Re: Elon Musk versus the intelligence community

On 2025-05-28 3:19 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

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:

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.
>

As I understand it, the last set of reforms enabled Royals to marry
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?

I probably chose the wrong term. Technically, I'm not sure if the King or Queen could be excommunicated. I believe he's the titular head of the Church of England superceeding even the highest Archbishop but could those below him toss him out if they really wanted to? I don't know.
By comparison to the Catholic church, I don't know of any pope that was actually excommunicated (although I'm far from expert in the history of the papacy) but I *do* know there have been schisms within the church that led to multiple popes being in office (although each described the others as being antiPopes) at the same time that only gradually got resolved over many years. (During the schisms, I believe some countries supported one Pope and treated him as the one true Pope while other countries supported one or the other of the rival claimants.)

 

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