Slashdot Mirror

They were indeed hidden, but the location has never been disclosed. Source: http://www.royal.gov.uk/Monarc...

Um, you do realize that Canada is a commonwealth state and the queen is the head of state, right?

Canada and Australia, while not truly British colonies still are subjective to Britain. It's called a "Realm" of Britain today and not a Colony, and sure it's more autonomous than when under British rule, but still by their own Constitutions yield to British rule in many areas. You may find this of interest and a starting point.

For the vast majority of free countries in the world, freedom was a gradual process.

Gradual has nothing to do with whether or not violence was required to remove entrenched power and move on their own accord. India as stated previously is a prime example of a Country which is no longer a British "Realm" or "Colony" and it took many years of violent revolt to get this to occur. Social reform in the UK took numerous violent revolts to accomplish, How about Ireland, and more recently Iceland.

Do you need me to mention Ukraine, Egypt, South Africa, Libya, in fact most African countries are still trying to remove entrenched corrupt power, we could say similar with much of South America.

Your gradual statement holds a shred of truth, but it does not mean that things change peacefully. It just means it may take a long string of violence to accomplish the goal..

I have no idea why you bring the sexual revolution into the conversation. Though called a "revolution" it's not! No offense intended, but this would be like discussing DPRK when trying to discuss what a Republic is.

As I said, if you want to claim it's possible to remove entrenched corruption peacefully show me historical proof that it can be done. Mafias don't just give up, even when people know they are operating. Why would corruption with money paying mafias give up? They don't.

Not since 1982 when the UK telegram service was discontinued. From the horse's mouth:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/Queenandanniversarymessages/History.aspx

She sends a 'telemessage', which is a telegram successor but not a telegram.

She is exempted from taxes?

She is exempt from some taxes, but not others. Of the ones from which she is exempt, she pays most of them on a voluntary basis.

Don't klnow where you're getting your figures from.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Civil%20List%20expenditure%202006.pdf says 12 M.

And that's annual. As to the land, it's the first I've heard about it. Are handing it over every year? Because if not the comparison is pointless, like most of the shit you post.

The Queen does have the right to vote, she just chooses not to.

"Although the law relating to elections does not specifically prohibit the Sovereign from voting in a general election or local election, it is considered unconstitutional for the Sovereign and his or her heir to do so."
http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/Queenandvoting.aspx (The Official Website of the British Monarchy)

What the British people see in their monarchy, I'll never know. I do know that until Britains stop shelling out $60 million (about 40 million Pounds) per year tax dollars to keep up the properties and lifestyle of these royal idiots http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/Sourcesoffunding/Overview.aspx , they have no right making fun of the US's fascination with celebrity. At least we don't directly pay ours with tax dollars and our celebrities pay taxes. If the Queen's just a "figure head" and only reads what's written by the Tories, we could have Britney Spears give an annual speech to the senate for a lot less cash and roughly equal mental capacity.

In ceremony of knighting, the knight-elect kneels on a knighting-stool in front of The Queen, who then lays the sword blade on the knight's right and then left shoulder.

After he has been dubbed, the new knight stands up, and The Queen invests the knight with the insignia of the Order to which he has been appointed, or the Badge of a Knight Bachelor.

Contrary to popular belief, the words 'Arise, Sir ...' are not used.

Source: royal.gov.uk

Constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a king or queen acts as Head of State.

The ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament, not with the Monarch.

As a system of government, constitutional monarchy separates the Head of State’s ceremonial and official duties from party politics.

A constitutional monarchy also provides stability, continuity and a national focus, as the Head of State remains the same even as governments change.

The Sovereign/Monarch governs according to the constitution - that is, according to rules, rather than according to his or her own free will. The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution which sets out the rights and duties of the Sovereign, they are established by conventions. These are non-statutory rules which can be just as binding as formal constitutional rules.

As a constitutional monarch, the Sovereign must remain politically neutral.

On almost all matters the Sovereign acts on the advice of ministers. However, the Sovereign retains an important political role as Head of State, formally appointing prime ministers, approving certain legislation and bestowing honours.

The Sovereign has other official roles to play such as Head of the Armed Forces.

And that's just what was on their summary page, I'm sure there are other powers that your unelected monarchs have as well. You must admit that their power is massive when compared to an ordanary citizen, which is what they would be in the U.S.. For example, Bush has no power to do anything at all. And unlike when you claim it, he really doesn't have any power. His children will not inherit his presidency. If in the middle of his presidency the people decided we didn't like him we can throw him out of office. So yes, there is a great deal of difference and yes, the queen of Canada has a great deal of power.

