<p>“I still remember the heart-wrenching sight of the young princes walking in the funeral procession.”</p>
<p>And that little envelope that said “Mum.” Very sad.</p>
<p>lololu-
re post # 2</p>
<p>Thats a long name to have to put on a business card or address on an envelope!</p>
<p>Not that I care, but I guess I had assumed that since the British royal family now has this handsome young couple in direct line of succession, Charles would renounce any claim to the throne and let William become king upon Elizabeth’s death, thereby sidestepping the messy legal issues surrounding his divorce, adulterous affair, and subsequent remarriage, which some claim disqualify Charles from the throne. Besides, I think it would add a certain pizazz to have a bouncy young King William and Queen Kate, and perhaps a royal birth or two and toddlers running around Buckingham Palace, instead of dull and dour old Charles and his slightly embarrassing second wife. Of course, by the time Elizabeth is ready to move on even William and Kate could be quite middle-aged.</p>
<p>If adulterous affairs disqualified men from being King of England, a lot of former kings would never have been crowned. </p>
<p>Charles would never abdicate in favor of William. And William likely would prefer a quieter life out of the public eye with his wife and his eventual young children than to take the throne when granny dies.</p>
<p>^ But Prince William will undoubtedly become King eventually, since he is not expected to outlive his father…</p>
<p>Who is not expected to outlive his father? I’m confused.</p>
<p>^^^ DonnaL - I think that dreaming92 meant to say that Prince William IS expected to outlive his father.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>No, but the current Queen could force it on him if she chose to. She could disinherit Charles - but only in favor of someone who is in Charles’s direct line of descent. In other words, she could declare that Prince William will be her successor and the next King instead of Charles. But she could not boot Charles out in favor of say his brother Prince Andrew, since Andrew is not in Charles’s direct line.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah heck and that doesn’t even include his military or honorary titles.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No she couldn’t, there is a law that says the Queen cannot name her own successor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is it significant that almost every reality TV show in this country is an adapted version of a British show?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Well, it’s technically true that she couldn’t disinherit Charles without an act of Parliament, but if such a thing were needed it would be arranged. Heck, the Queen can’t even simply abdicate without an act of Parliament. When her uncle Edward VIII abdicated back in the 1930s it required an act of Parliament to formalize it.</p>
<p>Americans seem to think of Wallis and Edward as a great loved story. I read a book of their letters to each other that was fascinating. In fact they were both a psychological mess. I can’t remember the title of the book…</p>
<p>This thread put me in mind of Queen Elizabeth’s “annus horribilis” speech. I think this turn of phrase is a play on “annus mirabilis.” I have heard 1905 described as the “annus mirabilis” of Albert Einstein, because he discovered special relativity, explained the photo-electric effect, and developed the theory of Brownian motion, all in that year.
But I think this was an allusion to some earlier “annus mirabilis.”</p>
<p>I’m posting here because I am betting that coureur can tell me the earlier use of “annus mirabilis.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>An act of parliament in the event of an abdication is merely the formal stamp of approval from the government. There is the world of difference between that and the doing away of centuries old laws. The Queen could arrange no such thing; she has no power at all over the government, she can’t even vote.</p>
<p>ebeeee— Oh, boy, weren’t they though! Edward was screwed up and Wallis took advantage of him…IMHO. He also tossed his brother into a position he did not want but took because it was his duty. Thank the Lord it was George who saw the British through WWII and not Edward…who rather liked the Nazis. </p>
<p>The new movie ‘The King’s Speech’ is out or soon will be. Looks really good…</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Probably Newton’s big year back in the 1600s when, like Einstein, he published a bunch of breakthrough papers all in the same year.</p>
<p>Close. It refers to 1666…a miracle in those days wasn’t necessarily a pleasant thing, rather something beyond human comprehension. And with the plague, the Great Fire, and one or two other things, it was indeed a year of wonders…which also didn’t always mean good things!</p>
<p>^^Newton’s annus mirabilis beat that since it started in 1665:</p>
<p>[A</a> Centenary to Annus Mirabilis - The Iron Warrior](<a href=“http://iwarrior.uwaterloo.ca/props/?module=displaystory&story_id=1724&format=html&edition_id=36]A”>http://iwarrior.uwaterloo.ca/props/?module=displaystory&story_id=1724&format=html&edition_id=36)</p>
<p>“This year, 2005, we celebrate the centenary of a most remarkable year in science ever. The term annus mirabilis is Latin for “extraordinary year”. It was first applied to Isaac Newton, who in the span of 18 months of 1665 and 1666, created the foundations of Newtonian physics by inventing calculus, the theory of optics, discovering the law of gravitation and his famous laws of motion. This was an achievement that no one thought could ever be rivaled again.”</p>
<p>According to Oxford English Dictionary, first appearance is in a John Dryden poem, in 1667, commemorating the Great Fire and a big defeat of the Dutch by the English navy. </p>
<p>[The</a> Poetical Works of John Dryden, Vol I by John Dryden: Annus Mirabilis](<a href=“http://www.online-literature.com/dryden/poetical-works-vol1/8/]The”>The Poetical Works of John Dryden, Vol I by John Dryden: Annus Mirabilis)</p>