Elon Musks is now trying to force the intelligence community -- the
actual deep state -- to go through layoffs of newly-hired workers.
Isn't he going to die of natural causes suddenly from previously unknown symptoms of a disease he wasn't aware of?
Elon Musks is now trying to force the intelligence community -- the
actual deep state -- to go through layoffs of newly-hired workers.
Isn't he going to die of natural causes suddenly from previously unknown symptoms of a disease he wasn't aware of?
On 3/17/2025 9:41 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Elon Musks is now trying to force the intelligence community -- theCan we hope so?
actual deep state -- to go through layoffs of newly-hired workers.
Isn't he going to die of natural causes suddenly from previously unknown
symptoms of a disease he wasn't aware of?
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 09:49:59 -0700, suzeeq <suzeeq@imbris.com> wrote:
On 3/17/2025 9:41 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Elon Musks is now trying to force the intelligence community -- theCan we hope so?
actual deep state -- to go through layoffs of newly-hired workers.
Isn't he going to die of natural causes suddenly from previously unknown >>> symptoms of a disease he wasn't aware of?
Good thing TDS isn't fatal, huh?
On 3/17/2025 9:41 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Elon Musks is now trying to force the intelligence community -- theCan we hope so?
actual deep state -- to go through layoffs of newly-hired workers.
Isn't he going to die of natural causes suddenly from previously unknown
symptoms of a disease he wasn't aware of?
Elon Musks is now trying to force the intelligence community -- the
actual deep state -- to go through layoffs of newly-hired workers.
Isn't he going to die of natural causes suddenly from previously unknown symptoms of a disease he wasn't aware of?
On 2025-03-17 12:41 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Elon Musks is now trying to force the intelligence community -- the
actual deep state -- to go through layoffs of newly-hired workers.
Isn't he going to die of natural causes suddenly from previously unknown
symptoms of a disease he wasn't aware of?
I've heard that the Secret Service has provided him a detail. I don't
know how big it is but it would probably discourage most threats.
Then again, there must be a lot of people with motivation to act at this >point....
I wish he'd find a lower-profile deputy to carry on the important work
of DOGE and get his own butt back to SpaceX. I *really* want SpaceX to >succeed and I think they probably need his help to get past their
current problems.
On 2025-03-17 2:48 PM, shawn wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 12:58:54 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-17 12:41 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Elon Musks is now trying to force the intelligence community -- the
actual deep state -- to go through layoffs of newly-hired workers.
Isn't he going to die of natural causes suddenly from previously unknown >>>> symptoms of a disease he wasn't aware of?
I've heard that the Secret Service has provided him a detail. I don't
know how big it is but it would probably discourage most threats.
Then again, there must be a lot of people with motivation to act at this >>> point....
I wish he'd find a lower-profile deputy to carry on the important work
of DOGE and get his own butt back to SpaceX. I *really* want SpaceX to
succeed and I think they probably need his help to get past their
current problems.
You mean his help in both getting rid of the people who were looking
into SpaceX and helping to get more contracts from the government?
So your theory is that the richest man in the world, who has more money
than anyone has ever had before, is so corrupt that he'll destroy major >chunks of the government to either hide some kind of scandal - of which
no details have emerged to the best of my knowledge - or obtain more >contracts?
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 12:58:54 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-17 12:41 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Elon Musks is now trying to force the intelligence community -- the
actual deep state -- to go through layoffs of newly-hired workers.
Isn't he going to die of natural causes suddenly from previously unknown >>> symptoms of a disease he wasn't aware of?
I've heard that the Secret Service has provided him a detail. I don't
know how big it is but it would probably discourage most threats.
Then again, there must be a lot of people with motivation to act at this
point....
I wish he'd find a lower-profile deputy to carry on the important work
of DOGE and get his own butt back to SpaceX. I *really* want SpaceX to
succeed and I think they probably need his help to get past their
current problems.
You mean his help in both getting rid of the people who were looking
into SpaceX and helping to get more contracts from the government?
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 15:44:56 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-17 2:48 PM, shawn wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 12:58:54 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-17 12:41 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Elon Musks is now trying to force the intelligence community -- the
actual deep state -- to go through layoffs of newly-hired workers.
Isn't he going to die of natural causes suddenly from previously unknown >>>>> symptoms of a disease he wasn't aware of?
I've heard that the Secret Service has provided him a detail. I don't
know how big it is but it would probably discourage most threats.
Then again, there must be a lot of people with motivation to act at this >>>> point....
I wish he'd find a lower-profile deputy to carry on the important work >>>> of DOGE and get his own butt back to SpaceX. I *really* want SpaceX to >>>> succeed and I think they probably need his help to get past their
current problems.
You mean his help in both getting rid of the people who were looking
into SpaceX and helping to get more contracts from the government?
So your theory is that the richest man in the world, who has more money
than anyone has ever had before, is so corrupt that he'll destroy major
chunks of the government to either hide some kind of scandal - of which
no details have emerged to the best of my knowledge - or obtain more
contracts?
Yes. After all did you see him getting Trump to help make an ad for
Tesla. That tells you a lot about both men.
suzeeq <suzeeq@imbris.com> wrote:
On 3/17/2025 9:41 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Elon Musks is now trying to force the intelligence community -- theCan we hope so?
actual deep state -- to go through layoffs of newly-hired workers.
Isn't he going to die of natural causes suddenly from previously unknown >>> symptoms of a disease he wasn't aware of?
Because you’re on the side of evil and incompetence? good to know.
On 2025-03-17 3:58 PM, shawn wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 15:44:56 -0400, RhinoI think I'd like a few more actual facts before I start embracing your conspiracy theories....
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-17 2:48 PM, shawn wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 12:58:54 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-17 12:41 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Elon Musks is now trying to force the intelligence community -- the >>>>>> actual deep state -- to go through layoffs of newly-hired workers. >>>>>>
Isn't he going to die of natural causes suddenly from previously
unknown
symptoms of a disease he wasn't aware of?
I've heard that the Secret Service has provided him a detail. I don't >>>>> know how big it is but it would probably discourage most threats.
