; the addition claiming that the Queen is a pro-abortion liberal is so silly that any educated reader will see it for what it is. Far be it for me, a mere history teacher, to override the fallacious opinions of ''Lord of the Rings'' fans' edits (between their warning of tomorrow's nuclear attack on New York City.) I believe your nemesis Wikipedia suffers similar problems, saying: "For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War—and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge—get all pi**y when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment." [[User:NeilWalker\|NeilWalker]] ([[User talk:NeilWalker\|talk]]) 17:14, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
		+	:::::What do you think about this: we keep the fact that the Queen has signed these pieces of legislation, but we include the fact that there is a precedent not to interfere with Parliament, regardless of what they pass? --[[User:1990'sguy\|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy\|talk]]) 17:20, 20 August 2017 (EDT)

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 == re Acts ==
-An editor persists in adding the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Queen_Elizabeth_II&diff=prev&oldid=1368469 paragraph] claiming that the queen is a pro-abortion, pro-globalism liberal. The Queen does not decide which Acts to sign or decline - she does not defy the will of Parliament, and thus the will of the people, by refusing to sign ''any'' Act. No monarch has defied Parliament/the people since Queen Anne refused to sign an Act which would arm the Scottish militias - just when France was threatening war - in 1708. (The Scots had previously taken up arms against the English and on the side of the French.) [[User:NeilWalker|NeilWalker]] ([[User talk:NeilWalker|talk]]) 16:21, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
+An editor persists in adding the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Queen_Elizabeth_II&diff=prev&oldid=1368469 paragraph] claiming that the Queen is a pro-abortion, pro-globalism liberal. The Queen does not decide which Acts to sign or decline - she does not defy the will of Parliament, and thus the will of the people, by refusing to sign ''any'' Act. No monarch has defied Parliament/the people since Queen Anne refused to sign an Act which would arm the Scottish militias - just when France was threatening war - in 1708. (The Scots had previously taken up arms against the English and on the side of the French.) [[User:NeilWalker|NeilWalker]] ([[User talk:NeilWalker|talk]]) 16:21, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
 :But Queen Anne did have the authority to veto the bill -- it seems that Queen Elizabeth's actions have precedent but are not law. If she cared strongly about these issues, she would not have signed those bills. What do you say to that? --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 16:24, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
 ::The constitutional crisis which would arise from a sitting monarch defying the will of the people would lead to the dissolution of the monarchy. The reigning monarch remains neutral in politics and what they do or do not care strongly about is immaterial. You forget, we have cut kings' heads off in the past for defying the will of Parliament. [[User:NeilWalker|NeilWalker]] ([[User talk:NeilWalker|talk]]) 16:27, 20 August 2017 (EDT)

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 == re Acts ==
-An editor persists in adding the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Queen_Elizabeth_II&diff=prev&oldid=1368469 paragrapgh] claiming that the queen is a pro-abortion, pro-globalism liberal. The Queen does not decide which Acts to sign or decline - she does not defy the will of Parliament, and thus the will of the people, by refusing to sign ''any'' Act. No monarch has defied Parliament/the people since queen Anne refused to sign an Act which would arm the Scottish militias - just when France was threatening war - in 1708. (The Scots had previously taken up arms against the English and on the side of the French.) [[User:NeilWalker|NeilWalker]] ([[User talk:NeilWalker|talk]]) 16:21, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
+An editor persists in adding the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Queen_Elizabeth_II&diff=prev&oldid=1368469 paragraph] claiming that the queen is a pro-abortion, pro-globalism liberal. The Queen does not decide which Acts to sign or decline - she does not defy the will of Parliament, and thus the will of the people, by refusing to sign ''any'' Act. No monarch has defied Parliament/the people since Queen Anne refused to sign an Act which would arm the Scottish militias - just when France was threatening war - in 1708. (The Scots had previously taken up arms against the English and on the side of the French.) [[User:NeilWalker|NeilWalker]] ([[User talk:NeilWalker|talk]]) 16:21, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
 :But Queen Anne did have the authority to veto the bill -- it seems that Queen Elizabeth's actions have precedent but are not law. If she cared strongly about these issues, she would not have signed those bills. What do you say to that? --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 16:24, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
 ::The constitutional crisis which would arise from a sitting monarch defying the will of the people would lead to the dissolution of the monarchy. The reigning monarch remains neutral in politics and what they do or do not care strongly about is immaterial. You forget, we have cut kings' heads off in the past for defying the will of Parliament. [[User:NeilWalker|NeilWalker]] ([[User talk:NeilWalker|talk]]) 16:27, 20 August 2017 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:14, August 20, 2017
Line 26:		Line 26:
	::The Queen does not "veto" Acts because, like America, Britain is what we call "a democracy". The Queen does not attempt to exercise her personal will over the will of the people. The experience of the American Revolution is just one of the reasons why. Meanwhile, the ignorant are allowed to edit war the article to insert their fallacious opinions. Hmm, I begin to see the problem here. [[User:NeilWalker\|NeilWalker]] ([[User talk:NeilWalker\|talk]]) 16:36, 20 August 2017 (EDT)		::The Queen does not "veto" Acts because, like America, Britain is what we call "a democracy". The Queen does not attempt to exercise her personal will over the will of the people. The experience of the American Revolution is just one of the reasons why. Meanwhile, the ignorant are allowed to edit war the article to insert their fallacious opinions. Hmm, I begin to see the problem here. [[User:NeilWalker\|NeilWalker]] ([[User talk:NeilWalker\|talk]]) 16:36, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
	:::What I'm saying is that it seems that the Queen has the ability to veto (or "not sign" or whatever you call it in the UK). Of course it would be unprecedented, but I think someone with more guts would do it. We could not the precedent of not vetoing legislation along with that paragraph, explaining why she did not veto the bills. --[[User:1990'sguy\|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy\|talk]]) 16:44, 20 August 2017 (EDT)		:::What I'm saying is that it seems that the Queen has the ability to veto (or "not sign" or whatever you call it in the UK). Of course it would be unprecedented, but I think someone with more guts would do it. We could not the precedent of not vetoing legislation along with that paragraph, explaining why she did not veto the bills. --[[User:1990'sguy\|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy\|talk]]) 16:44, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
		+	::::I'm not really interested in arguing over it; the addition claiming that the Queen is a pro-abortion liberal is so silly that any educated reader will see it for what it is. Far be it for me, a mere history teacher, to override the fallacious opinions of ''Lord of the Rings'' fans' edits (between their warning of tomorrow's nuclear attack on New York City.) I believe your nemesis Wikipedia suffers similar problems, saying: "For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War—and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge—get all pi**y when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment." [[User:NeilWalker\|NeilWalker]] ([[User talk:NeilWalker\|talk]]) 17:14, 20 August 2017 (EDT)

