[B0ycey]

Hey, if you can't be pointlessly pedantic on an internet forum, then where can you be pointlessly pedantic, eh? Eh?

Very true.

Fixed it for you, B0ycey.

Did you?

[Potemkin]

Did you?

If you want it to be a grammatically correct English sentence, then yes.

[ingliz]

sometimes he writes things that are wrong and I am polite enough to not embarrass him

The trouble is he is not wrong in this particular instance.

The Wars of the Three Kingdoms... formed an intertwined series of conflicts that took place in England, Ireland and Scotland between 1639 and 1651.

[The English Civil War] to call it by another name is less accurate

The name is hardly accurate to begin with.

Forgetting Ireland and Scotland, if one is being precise the English Civil War proper (1642-51), the war in England, was not one but three wars.

The first (1642–1646) and second (1648–1649) wars pitted the supporters of King Charles I against the supporters of the Long Parliament, while the third (1649–1651) saw fighting between supporters of King Charles II and supporters of the Rump Parliament.

Google is your friend.

[B0ycey]

Partciple @Potemkin...

wrote is past tense.

The trouble is he is not wrong in this particular instance.

Tell me Ingliz, is a collection of conflicts the same as one conflict?

The Cavaliers and the Roundheads were which conflict exactly?

But am I suppose to change the name of things to save feelings btw?

[Potemkin]

Partciple @Potemkin...

wrote is past tense.

"And yes, there is a lot of pointless shit wrote on PoFo." is not a grammatically well-constructed English sentence. The 'is' and the 'wrote' don't agree when they should. To see this, try rearranging the sentence to: "There is a lot of pointless shit wrote on PoFo." and you'll see what I mean. If you intend the past tense, then you should have written, "There has been a lot of pointless shit written on PoFo." In either case, 'written' is required, not 'wrote'.

[B0ycey]

"And yes, there is a lot of pointless shit wrote on PoFo." is not a grammatically well-constructed English sentence. The 'is' and the 'wrote' don't agree when they should. To see this, try rearranging the sentence to: "There is a lot of pointless shit wrote on PoFo." and you'll see what I mean. If you intend the past tense, then you should have written, "There has been a lot of pointless shit written on PoFo." In either case, 'written' is required, not 'wrote'.

We will have to agree to disagree. Not that I put much emphasis on my grammar when typing on my phone. I'm not a grammar/spelling hawk. But I still think I'm right.

[Potemkin]

We will have to agree to disagree. Not that I put much emphasis on my grammar when typing on my phone. I'm not a grammar/spelling hawk. But I still think I'm right.

Meh, fair enough.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Potemkin, @B0ycey, @ingliz,

via Imgflip Meme Generator

[B0ycey]

To post something more on topic @Victoribus Spolia, what purpose do you think the British Royal family has today? They know their role is more ambassador rather than leadership. When it comes to key decisions they try to remain neutral. They are not likely to make a stand on anything. To expect the Windors to unite the Anglosphere and rule over it is quite frankly far-fetched, even for a hypothetical scenario.

[SolarCross]

Meanwhile on planet Earth the British monarchy was restored back in 1630. I wonder how none of you seem to be aware of that. It is debateable whether the dictatorship of the usurper Cromwell wasn't itself a monarchy of a sort, it certainly wasn't a republic and he titled himself "Lord Protector" which all things considered is pretty much a synonym for king. That being the case Britain (or any of its constituent kingdoms) has literally never been a republic. So what restoration can happen if nothing was lost?

The monarchy, as institution considered seperatly form any particular dynasty, since the Glorious Revolution has enjoyed unprecendented power and security which only appears to be increasing as time goes on. Parliament considered as a rival political institution has been in decline since the beginning of the 20th century at least, as it lost all superiority over the other commonwealth realms, while the monarchy retained them. Devolution was another blow to parliament's influence, ironically a self-inflicted one, scroll on another 50 years parliament will probably have no more power than a local county council whilst the monarchy reigns supreme.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Obviously its primarily ceremonial, hence the subject of the thread "The RESTORATION of the British Monarchy. Is It Possible?"

Like I said in my hypothetical, technically speaking, the monarch has certain legal functions. Technically the opening of the parliament cannot happen without the monarch's permission after his/her speech. Likewise, the armed forces swear loyalty to the King or Queen and not to the parliament. Obviously these technicalities are far-fetched, but technically, the Crown could call upon these in a time when the situation would benefit him.