Then again, there must be a lot of people with motivation to act at
this
point....
I wish he'd find a lower-profile deputy to carry on the important work >>>>> of DOGE and get his own butt back to SpaceX. I *really* want SpaceX to >>>>> succeed and I think they probably need his help to get past their
current problems.
You mean his help in both getting rid of the people who were looking
into SpaceX and helping to get more contracts from the government?
So your theory is that the richest man in the world, who has more money
than anyone has ever had before, is so corrupt that he'll destroy major
chunks of the government to either hide some kind of scandal - of which
no details have emerged to the best of my knowledge - or obtain more
contracts?
Yes. After all did you see him getting Trump to help make an ad for
Tesla. That tells you a lot about both men.
On 3/17/2025 11:08 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
suzeeq <suzeeq@imbris.com> wrote:By evil and incompetence you mean Elon, right?
On 3/17/2025 9:41 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Elon Musks is now trying to force the intelligence community -- theCan we hope so?
actual deep state -- to go through layoffs of newly-hired workers.
Isn't he going to die of natural causes suddenly from previously unknown >>>> symptoms of a disease he wasn't aware of?
Because you’re on the side of evil and incompetence? good to know.
On 3/17/2025 9:41 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Elon Musks is now trying to force the intelligence community -- the
actual deep state -- to go through layoffs of newly-hired workers.
Isn't he going to die of natural causes suddenly from previously unknown
symptoms of a disease he wasn't aware of?
Can we hope so?
On 2025-03-17 3:58 PM, shawn wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 15:44:56 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-17 2:48 PM, shawn wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 12:58:54 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-17 12:41 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
I think I'd like a few more actual facts before I start embracing your >conspiracy theories....So your theory is that the richest man in the world, who has more money
than anyone has ever had before, is so corrupt that he'll destroy major
chunks of the government to either hide some kind of scandal - of which
no details have emerged to the best of my knowledge - or obtain more
contracts?
Yes. After all did you see him getting Trump to help make an ad for
Tesla. That tells you a lot about both men.
On 3/17/2025 1:15 PM, Rhino wrote:
On 2025-03-17 3:58 PM, shawn wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 15:44:56 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-17 2:48 PM, shawn wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 12:58:54 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-17 12:41 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Elon Musks is now trying to force the intelligence community -- the >>>>>>> actual deep state -- to go through layoffs of newly-hired workers. >>>>>>>
Isn't he going to die of natural causes suddenly from previously >>>>>>> unknown symptoms of a disease he wasn't aware of?
I've heard that the Secret Service has provided him a detail. I don't >>>>>> know how big it is but it would probably discourage most threats.
Then again, there must be a lot of people with motivation to act at >>>>>> this point....
I wish he'd find a lower-profile deputy to carry on the important work >>>>>> of DOGE and get his own butt back to SpaceX. I *really* want SpaceX to >>>>>> succeed and I think they probably need his help to get past their
current problems.
You mean his help in both getting rid of the people who were looking >>>>> into SpaceX and helping to get more contracts from the government?
So your theory is that the richest man in the world, who has more money >>>> than anyone has ever had before, is so corrupt that he'll destroy major >>>> chunks of the government to either hide some kind of scandal - of which >>>> no details have emerged to the best of my knowledge - or obtain more
contracts?
Yes. After all did you see him getting Trump to help make an ad for
Tesla. That tells you a lot about both men.
I think I'd like a few more actual facts before I start embracing your
conspiracy theories....
It's a fact. Government property is not to be used for commercialy
purposes. And Trump endorsing Tesla's was certainly commercial.
Trump the Chump bought a Tesla car solely to show "support"
for Muskrat's ailing car company, but that car has 37 recall
notices for problems that require fixing before he can even
drive it (not that he ever will of course, it's purely a
publicity stunt).
Your Name wrote:
Trump the Chump bought a Tesla car solely to show "support"
for Muskrat's ailing car company, but that car has 37 recall
notices for problems that require fixing before he can even
drive it (not that he ever will of course, it's purely a
publicity stunt).
He wouldn't be allowed to drive it anyway. It's a rule that
Presidents of the USA (and former Presidents) are not allowed to
drive any motor vehicle on a public road. So for Trump to drive
a car, Tesla or otherwise, it would need to be on a private road
and with Secret Service approval... which makes it even more
obvious why Trump bought the Tesla, it could only be to show
support for Elon Musk.
I only learned this from CNN last week when Donald Trump was
doing his PR stunt to help out his mate.
On 3/17/2025 1:15 PM, Rhino wrote:
On 2025-03-17 3:58 PM, shawn wrote:It's a fact. Government property is not to be used for commercialy
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 15:44:56 -0400, RhinoI think I'd like a few more actual facts before I start embracing your
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-17 2:48 PM, shawn wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 12:58:54 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-17 12:41 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Elon Musks is now trying to force the intelligence community -- the >>>>>>> actual deep state -- to go through layoffs of newly-hired workers. >>>>>>>
Isn't he going to die of natural causes suddenly from previously >>>>>>> unknown
symptoms of a disease he wasn't aware of?
I've heard that the Secret Service has provided him a detail. I don't >>>>>> know how big it is but it would probably discourage most threats.
Then again, there must be a lot of people with motivation to act
at this
point....
I wish he'd find a lower-profile deputy to carry on the important
work
of DOGE and get his own butt back to SpaceX. I *really* want
SpaceX to
succeed and I think they probably need his help to get past their
current problems.
You mean his help in both getting rid of the people who were looking >>>>> into SpaceX and helping to get more contracts from the government?
So your theory is that the richest man in the world, who has more money >>>> than anyone has ever had before, is so corrupt that he'll destroy major >>>> chunks of the government to either hide some kind of scandal - of which >>>> no details have emerged to the best of my knowledge - or obtain more
contracts?
Yes. After all did you see him getting Trump to help make an ad for
Tesla. That tells you a lot about both men.
conspiracy theories....
purposes. And Trump endorsing Tesla's was certainly commercial.