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 :::The Queen can veto whatever law she wants to. Elizabeth doesn't do it due to convention. But you admit it yourself. --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 16:30, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
 ::::(''edit conflict'') Compared to France (French Revolution, the many other revolutions) or Russia (Russian Revolution), Britain has been extremely civil in dealing with its monarchs (Glorious Revolution, etc.). I do remember reading in the news recently about how the Queen's hat she wore one day (was it the 2017 House of Commons speech?) was designed like the EU flag. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 16:32, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
 :::::Perhaps we're more civil because they learned their lesson and didn't attempt to override the will of Parliament/the people. And, no offense, but observing/discussing what hats/dresses/coats/shoes that royals choose to wear seems to be a peculiar fascination limited just to Americans. Most Britons don't notice and don't care. We see her on the stamps and the banknotes, is about all. [[User:NeilWalker|NeilWalker]] ([[User talk:NeilWalker|talk]]) 16:39, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
 ::::::The UK media seemed to care, both on the Left[http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-40356113][https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2017/jun/21/queens-hat-alludes-to-brexit][http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/queens-speech-ascot-eu-flag-hat-a7801611.html] and Right.[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4625130/Queen-speech-hat-looks-suspiciously-like-EU-flag.html][http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/21/queen-trying-tell-us-something-brexit-hat/] --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 16:44, 20 August 2017 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:39, August 20, 2017
Line 23:		Line 23:
	::The Queen does not "veto" Acts because, like America, Britain is what we call "a democracy". The Queen does not attempt to exercise her personal will over the will of the people. The experience of the American Revolution is just one of the reasons why. Meanwhile, the ignorant are allowed to edit war the article to insert their fallacious opinions. Hmm, I begin to see the problem here. [[User:NeilWalker\|NeilWalker]] ([[User talk:NeilWalker\|talk]]) 16:36, 20 August 2017 (EDT)		::The Queen does not "veto" Acts because, like America, Britain is what we call "a democracy". The Queen does not attempt to exercise her personal will over the will of the people. The experience of the American Revolution is just one of the reasons why. Meanwhile, the ignorant are allowed to edit war the article to insert their fallacious opinions. Hmm, I begin to see the problem here. [[User:NeilWalker\|NeilWalker]] ([[User talk:NeilWalker\|talk]]) 16:36, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
	::::(''edit conflict'') Compared to France (French Revolution, the many other revolutions) or Russia (Russian Revolution), Britain has been extremely civil in dealing with its monarchs (Glorious Revolution, etc.). I do remember reading in the news recently about how the Queen's hat she wore one day (was it the 2017 House of Commons speech?) was designed like the EU flag. --[[User:1990'sguy\|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy\|talk]]) 16:32, 20 August 2017 (EDT)		::::(''edit conflict'') Compared to France (French Revolution, the many other revolutions) or Russia (Russian Revolution), Britain has been extremely civil in dealing with its monarchs (Glorious Revolution, etc.). I do remember reading in the news recently about how the Queen's hat she wore one day (was it the 2017 House of Commons speech?) was designed like the EU flag. --[[User:1990'sguy\|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy\|talk]]) 16:32, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
		+	:::::Perhaps we're more civil because they learned their lesson and didn't attempt to override the will of Parliament/the people. And, no offense, but observing/discussing what hats/dresses/coats/shoes that royals choose to wear seems to be a peculiar fascination limited just to Americans. Most Britons don't notice and don't care. We see her on the stamps and the banknotes, is about all. [[User:NeilWalker\|NeilWalker]] ([[User talk:NeilWalker\|talk]]) 16:39, 20 August 2017 (EDT)