Thursday, August 10, 2017
No, No, No - the Queen is not bypassing Charles.
Embed from Getty Images
Julia Birkinbine, who "writes" for Closer magazine ... and I use the word magazine rather loosely, has new headbanger today. I also question if Julia is an actual writer or a hairball specialist. She does not deserve to be called a writer. Shame on this twat.
http://www.closerweekly.com/posts/queen-elizabeth-prince-william-kate-middleton-king-queen-prince-charles-138913
UPDATE: CLOSER HAS REMOVED THE VERY, VERY INCORRECT STORY.
Dear not-so-bright Julia,
Your story is full of merde. I cannot believe that your editor --- do you have an educated editor -- allowed this piece of trash (flapdoodle) to go on the website. You should have verified the Life & Style article. It would have been easy. Everyone one knows Life & Style and Closer magazines should never be treated seriously.
Oh, wait .. Closer is a rag, not a real magazine. You made this up ... on the loo or perhaps having a cup of tea?
Listen to an expert .. and trust me, I know what I am talking about? You apparently don't.
Queen Elizabeth II cannot change the succession to the throne. Succession to the throne is based on legislation. Parliament legislates. The Queen signs the legislation into law.
In 2013, Parliament passed the Succession to the Crown Act, which made a few changes to the Act of Settlement (1701). The new succession law is gender equal, meaning the first born is heir apparent, regardless of sex, rather than boys before girls (which of course was never a part of the Act of Settlement. Male line primogeniture in the UK was based on tradition, rather than law.
The new law supersedes the Royal Marriages Act, which means only the first six line to the throne need the permission of the sovereign to marry.
According to the 1931 Act of Westminster, "any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
All of the countries would have to approve or pass legislation: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, The Bahamas, Tuvalu and the United Kingdom.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/20/introduction
Julia, darling, you might want to get on your phone and "Get me rewrite!" because you need to rewrite your article with the facts. I can do it for you, if you like.
"What a royal family shake-up! Not! Queen Elizabeth has not named her beloved grandson Prince William and his wife, Kate Middleton, the next King and Queen of England, because she does not have the power to do so. She also knows she is not Queen of England, but Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland plus 15 other countries. Don't believe anything according to Life & Style magazine. Fortunately, this means the Queen's eldest son, Prince Charles, has not been skipped over in the British monarchy's line of succession.
Note to Julia: William's official title is the Duke of Cambridge. His wife is the Duchess of Cambridge. Not Kate Middleton.
"Her Majesty realized that William and Kate are the future after Charles. She has spent 65 years making sure that the House of Windsor survives, and she is concerned that William and Kate as having the energy and star quality to do the job in a modern world. Queen Elizabeth will always do what is best for the long-term health of the monarchy," a palace insider recently told the entertainment news magazine, but this palace insider is probably not an insider at all, let alone someone who knows about the monarchy.
"With all the drama that has surrounded the royal family over recent decades, Elizabeth realizes the monarchy no longer has the respect and power it once had," another source said. "In her eyes, William and Kate are not ready at present to be the two people who can turn that around."
Sadly, the 91-year-old Queen's non decision to pass the crown (because she does not have that power) on to William, 35, instead of Charles, 68, has had no effect on Will's relationship with his dad. "Things have been a bit strained between William and his father since the Queen’s decision. The Queen has not made any decision about the succession, as it is not her job. Only Parliament can pass legislation.
"But they are slowly getting used to doing actual royal duties." the royal insider revealed.
Interestingly, Charles' wife of 12 years, the Duchess of Cornwall isn't upset by her mother-in-law's big news. Of course she is not upset because the Queen has not made this news .... Lies, false story.
"She’s secretly thrilled about the Queen’s decision. At 70, she’s had enough drama to last her a lifetime. [But], it’s hard on Charles. He has been unlucky as the man with the longest wait for a job ever," royal author Duncan Larcombe told Life & Style.
Mr. Larcombe is the former royal editor at the Sun newspaper and has written a book on Prince Harry. Surely, former royal editors at the Sun know about royalty, let alone their history and how their government works. Surely, Mr Larcombe knows how a bill becomes a law.
May I recommend giving up your day job. You have no concept of fact checking or appreciating Who, What, Where, How and Why? You are a terrible journalist.
You must have received your J Degree from Trump University.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Ha @ hairball specialist 🤣
That's telling 'em. Nothing like a few facts thrown in to ruin their "story".
As soon as I see the Duchess of Cambridge referred to as "Kate Middleton", I see red, and the author of said article loses my respect as a journalist. I am Canadian. This are MY Royal Family. Good for you for telling it like it is Marlene!
One of the reasons why Kate Middleton is used is because more people use that search term. The person was never a journalist.
My guess is that she is a hipster blogger who got picked up by a publication because of the number of followers rather than the quality of her content, likely one of those people who believes that the most important part of princessing is the fashion rather than their actual work. She writes about how the monarchy no longer has the respect it once did... which is, ironically, likely in part because "journalists" like her write this poppycock.
The Duchess is still called Kate Middleton and Diana was often called Lady Di(ana) after her marriage. Did the Queen Mother have a similar experience, being referred to post-marriage as Lady Elizabeth or Bowes-Lyons? Even after the Windsor's marriage, Wallis was referred to, for the most part, as the Duchess of Windsor, or at least using the word "formerly" when referred to as Simpson ("formerly" being how were were taught in J-school).
I actually had friends in the USA contact me to ask if this was real! I was not able to find the offending piece, its either not available in the UK or has been removed.
Marlene, it's amazing, isn't it? I've had SO many "discussions" with people who read stuff like this on Facebook who will ARGUE you to death that William is going to be the next King because "ERII has said so". Drives this history teacher crazy. They are convinced that Charles isn't going to be King because he's a divorced man and therefore cannot be King - that ERII "wants William and Kate to be the next King and Queen" and on and on and on. It doesn't matter how many times I tell them that ERII cannot change the succession - that it's up to Parliament - that succession is based on LAW - that if Charles outlives his mother, he WILL be King, etc. They just refuse to believe it - I tell them to stop reading tabloids and articles on FB - and go STUDY British/English history and Parliament and the succession to the throne. These nay-sayers are real twits!
I wonder if Buckingham Palace will clarify this misinformation or if they will dismiss it as pure balderdash. I think there is a danger to letting lies or misinformation such as this be out there unchecked, especially in this age of "social media". Who was it that said that if you tell a lie enough times and with conviction, in time it becomes the truth? Wasn't it Goebbels? Heaven help us!
They don't need to respond to something in a tabloid magazine.
Post a Comment