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Your Name wrote:
Trump the Chump bought a Tesla car solely to show "support"
for Muskrat's ailing car company, but that car has 37 recall
notices for problems that require fixing before he can even
drive it (not that he ever will of course, it's purely a
publicity stunt).
He wouldn't be allowed to drive it anyway. It's a rule that
Presidents of the USA (and former Presidents) are not allowed to
drive any motor vehicle on a public road. So for Trump to drive
a car, Tesla or otherwise, it would need to be on a private road
and with Secret Service approval... which makes it even more
obvious why Trump bought the Tesla, it could only be to show
support for Elon Musk.
I only learned this from CNN last week when Donald Trump was
doing his PR stunt to help out his mate.
As a former president is just a citizen/taxpayer, what's the national >security issue? Isn't there any flexibility allowed in the security
detail?
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 16:15:12 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-17 3:58 PM, shawn wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 15:44:56 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-17 2:48 PM, shawn wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 12:58:54 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-17 12:41 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
So your theory is that the richest man in the world, who has more money >>>> than anyone has ever had before, is so corrupt that he'll destroy major >>>> chunks of the government to either hide some kind of scandal - of which >>>> no details have emerged to the best of my knowledge - or obtain more
contracts?
Yes. After all did you see him getting Trump to help make an ad for
Tesla. That tells you a lot about both men.
I think I'd like a few more actual facts before I start embracing your
conspiracy theories....
So would you be willing believe the video of Trump pitching Tesla
vehicles alongside Elon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDsv4QZCABo
Most likely just because Tesla stock has been hammered over the past
month.
Especially given that over the past year Trump was speaking out against
EVs, but then Musk has put hundreds of millions of dollars into Trump's
PACs.
Your Name wrote:
Trump the Chump bought a Tesla car solely to show "support"
for Muskrat's ailing car company, but that car has 37 recall
notices for problems that require fixing before he can even
drive it (not that he ever will of course, it's purely a
publicity stunt).
He wouldn't be allowed to drive it anyway. It's a rule that
Presidents of the USA (and former Presidents) are not allowed to
drive any motor vehicle on a public road.
So for Trump to drive
a car, Tesla or otherwise, it would need to be on a private road
and with Secret Service approval...
Your Name wrote:
Trump the Chump bought a Tesla car solely to show "support"
for Muskrat's ailing car company, but that car has 37 recall
notices for problems that require fixing before he can even
drive it (not that he ever will of course, it's purely a
publicity stunt).
He wouldn't be allowed to drive it anyway. It's a rule that
Presidents of the USA (and former Presidents) are not allowed to
drive any motor vehicle on a public road. So for Trump to drive
a car, Tesla or otherwise, it would need to be on a private road
and with Secret Service approval... which makes it even more
obvious why Trump bought the Tesla, it could only be to show
support for Elon Musk.
.
I only learned this from CNN last week when Donald Trump was
doing his PR stunt to help out his mate.
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Your Name wrote:
Trump the Chump bought a Tesla car solely to show "support"
for Muskrat's ailing car company, but that car has 37 recall
notices for problems that require fixing before he can even
drive it (not that he ever will of course, it's purely a
publicity stunt).
He wouldn't be allowed to drive it anyway. It's a rule that
Presidents of the USA (and former Presidents) are not allowed to
drive any motor vehicle on a public road. So for Trump to drive
a car, Tesla or otherwise, it would need to be on a private road
and with Secret Service approval... which makes it even more
obvious why Trump bought the Tesla, it could only be to show
support for Elon Musk.
I only learned this from CNN last week when Donald Trump was
doing his PR stunt to help out his mate.
But you didn’t hear this from a news organization, you heard it from CNN, >well known for just making up crap that the gullible believe.
Your Name wrote:
Trump the Chump bought a Tesla car solely to show "support"
for Muskrat's ailing car company, but that car has 37 recall
notices for problems that require fixing before he can even
drive it (not that he ever will of course, it's purely a
publicity stunt).
He wouldn't be allowed to drive it anyway. It's a rule that
Presidents of the USA (and former Presidents) are not allowed to
drive any motor vehicle on a public road. So for Trump to drive
a car, Tesla or otherwise, it would need to be on a private road
and with Secret Service approval... which makes it even more
obvious why Trump bought the Tesla, it could only be to show
support for Elon Musk.
I only learned this from CNN last week when Donald Trump was
doing his PR stunt to help out his mate.
On Mar 17, 2025 at 2:34:44 PM PDT, ""Blueshirt"" <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Your Name wrote:
Trump the Chump bought a Tesla car solely to show "support"
for Muskrat's ailing car company, but that car has 37 recall
notices for problems that require fixing before he can even
drive it (not that he ever will of course, it's purely a
publicity stunt).
He wouldn't be allowed to drive it anyway. It's a rule that
Presidents of the USA (and former Presidents) are not allowed to
drive any motor vehicle on a public road.
It's not law. It's merely a Secret Service policy that protectees do not drive. Public roads have nothing to do with it.
When George Bush was on vacation at his Texas ranch, he would frequently jump in the ranch pickup truck and go driving around his property. The USSS bosses flipped out and even tried hiding the keys to the truck but in the end, the president is the president and what he says goes. Bush eventually compromised and agreed to not drive the truck around unless there was an agent in the truck with him.
So for Trump to drive
a car, Tesla or otherwise, it would need to be on a private road
and with Secret Service approval...
Nonsense. As I said above, the president is the president. He's the boss of the USSS and if he really wants to drive, no one can legally stop him. And public roads are irrelevant, unless the president doesn't have a driver license.
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 16:15:12 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-17 3:58 PM, shawn wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 15:44:56 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-17 2:48 PM, shawn wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 12:58:54 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-17 12:41 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
I think I'd like a few more actual facts before I start embracing yourSo your theory is that the richest man in the world, who has more money >>>> than anyone has ever had before, is so corrupt that he'll destroy major >>>> chunks of the government to either hide some kind of scandal - of which >>>> no details have emerged to the best of my knowledge - or obtain more
contracts?