It was the government. The monarchy had nothing to do with it.

You obviously read neither the article, nor the source it linked to.

To mark Her Majesty's visit to Bletchley Park, The Queen has issued a Code Book Challenge to schoolchildren.

Notice the site: royal.gov.uk. The official site of the British monarchy.

When asked to comment on your post, the Queen reportedly said "We are not amused."

Actually, the British Monarchy has a very nice web site at http://www.royal.gov.uk/ and a YouTube channel at http://www.youtube.com/theroyalchannel.

So, in other words you're still not able to back up anything you said.

I don't know much about the history of Google, but Keyhole was a company independent of Google for quite years. I worked for a company that subscribed to its service. Google bought Keyhole years later.

Your original post is completely worthless, with a bunch of home page links pretending to be citations. Lemme take a shot at your style of online journalism:

Google is a company owned by the Dairy Queen corporation with the stated goal of infiltrating homes worldwide Radio Shack microphones and transmitters. They are carrying out this nefarious deed at the behest of the Queen of England, and the president of Mexico.

There. I'm just as factual as you are. And my references are just as good.

People like you are the reason smart people don't trust the internet.

20. The Queen has never been on a computer, she told Bill Gates as she awarded him an honorary knighthood.
I take her word for it, no computer in Buckingham Palace.
Grandmotherly types (like the Queen) tend to say things like that. Basically, they want to make you look good. I'll bet Bill Gates felt 10 feet tall after she said that.
In this day and age of new discoveries, etc. grandmothers have lots of material. Anyone ever had their grandmother say, "Who would ever have thought of such a thing!" concerning some new technology.
Having said that, here is a link to a report that says the Queen apparently knows how to email school children, having set a record for the largest group email the Queen has ever sent.
The Queen does not really touch the computer though, she has it done...
But, did anyone see that picture of Pope John Paul II on his laptop?
They took it down after he died, but he was supposedly answering email when the picture was taken. The top of the laptop had the papal crest, if that is what it is called.
Here is a link to a statement from 1989 by John Paul II that has some sections concerning computers. What a great guy he was, we all miss him. Goodbye, 2005!

Ask Elizabeth II

Her Royal Highness. http://www.royal.gov.uk/

They elected Tony Blair. Due to the nature of Westminster Style Parliaments, you essentially have an elected King (at least for five years). This leaves the hereditary Queen free to tour her realms and try not to appear bored meeting people in the hinterlands. A party can win a majority with 30-40% of the popular vote. With a strong party whip and a majority in the House of Commons the elected King can force Parliament to pass any legislation he wants. Also, during his reign, Parliament has either passed or planning legislation to reduce the power of the House of Lords. (Items that come to mind are devolution to Scotland & N. Ireland, removal of hereditary peers, creation of a Supreme Court [removal of Law Lords] etc). In addition, I am not sure how selection of candidates for individual ridings work, but I assume that a leader can keep individual MPs in line by refusing to allow them to run for the party in the next election if they dissent.

As much as I am not totally happy with the choice of the UK (it doesn't matter, my family left England), Mr Blair was the pick of the litter box.

Quoth the article:

In 1069, the Danes, in alliance with Prince Edgar the Aetheling (Ethelred's great-grandson) and other English nobles, invaded the north and took York. Taking personal charge, and pausing only to deal with the rising at Stafford, William drove the Danes back to their ships on the Humber. In a harsh campaign lasting into 1070, William systematically devastated Mercia and Northumbria to deprive the Danes of their supplies and prevent recovery of English resistance. Churches and monasteries were burnt, and agricultural land was laid to waste, creating a famine for the unarmed and mostly peasant population which lasted at least nine years.

Hmm, maybe someone should tell the Queen that she was abolished in 1867 - I don't think she knows.

What is going on in the UK? I thought they were our allies. I mean, before I saw this article, I was a huge fan of Honeydew and Beaker. But after seeing this picture, it is obvious that Dr. Honeydew is a terrorist, and, furthermore, is violating Beaker's civil rights with the electrical cord from a washing machine. This kind of thing cannot be tolerated. What would Mr. Wizard say? And why is Kermit supporting this? If things keep going this way, I know that it is clear to us all that we will have to liberate the citizens of the United Kingdom from the terrorists and cults that are being imposed on them by their evil dictators.