When would such a time occur? I gave a hypothetical scenario, that in our present world, is not unthinkable. It is not unthinkable for a great tragedy by an Islamic exteremist to befall England, it is not unthinkable for parliament to be unpopular, and it is not unthinkable for england or any european country to be disillusioned with mass islamic immigration or the EU. My point, is that given these possibilites, if the the hypothetical case occured, this would be occasion for the monarchy to assert itself on these technicalties and likely without the disapproval of the native population or certain allies and use such an event as a pivot towards a regained absolutism.

Likewise, in my scenario, I did not say that the monarch would rule an anglo-sphere empire or alliance, only that so far the United State under Trump or a Trump-like figure was in support of the monarch, and that a conservative government was in power in Canada. How this would all pan out is left to you and those interested in using their imagination a bit. I favor the rise of an Anglo-Sphere Empire, but that does not mean you have to see such an outcome, given my hypothetical, as likely.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Meanwhile on planet Earth the British monarchy was restored back in 1630. I wonder how none of you seem to be aware of that. It is debateable whether the dictatorship of the usurper Cromwell wasn't itself a monarchy of a sort, it certainly wasn't a republic and he titled himself "Lord Protector" which all things considered is pretty much a synonym for king. That being the case Britain (or any of its constituent kingdoms) has literally never been a republic. So what restoration can happen if nothing was lost?

The monarchy, as institution considered seperatly form any particular dynasty, since the Glorious Revolution has enjoyed unprecendented power and security which only appears to be increasing as time goes on. Parliament considered as a rival political institution has been in decline since the beginning of the 20th century at least as it lost all superiority over the other commonwealth realms, while the monarchy retained them. Devolution was another blow to parliament's influence, ironically a self-inflicted one, scroll on another 50 years parliament will probably have no more power than a local county council whilst the monarchy reigns supreme.

via Imgflip Meme Generator

[Potemkin]

Meanwhile on planet Earth the British monarchy was restored back in 1630.

1660, actually.

[SolarCross]

1660, actually.

Yes, sorry lazy date googling, picked up charles 2's birthdate not when he was restored.

[B0ycey]

Obviously its primarily ceremonial, hence the subject of the thread "The RESTORATION of the British Monarchy. Is It Possible?"

Like I said in my hypothetical, technically speaking, the monarch has certain legal functions. Technically the opening of the parliament cannot happen without the monarch's permission after his/her speech. Likewise, the armed forces swear loyalty to the King or Queen and not to the parliament. Obviously these technicalities are far-fetched, but technically, the Crown could call upon these in a time when the situation would benefit him.

When would such a time occur? I gave a hypothetical scenario, that in our present world, is not unthinkable. It is not unthinkable for a great tragedy by an Islamic exteremist to befall England, it is not unthinkable for parliament to be unpopular, and it is not unthinkable for england or any european country to be disillusioned with mass islamic immigration or the EU. My point, is that given these possibilites, if the the hypothetical case occured, this would be occasion for the monarchy to assert itself on these technicalties and likely without the disapproval of the native population or certain allies and use such an event as a pivot towards a regained absolutism.

Likewise, in my scenario, I did not say that the monarch would rule an anglo-sphere empire or alliance, only that so far the United State under Trump or a Trump-like figure was in support of the monarch, and that a conservative government was in power in Canada. How this would all pan out is left to you and those interested in using their imagination a bit. I favor the rise of an Anglo-Sphere Empire, but that does not mean you have to see such an outcome, given my hypothetical, as likely.

Parliament is already unpopular. But I don't see the Royals ever ceasing power - even under such extreme Islamic terrorism, because they are unpopular.

As for the Royals legal obligations towards parliament, you need to understand the context of these powers. In essence, the Queen is powerless to parliament. Even her Royal prerogative, mentioned so often during the signing of article 50 is not hers. Her speech to parliament is written for her. She is legally obliged to open parliament, it isn't a choice. And yes, the armed forces swear allegiance to the Queen, but the orders come from parliament. William can refuse to open parliament, but that wouldn't stop it from functioning (though it would stop Royal funding).

So to answer your question, under your scenario, what is likely to occur would be a hung parliament with a coalition of minor smaller parties rather than Royal leadership.

@SolarCross, that's interesting and all, but do you think the monarchy has the same powers today as it did prior to 1651? Now ask yourself why?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Parliament is already unpopular. But I don't see the Royals ever ceasing power - even under such extreme Islamic terrorism, because they are unpopular.

I think you mean seizing power there old chap.....how 'bout 'er @Potemkin?