Yes. After all did you see him getting Trump to help make an ad for
Tesla. That tells you a lot about both men.
conspiracy theories....
So would you be willing believe the video of Trump pitching Tesla
vehicles alongside Elon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDsv4QZCABo
Most likely just because Tesla stock has been hammered over the past
month. Especially given that over the past year Trump was speaking out against EVs, but then Musk has put hundreds of millions of dollars
into Trump's PACs.
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 15:44:56 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-17 2:48 PM, shawn wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 12:58:54 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-17 12:41 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Elon Musks is now trying to force the intelligence community -- the
actual deep state -- to go through layoffs of newly-hired workers.
Isn't he going to die of natural causes suddenly from previously unknown >>>>> symptoms of a disease he wasn't aware of?
I've heard that the Secret Service has provided him a detail. I don't
know how big it is but it would probably discourage most threats.
Then again, there must be a lot of people with motivation to act at this >>>> point....
I wish he'd find a lower-profile deputy to carry on the important work >>>> of DOGE and get his own butt back to SpaceX. I *really* want SpaceX to >>>> succeed and I think they probably need his help to get past their
current problems.
You mean his help in both getting rid of the people who were looking
into SpaceX and helping to get more contracts from the government?
So your theory is that the richest man in the world, who has more money
than anyone has ever had before, is so corrupt that he'll destroy major
chunks of the government to either hide some kind of scandal - of which
no details have emerged to the best of my knowledge - or obtain more
contracts?
Yes. After all did you see him getting Trump to help make an ad for
Tesla. That tells you a lot about both men.
On 2025-03-17 16:49:59 +0000, suzeeq said:
On 3/17/2025 9:41 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Elon Musks is now trying to force the intelligence community -- the
actual deep state -- to go through layoffs of newly-hired workers.
Isn't he going to die of natural causes suddenly from previously unknown >>> symptoms of a disease he wasn't aware of?
Can we hope so?
Muskrat isn't aware of his own insane stupidity, which can sometimes
prove to be fatal. For example, he could stupidly use his own Tesla's
useless "self-driving" garbage system and crash. (At the very least he
might finally understand that the idiotic system does not work, but I
doubt even that would convince the egotisical looney that he's wrong!)
On 3/17/2025 12:58 PM, shawn wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 15:44:56 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-17 2:48 PM, shawn wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 12:58:54 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-17 12:41 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Elon Musks is now trying to force the intelligence community -- the >>>>>> actual deep state -- to go through layoffs of newly-hired workers. >>>>>>
Isn't he going to die of natural causes suddenly from previously
unknown symptoms of a disease he wasn't aware of?
I've heard that the Secret Service has provided him a detail. I don't >>>>> know how big it is but it would probably discourage most threats.
Then again, there must be a lot of people with motivation to act at
this point....
I wish he'd find a lower-profile deputy to carry on the important work >>>>> of DOGE and get his own butt back to SpaceX. I *really* want SpaceX to >>>>> succeed and I think they probably need his help to get past their
current problems.
You mean his help in both getting rid of the people who were looking
into SpaceX and helping to get more contracts from the government?
So your theory is that the richest man in the world, who has more money
than anyone has ever had before, is so corrupt that he'll destroy major
chunks of the government to either hide some kind of scandal - of which
no details have emerged to the best of my knowledge - or obtain more
contracts?
Yes. After all did you see him getting Trump to help make an ad for
Tesla. That tells you a lot about both men.
Plus being that corrupt is part of HOW he became the richest man in the world.
Elon Musks is now trying to force the intelligence community -- the
actual deep state -- to go through layoffs of newly-hired workers.
Isn't he going to die of natural causes suddenly from previously unknown >symptoms of a disease he wasn't aware of?
I've heard that the Secret Service has provided him a detail. I don't
know how big it is but it would probably discourage most threats.
Then again, there must be a lot of people with motivation to act at this >point....
I wish he'd find a lower-profile deputy to carry on the important work
of DOGE and get his own butt back to SpaceX. I *really* want SpaceX to >succeed and I think they probably need his help to get past their
current problems.
What were they thinking of?
Yes. After all did you see him getting Trump to help make an ad for
Tesla. That tells you a lot about both men.
On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 11:12:43 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
What were they thinking of?
Yes. After all did you see him getting Trump to help make an ad for
Tesla. That tells you a lot about both men.
The ONLY former politician I've ever seen doing a commercial on TV
(not counting commercials for non-profits or charities) was a defeated
VP candidate about 6 months after the election and that was back in
the 60s. It was Goldwater's VP candidate and I >think< it was for
Amex. The tagline was "Do you recognize my name?" (holds up card)
"Probably not but I bet you recognize THIS" and then it cut to a
screen showing how many places accepted the card.
I think I saw Jimmy Carter pitching for a charity but don't recall a
former president (or presidential candidate) pitching for a for-profit company
He wouldn't be allowed to drive it anyway. It's a rule that
Presidents of the USA (and former Presidents) are not allowed to
drive any motor vehicle on a public road. So for Trump to drive
a car, Tesla or otherwise, it would need to be on a private road
and with Secret Service approval... which makes it even more
obvious why Trump bought the Tesla, it could only be to show
support for Elon Musk.
If I'm not mistaken, Queen Elizabeth II was an avid driver, having
learned when she was a mechanic for military vehicles during WWII, but
was not permitted to drive on public roads, at least as Queen. However,
she loved to drive on the private roads on her estates, like Balmoral. I >distinctly remember seeing that depicted in a movie where the Queen
(played by Helen Mirren if I recall correctly) was hauling ass around >Balmoral in a Land Rover.
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 21:40:28 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, Queen Elizabeth II was an avid driver, having
learned when she was a mechanic for military vehicles during WWII, but
was not permitted to drive on public roads, at least as Queen. However,
she loved to drive on the private roads on her estates, like Balmoral. I
distinctly remember seeing that depicted in a movie where the Queen
(played by Helen Mirren if I recall correctly) was hauling ass around
Balmoral in a Land Rover.