OK - how's this?

Back in April, Slashdot reported the announcement of a Universal 3D File Format by Intel, Microsoft & others - to be "as open as MP3". Of course, that's not all that open. And this turns out to be the sneaky part. There is a real open standard already - X3D is ISO-ratified, royalty-free, and has multiple open source implementations. U3D is "going to be submitted to ISO" - one day - but right now they're talking to ECMA, which allows royalty-bearing patents.
I found this article by Tony Parisi, co-chair of the X3D Working Group a fascinating insider's picture of the standards wars, along with insights into what it takes to release an online game, what really killed VRML, and why open standards do (and don't) matter.
I mean, a royalty-bearing, pseudo-open universal 3D format from Intel and Microsoft? Sorry, guys. That trick doesn't work anymore


BTW, I need to get a life.

Foreign citizens occasionally receive honorary knighthoods; they are not dubbed, and they do not use the style 'Sir'.

Sorry to pick nits here, but Australia is a sovereign nation ...

... and the sooner we ditch our foreign sovereign, the better.

... for him to lose Knighthood:

"In extreme cases, when a knight was found guilty of treachery or treason, he could lose his honour by formal degradation - a public ceremony in which his accoutrements were taken off him. In 1468, Sir Ralph Grey was taken to Doncaster where, being guilty of treason, his 'gold spurs were hewn from his heels while his sword and all his armour were broken'. The last public degradation was in 1621 at Westminster Hall, when Sir Francis Mitchell was found guilty of 'grievous exactions' and had his spurs broken and thrown away, his belt cut and his sword broken over his head. Finally, he was pronounced to be 'no longer a Knight but Knave'."

We just have to wait for him to do something bad enough, and/or be convicted of it. We'll see what happens when the courts in the U.S. are through with him...

Also this

Trying to slashdot the Queen?

He will be knighted, just the same as everyone else (visit to Buckingham Palace, sword on the shoulder, medal, etc), but he's not a British national so he couldn't use the full title of 'Sir...'. However, he would be able to use the initials "KBE" (Knight of the British Empire) after his name.

There's more information on the history of the award at the Royal Family website.

Well, she gives silly names to her children, why should the dogs have it any easier?

E.g. Named Andrew Albert Christian Edward,he was known as Prince Andrew until his marriage, when he was created The Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh.

One of the good things about being monarch is that you can keep on giving your children silly names even when they've grown up.

So she's behind it it too. Remember how she used to use Linux but went off it a while ago?

b.

...she still held the title Queen of England, as well as quite probably numerous others (anyone got a full list somewhere)?

Indeed she does still hold that title. I used to know her full grand gitre but it's slipped out of my mind for some reason. The natural place to look it up is on the Royal Family's website, but, oddly enough since they moved to IIS (another fine Microsoft product) it's down right now. Funny, I never can remember it going down before...

(I think it highly unlikely that it's slashdotted. Government servers designed for worldwide access are generally well able to handle this kind of load.)

OK, so I found it at the alt.talk.royalty FAQ. In the UK, she's called "United Kingdom: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". In her other realms and territories, she's styled slightly differently. The full list is rather lengthy, so check the FAQ to see it. Although "Queen of England" isn't found in there, it's certainly not incorrect to call her that.

Each and every one? Man, you have a really broad definition of "e-commerce".

I can feel it in my bones.

Microsoft is on the way out. But not in the near future, mind. They have too much money, power, and control to be shunned out by Linux.

But we are seeing the beginning of it. Hotmail has moved to Solaris, after technicians said "We tried hard to get it on NT, but it wouldn't work". High-profile sites like the UK Royal Family and the CCTA have since moved to Linux.

Now it is Kenwood's turn.

I would expect the multiplier effect to get even greater with the release of Desktop OS's like Corel Linux, making Linux that much easier for the average user.

Microsoft's days are numbered.

Jx

For those of you asking about various stats for the royal web site, you can see stats for the site here.

POC

(Unfortunately my program analog is used on Her Majesty's site, but fails the same test!)

The Register has an article on this in English languange at http://www.theregister.co.uk/991024 -000005.html.

Click me!

less so in this one

less so in this one

Just count the red hats on http://www.royal.gov.uk/family/hmqueen.htm . At least 3, and a pink one extra.