Her speech to parliament is written for her. She is legally obliged to open parliament, it isn't a choice. And yes, the armed forces swear allegiance to the Queen, but the orders come from parliament. ,William can refuse to open parliament, but that wouldn't stop it from functioning (though it would stop Royal funding).

That is the whole point, he would refuse to open it, and under the scenario given, the parliament would threaten to go ahead anyway, William would then call upon the armed forces to stop parliament and would do so in light of American claims of support and general popular disapproval of parliament which would either make the population indifferent or supportive of the king.

[B0ycey]

That is the whole point, he would refuse to open it, and under the scenario given, the parliament would threaten to go ahead anyway, William would then call upon the armed forces to stop parliament and would do so in light of American claims of support and general popular disapproval of parliament which would either make the population indifferent or supportive of the king.

You and I see different outcomes. Being that the armed forces orders come from parliament, a call for the seizing (yawn) of parliament would be ignored. A peasants revolution would be a more likely scenario rather than full Royal power if democracy started losing its power.

No, I stand by my notion of a coalition of smaller parties outcome.

[Tainari88]

@Victoribus Spolia

How about this more realistic scenario for you to contemplate in that right wing head of yours? Trump survived his financial missteps giving his ass away to some Russian oligarchs who are interested in taking over certain industries in the USA. They do a deal. Trump gets caught and he doesn't make it through his four year term....Bannon has him at making it through four years at only a 30% possibility. The mid terms come along and many people vote out the Trumpers. There is a socialist young people brainwashed in socialist and commie ideals in freebie tuition universities of the future and you got a Marxist take over of the US government. They proceed to spank bankers, industrialist creeps and Wall Street Hedge Fund managers....the Islamic extremists fight it out with Saudi princes and so on for power and the Saudis who have sunk tons of money in making pro Wahabbi schools with air conditioning and great infrastructure investments in poor nations like Pakistan and Afghanistan and brainwash the young there who the government never cared about...and they mass organize and kick everyone out there. Then the British who brexited lose money like crazy. The Scottish young people who are sick and tired of being unemployed and screwed in Glasgow, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, etc riot and vote for Scottish independence. The Queen and Westminster poop their pants and the UK is screwed....each Anglophile for themselves because the Americans got their trillions in debt run by the Chinese Commies in Beijing and they become a third rate power in the world and can't help the Great White Hope of Empire....because the Red Menace done ABUSED them.

How about that?

The British Isles....collapsing under the pressure of Brexits and Red Menaces gained through state capitalism a la Commies and Mao Tse Tung's "Little Red Book"strategies on kicking the White Folks asses all over the world to have the Middle Kingdom take the lead in the 22nd century.

[anarchist23]

Unfortunately the British Monarchy is still alive and kicking. It still represents the rich and powerful.

If anyone hasn't seen the Royal Babylon The Criminal Record of the British Monarchy then this is well worth a watch.
Without a doubt. lol

[snapdragon]

Let’s say we have a pretty evenly divided and unpopular parliament, and a recently assassinated conservative prime minister (from a radical leftist) and a scenario where the parliament was looking to ratify a “remain” vote for the EU after the state opening of parliament itself. We also have this planned vote becoming unpopular in the polls due to an uptick in domestic Islamic terrorism, with the remain vote in parliament having an approval of less than 22% among eligible voting Brits.

Okay. ( snapdragon boggles}

Now, in the interim, Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles are killed by an Islamic extremist and William takes the throne in a series of events that shocks the world, with footage of the bloodied queen laying amongst burning rubble in the street being seen across the world (we’ll assume this was an attack on the motorcade), and a picture of the crown laying on the pavement, with a small blood smear on the front, becoming the front cover picture on almost every magazine in the world and a symbol of Britain’s crisis

okay ( more boggling)

The King, who is extremely popular and adored (along with his family), refuses to allow the state opening of parliament and declares the realm of Britain as unilaterally independent of the EU, much to the praise of the United States (which is under a trump-like nationalist government), and several eastern European states which have formed a new anti-EU bloc under the leadership of Poland.

What? Some fucker ( probably Muslim the way this thread is going) kills the royals and declares himself King, and everyone, including Trump, would approve?
I can't even boggle at that.

Look, I'm going to ignore the rest, because first we have the average UKipper's idea of an extremist Muslim as King , then you start talking about her streets.

I have no problem with the locals filming all this murder and mayhem on their mobiles and flogging the results to the world's media, but nothing else. In fact it's the only thing about your story that's in any way believable to me.

I've sat through two Die Hard films, so I have a high patience threshold when it comes to ridiculous crap