She was more than a mechanic - she was a military chauffer. It would
be interesting to know how much of that was real and how much for the
camera since she was after all the Princess of Wales and the next
monarch after her father.
As for your last point I saw the same movie (not surprising since I am
a massive Helen Mirren fan)
On 2025-03-17 21:32:48 +0000, shawn said:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 16:15:12 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-17 3:58 PM, shawn wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 15:44:56 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-17 2:48 PM, shawn wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 12:58:54 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-17 12:41 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
So your theory is that the richest man in the world, who has more money >>>>> than anyone has ever had before, is so corrupt that he'll destroy major >>>>> chunks of the government to either hide some kind of scandal - of which >>>>> no details have emerged to the best of my knowledge - or obtain more >>>>> contracts?
Yes. After all did you see him getting Trump to help make an ad for
Tesla. That tells you a lot about both men.
I think I'd like a few more actual facts before I start embracing your
conspiracy theories....
So would you be willing believe the video of Trump pitching Tesla
vehicles alongside Elon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDsv4QZCABo
Most likely just because Tesla stock has been hammered over the past
month.
Not just the stock price. Sales of Tesla's awful cars has been dropping
all over the world. Reportedly, 97% of Germans will not buy a Tesla car because they've finally realised that he's a raving lunatic (something
some of us knew all along). Even here in New Zealand, a man was
recently arrested for going around spraying paint on Tesla and Polestar
cars.
On 2025-04-03 19:46:14 +0000, The Horny Goat said:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 21:40:28 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, Queen Elizabeth II was an avid driver, having
learned when she was a mechanic for military vehicles during WWII, but
was not permitted to drive on public roads, at least as Queen. However, >>> she loved to drive on the private roads on her estates, like Balmoral. I >>> distinctly remember seeing that depicted in a movie where the Queen
(played by Helen Mirren if I recall correctly) was hauling ass around
Balmoral in a Land Rover.
She was more than a mechanic - she was a military chauffer. It would
be interesting to know how much of that was real and how much for the
camera since she was after all the Princess of Wales and the next
monarch after her father.
As for your last point I saw the same movie (not surprising since I am
a massive Helen Mirren fan)
The royal family are, and do, sometimes drive themselves on public
roads, including the Queen before she stopped driving on public roads
due to her own concerns about her age (on her 93rd birthday) affecting
the safety of herself and other drivers. She did still drive for a
while longer on private roads though. She also taught her children and grandchildren to drive.
The current Queen / King is the only person in Britain who does not
legally need to have a drivers licence nor even take the driving test,
and also does not need a licence plate on their cars. The Queen / King
also does not need a passport either.
On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 11:12:43 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
What were they thinking of?
Yes. After all did you see him getting Trump to help make an ad for
Tesla. That tells you a lot about both men.
The ONLY former politician I've ever seen doing a commercial on TV
(not counting commercials for non-profits or charities) was a defeated
VP candidate about 6 months after the election and that was back in
the 60s. It was Goldwater's VP candidate and I >think< it was for
Amex. The tagline was "Do you recognize my name?" (holds up card)
"Probably not but I bet you recognize THIS" and then it cut to a
screen showing how many places accepted the card.
I think I saw Jimmy Carter pitching for a charity but don't recall a
former president (or presidential candidate) pitching for a for-profit company
On Apr 3, 2025 at 1:04:37 PM PDT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-03 19:46:14 +0000, The Horny Goat said:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 21:40:28 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, Queen Elizabeth II was an avid driver, having
learned when she was a mechanic for military vehicles during WWII, but >>>> was not permitted to drive on public roads, at least as Queen. However, >>>> she loved to drive on the private roads on her estates, like Balmoral. I >>>> distinctly remember seeing that depicted in a movie where the Queen
(played by Helen Mirren if I recall correctly) was hauling ass around
Balmoral in a Land Rover.
She was more than a mechanic - she was a military chauffer. It would
be interesting to know how much of that was real and how much for the
camera since she was after all the Princess of Wales and the next
monarch after her father.
As for your last point I saw the same movie (not surprising since I am
a massive Helen Mirren fan)
The royal family are, and do, sometimes drive themselves on public
roads, including the Queen before she stopped driving on public roads
due to her own concerns about her age (on her 93rd birthday) affecting
the safety of herself and other drivers. She did still drive for a
while longer on private roads though. She also taught her children and
grandchildren to drive.
The current Queen / King is the only person in Britain who does not
legally need to have a drivers licence nor even take the driving test,
and also does not need a licence plate on their cars. The Queen / King
also does not need a passport either.
How does the Queen exempt herself from other countries' laws regarding passports?
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 11:12:43 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
What were they thinking of?
Yes. After all did you see him getting Trump to help make an ad for >>>>>> Tesla. That tells you a lot about both men.
The ONLY former politician I've ever seen doing a commercial on TV
(not counting commercials for non-profits or charities) was a defeated
VP candidate about 6 months after the election and that was back in
the 60s. It was Goldwater's VP candidate and I >think< it was for
Amex. The tagline was "Do you recognize my name?" (holds up card)
"Probably not but I bet you recognize THIS" and then it cut to a
screen showing how many places accepted the card.
I think I saw Jimmy Carter pitching for a charity but don't recall a
former president (or presidential candidate) pitching for a for-profit
company
Carter also did a campaign trying to get the stupid to vote.
Retarded, southern accent voice on.
It’s important that you vote. It doesn’t matter if you know what the candidates stand for or what the issues are; what’s important is that you vote.
Retarded, southern accent voice off.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Apr 3, 2025 at 1:04:37 PM PDT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>> On 2025-04-03 19:46:14 +0000, The Horny Goat said:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 21:40:28 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, Queen Elizabeth II was an avid driver, having
learned when she was a mechanic for military vehicles during WWII, but >>>>> was not permitted to drive on public roads, at least as Queen. However, >>>>> she loved to drive on the private roads on her estates, like Balmoral. >>>>> I distinctly remember seeing that depicted in a movie where the Queen >>>>> (played by Helen Mirren if I recall correctly) was hauling ass around >>>>> Balmoral in a Land Rover.
She was more than a mechanic - she was a military chauffer. It would
be interesting to know how much of that was real and how much for the
camera since she was after all the Princess of Wales and the next
monarch after her father.
As for your last point I saw the same movie (not surprising since I am >>>> a massive Helen Mirren fan)
The royal family are, and do, sometimes drive themselves on public
roads, including the Queen before she stopped driving on public roads
due to her own concerns about her age (on her 93rd birthday) affecting
the safety of herself and other drivers. She did still drive for a
while longer on private roads though. She also taught her children and
grandchildren to drive.
The current Queen / King is the only person in Britain who does not
legally need to have a drivers licence nor even take the driving test,
and also does not need a licence plate on their cars. The Queen / King
also does not need a passport either.
How does the Queen exempt herself from other countries' laws regarding
passports?
Same way, the governor of Hawaii does.
Ways and means.
On 4/4/2025 1:28 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 11:12:43 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
What were they thinking of?
Yes. After all did you see him getting Trump to help make an ad for >>>>>>> Tesla. That tells you a lot about both men.
The ONLY former politician I've ever seen doing a commercial on TV
(not counting commercials for non-profits or charities) was a defeated
VP candidate about 6 months after the election and that was back in
the 60s. It was Goldwater's VP candidate and I >think< it was for
Amex. The tagline was "Do you recognize my name?" (holds up card)
"Probably not but I bet you recognize THIS" and then it cut to a
screen showing how many places accepted the card.
I think I saw Jimmy Carter pitching for a charity but don't recall a
former president (or presidential candidate) pitching for a for-profit
company
Carter also did a campaign trying to get the stupid to vote.
Retarded, southern accent voice on.
It’s important that you vote. It doesn’t matter if you know what the
candidates stand for or what the issues are; what’s important is that you >> vote.
Retarded, southern accent voice off.
Is that a quote? (Or a close paraphrase?)
On 2025-04-04 05:28:07 +0000, anim8rfsk said:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Apr 3, 2025 at 1:04:37 PM PDT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-03 19:46:14 +0000, The Horny Goat said:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 21:40:28 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, Queen Elizabeth II was an avid driver, having >>>>>> learned when she was a mechanic for military vehicles during WWII, but >>>>>> was not permitted to drive on public roads, at least as Queen. However, >>>>>> she loved to drive on the private roads on her estates, like Balmoral. >>>>>> I distinctly remember seeing that depicted in a movie where the Queen >>>>>> (played by Helen Mirren if I recall correctly) was hauling ass around >>>>>> Balmoral in a Land Rover.
She was more than a mechanic - she was a military chauffer. It would >>>>> be interesting to know how much of that was real and how much for the >>>>> camera since she was after all the Princess of Wales and the next
monarch after her father.
As for your last point I saw the same movie (not surprising since I am >>>>> a massive Helen Mirren fan)
The royal family are, and do, sometimes drive themselves on public
roads, including the Queen before she stopped driving on public roads >>>> due to her own concerns about her age (on her 93rd birthday) affecting >>>> the safety of herself and other drivers. She did still drive for a
while longer on private roads though. She also taught her children and >>>> grandchildren to drive.
The current Queen / King is the only person in Britain who does not
legally need to have a drivers licence nor even take the driving test, >>>> and also does not need a licence plate on their cars. The Queen / King >>>> also does not need a passport either.
How does the Queen exempt herself from other countries' laws regarding
passports?
Same way, the governor of Hawaii does.
Ways and means.
The Queen / King does not have to follow the same travel requirements
as 'normal' people, e.g. getting passport visas, going through
immigration / customs / security, etc.
The only other people on the planet who do not require a passport are
the Emperor and Empress of Japan.
What's so stupid about all the lunatics that are going around keying and >spray-painting and fire-bombing Teslas is that any random owner of a Tesla is >likely to be a liberal/leftist. They used to love Elon before he joined up >with Trump. He was the champion of anti-climate change electric cars. Lefties >were all lining up to buy his cars in the years before they suddenly hated him >for helping Trump. So the vast majority of Tesla owners out there are >leftists, which means the leftists that are attacking the cars are victimizing >their own people.
The IQ level of these morons would be challenged by that of a rutabaga.
Trump the Chump bought a Tesla car solely to show "support" for
Muskrat's ailing car company, but that car has 37 recall notices for
problems that require fixing before he can even drive it (not that he
ever will of course, it's purely a publicity stunt). Really it achieved
the complete opposite and shows yet another great reasons why people
should NOT buy Tesla's crappy cars.
As a former president is just a citizen/taxpayer, what's the national >security issue? Isn't there any flexibility allowed in the security
detail?
If I'm not mistaken, Queen Elizabeth II was an avid driver, having
learned when she was a mechanic for military vehicles during WWII, but
was not permitted to drive on public roads, at least as Queen. However,
she loved to drive on the private roads on her estates, like Balmoral. I >distinctly remember seeing that depicted in a movie where the Queen
(played by Helen Mirren if I recall correctly) was hauling ass around >Balmoral in a Land Rover.
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 21:40:28 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, Queen Elizabeth II was an avid
driver, having learned when she was a mechanic for
military vehicles during WWII, but was not permitted to
drive on public roads, at least as Queen. However, she
loved to drive on the private roads on her estates, like
Balmoral. I distinctly remember seeing that depicted in a
movie where the Queen (played by Helen Mirren if I recall
correctly) was hauling ass around Balmoral in a Land
Rover.
She wasn't just a mechanic but a military driver who
seldom drove anybody below General rank. (She was after
all the Princess of Wales during WW2)
While I'm a big Helen Mirren fan I don't remember the
scene you describe but if the film in question covered
that period then I'm sure you're right.
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 21:40:28 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, Queen Elizabeth II was an avid
driver, having learned when she was a mechanic for
military vehicles during WWII, but was not permitted to
drive on public roads, at least as Queen. However, she
loved to drive on the private roads on her estates, like
Balmoral. I distinctly remember seeing that depicted in a
movie where the Queen (played by Helen Mirren if I recall
correctly) was hauling ass around Balmoral in a Land
Rover.
She wasn't just a mechanic but a military driver who
seldom drove anybody below General rank. (She was after
all the Princess of Wales during WW2)
While I'm a big Helen Mirren fan I don't remember the
scene you describe but if the film in question covered
that period then I'm sure you're right.
Just a small correction/clarification.
Princess Elizabeth was never Princess of Wales. Only the
eldest *son* of the monarch can hold the title of Prince
of Wales (with his wife having the courtesy title of
Princess of Wales).
That may have changed in the fairly recent legislation that
modified the rules of succession to allow females to hold
their place in line to the throne by birth position rather
than be "jumped" by their younger brothers, but that wasn't
the case last century. (I can't say that I've been curious
enough to look up if an eldest daughter couled be invested
as Princess of Wales as part of the changes of succession.)
Elizabeth's official designation was Heiress Presumptive, since
in theory at least, the birth of a son would have knocked her
to second in line. Yeah, that ignores that the future Queen
Mum was beyond that feat, but theoretically, the King could
have re-married if the queen died and a younger consort could
have produced a son.
Just setting the record straight.
Nyssa, who remembers this stuff from her history classes and
reading a book on heraldry and titles years ago
. . .
Princess Elizabeth was never Princess of Wales. Only the
eldest *son* of the monarch can hold the title of Prince
of Wales (with his wife having the courtesy title of
Princess of Wales). . . .
Nyssa <Nyssa@logicalinsight.net> wrote:
. . .
Princess Elizabeth was never Princess of Wales. Only the
eldest *son* of the monarch can hold the title of Prince
of Wales (with his wife having the courtesy title of
Princess of Wales). . . .
Was the office vacant then?
Are there any administrative duties or is it just a courtesy title?
On 4/29/2025 7:10 AM, Nyssa wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 21:40:28 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, Queen Elizabeth II was an avid
driver, having learned when she was a mechanic for
military vehicles during WWII, but was not permitted to
drive on public roads, at least as Queen. However, she
loved to drive on the private roads on her estates,
like Balmoral. I distinctly remember seeing that
depicted in a movie where the Queen (played by Helen
Mirren if I recall correctly) was hauling ass around
Balmoral in a Land Rover.
She wasn't just a mechanic but a military driver who
seldom drove anybody below General rank. (She was after
all the Princess of Wales during WW2)
While I'm a big Helen Mirren fan I don't remember the
scene you describe but if the film in question covered
that period then I'm sure you're right.
Just a small correction/clarification.
Princess Elizabeth was never Princess of Wales. Only the
eldest *son* of the monarch can hold the title of Prince
of Wales (with his wife having the courtesy title of
Princess of Wales).
That may have changed in the fairly recent legislation
that modified the rules of succession to allow females to
hold their place in line to the throne by birth position
rather than be "jumped" by their younger brothers, but
that wasn't the case last century. (I can't say that I've
been curious enough to look up if an eldest daughter
couled be invested as Princess of Wales as part of the
changes of succession.)
Elizabeth's official designation was Heiress Presumptive,
since in theory at least, the birth of a son would have
knocked her to second in line. Yeah, that ignores that
the future Queen Mum was beyond that feat, but
theoretically, the King could have re-married if the
queen died and a younger consort could have produced a
son.
Just setting the record straight.
Nyssa, who remembers this stuff from her history classes
and reading a book on heraldry and titles years ago
She might be designated as the Princess Royal. Anne was,
but maybe that's because she was behind Charles as heir to
the throne.
Nyssa <Nyssa@logicalinsight.net> wrote:
. . .
Princess Elizabeth was never Princess of Wales. Only the
eldest *son* of the monarch can hold the title of Prince
of Wales (with his wife having the courtesy title of
Princess of Wales). . . .
Was the office vacant then?
Are there any administrative duties or is it just a
courtesy title?
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Nyssa <Nyssa@logicalinsight.net> wrote:
. . .
Princess Elizabeth was never Princess of Wales. Only the
eldest *son* of the monarch can hold the title of Prince
of Wales (with his wife having the courtesy title of
Princess of Wales). . . .
Was the office vacant then?
Are there any administrative duties or is it just a
courtesy title?
The only duties are ceremonial plus any related charity
or other good works the holder wishes to do.
Nyssa, who wouldn't mind holding down such a sinecure as
long as the hours are minimal and the pay is good
Just a small correction/clarification.
Princess Elizabeth was never Princess of Wales. Only the
eldest *son* of the monarch can hold the title of Prince
of Wales (with his wife having the courtesy title of
Princess of Wales).
That may have changed in the fairly recent legislation that
modified the rules of succession to allow females to hold
their place in line to the throne by birth position rather
than be "jumped" by their younger brothers, but that wasn't
the case last century. (I can't say that I've been curious
enough to look up if an eldest daughter couled be invested
as Princess of Wales as part of the changes of succession.)
No, Queen Elizabeth gave Anne the designation Princess Royal
in honor of her charity work. She's still the most active
royal in that regard with endless personal appearances and
such.
Tue, 29 Apr 2025 11:18:48 -0400, Nyssa <Nyssa@logicalinsight.net>:
No, Queen Elizabeth gave Anne the designation Princess Royal
in honor of her charity work. She's still the most active
royal in that regard with endless personal appearances and
such.
I will never forget the tempest in a teapot (I was in Hong Kong and
read about it in the South China Morning Post - which is the largest
English language HK newspaper) when her son was asked to open a
cricket club in Hong Kong. Apparently some club members objected to
"having a royal flown in" until somebody asked him directly how he got
there. He said "on the MTR of course" (that's the name of the Hong
Kong Mass Transit Railway system - aka 'the subway') and told them
that Will and Harry are the only ones who don't have to work "in day
jobs" - that he appreciates being invited to Royal weddings and other
events but that the only thing he's legally entitled to is for him and
his children to be married at the chapel of Westminster Abbey (which
is a very nice church the size of a regular local church not the size
of a cathedral)
He no longer works in London and is still in the banking business but
not the Royal Bank of Scotland (which by US standards is quite a large
bank)
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Tue, 29 Apr 2025 11:18:48 -0400, Nyssa <Nyssa@logicalinsight.net>:
No, Queen Elizabeth gave Anne the designation Princess Royal
in honor of her charity work. She's still the most active
royal in that regard with endless personal appearances and
such.
I will never forget the tempest in a teapot (I was in Hong Kong and
read about it in the South China Morning Post - which is the largest
English language HK newspaper) when her son was asked to open a
cricket club in Hong Kong. Apparently some club members objected to
"having a royal flown in" until somebody asked him directly how he got
there. He said "on the MTR of course" (that's the name of the Hong
Kong Mass Transit Railway system - aka 'the subway') and told them
that Will and Harry are the only ones who don't have to work "in day
jobs" - that he appreciates being invited to Royal weddings and other
events but that the only thing he's legally entitled to is for him and
his children to be married at the chapel of Westminster Abbey (which
is a very nice church the size of a regular local church not the size
of a cathedral)
It's a little more than that. Specific relatives of the monarch are the
only ones subject to royal command in the UK with regard to marriage
and divorce. They certainly would not be permitted to marry a
non-Anglican without a huge exception being made. Laws have had to be
changed although they might have adequate flexibility in law with royal assent.
Very little royal perogative remains, but the monarch retains control of certain aspect of the royal family.
He no longer works in London and is still in the banking business but
not the Royal Bank of Scotland (which by US standards is quite a large
bank)
Prior to leaving the EU, London had major money center banks, especially
RBS.
On 2025-05-28 1:56 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:As I understand it, the last set of reforms enabled Royals to marry
Tue, 29 Apr 2025 11:18:48 -0400, Nyssa <Nyssa@logicalinsight.net>:
No, Queen Elizabeth gave Anne the designation Princess Royal
in honor of her charity work. She's still the most active
royal in that regard with endless personal appearances and
such.
I will never forget the tempest in a teapot (I was in Hong Kong and
read about it in the South China Morning Post - which is the largest
English language HK newspaper) when her son was asked to open a
cricket club in Hong Kong. Apparently some club members objected to
"having a royal flown in" until somebody asked him directly how he got
there. He said "on the MTR of course" (that's the name of the Hong
Kong Mass Transit Railway system - aka 'the subway') and told them
that Will and Harry are the only ones who don't have to work "in day
jobs" - that he appreciates being invited to Royal weddings and other
events but that the only thing he's legally entitled to is for him and
his children to be married at the chapel of Westminster Abbey (which
is a very nice church the size of a regular local church not the size
of a cathedral)
It's a little more than that. Specific relatives of the monarch are the
only ones subject to royal command in the UK with regard to marriage
and divorce. They certainly would not be permitted to marry a
non-Anglican without a huge exception being made. Laws have had to be
changed although they might have adequate flexibility in law with royal
assent.
Catholics without difficulty for the first time since Henry VIII,
although there were still *some* rules. For instance, the King or Queen >Regnant (Queen Elizabeth II was a Queen Regnant but Queen Camilla is
just a Queen Consort) still have to be members of the Church of England
but their spouses don't need to be.
I'm not sure what would happen if a King or Queen Regnant left the
Church of England (or got excommunicated) or converted to a different >religion entirely.
Very little royal perogative remains, but the monarch retains control of
certain aspect of the royal family.
He no longer works in London and is still in the banking business but
not the Royal Bank of Scotland (which by US standards is quite a large
bank)
Prior to leaving the EU, London had major money center banks, especially
RBS.
--
Rhino
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-05-28 1:56 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:As I understand it, the last set of reforms enabled Royals to marry
Tue, 29 Apr 2025 11:18:48 -0400, Nyssa <Nyssa@logicalinsight.net>:
No, Queen Elizabeth gave Anne the designation Princess Royal
in honor of her charity work. She's still the most active
royal in that regard with endless personal appearances and
such.
I will never forget the tempest in a teapot (I was in Hong Kong and
read about it in the South China Morning Post - which is the largest
English language HK newspaper) when her son was asked to open a
cricket club in Hong Kong. Apparently some club members objected to
"having a royal flown in" until somebody asked him directly how he got >>>> there. He said "on the MTR of course" (that's the name of the Hong
Kong Mass Transit Railway system - aka 'the subway') and told them
that Will and Harry are the only ones who don't have to work "in day
jobs" - that he appreciates being invited to Royal weddings and other
events but that the only thing he's legally entitled to is for him and >>>> his children to be married at the chapel of Westminster Abbey (which
is a very nice church the size of a regular local church not the size
of a cathedral)
It's a little more than that. Specific relatives of the monarch are the
only ones subject to royal command in the UK with regard to marriage
and divorce. They certainly would not be permitted to marry a
non-Anglican without a huge exception being made. Laws have had to be
changed although they might have adequate flexibility in law with royal
assent.
Catholics without difficulty for the first time since Henry VIII,
although there were still *some* rules. For instance, the King or Queen
Regnant (Queen Elizabeth II was a Queen Regnant but Queen Camilla is
just a Queen Consort) still have to be members of the Church of England
but their spouses don't need to be.
I'm not sure what would happen if a King or Queen Regnant left the
Church of England (or got excommunicated) or converted to a different
religion entirely.
excommunicate herself?
Very little royal perogative remains, but the monarch retains control of >>> certain aspect of the royal family.
He no longer works in London and is still in the banking business but
not the Royal Bank of Scotland (which by US standards is quite a large >>>> bank)
Prior to leaving the EU, London had major money center banks, especially >>> RBS.
--
Rhino
He no longer works in London and is still in the banking business but
not the Royal Bank of Scotland (which by US standards is quite a large >>bank)
Prior to leaving the EU, London had major money center banks, especially
RBS.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 547 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 60:49:49 |
| Calls: | 10,398 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 14,067 |
| Messages: | 6,417,476 |
| Posted today: | 1 |