Do you just love to argue, or is it the friday feeling?

Source, before you ask for it.

.... but, this (from at least Victoria - may be even before) was reserved and traditionally used for the second son of The Monarch -- but was not inherited, but bestowed, each time - usually at the time of their marriage.

Not true. Holders just happened to die or become monarch. They could have passed the title on, they just didn't.

That's just plain wrong.

My source is better than your source

The previous article was fairly clear. But here is another one, as you ask. Personally I think our Queen is a wonderful example, amazing for her 80 years. But my opinion does not matter a hoot - despite my having sworn my allegiance to her officially all those years ago.

Britain´s Real Monarch

http://www.serendipity.li/more/monarch.htm

Henry Tudor VII's claim to the Throne was very dodgy indeed.
---------------------------------------------

Um, just a small flaw in your argument -- that link leads to The Guardian. Do you have a credible source?
Indeed. Any source is better than a rabidly left-wing British newspaper.

My source is page 3 of my British passport.

Not claiming to be an expert or have thorough knowledge on this subject apart from what I read and heard.

It seems like a case of Guardian Vs Wikipedia

If the Queen has this legal right, and a lawyer friend told you about it, surely they could also provide the name of the Act / Directive / legislation where this power is given.

I'd rather trust my own passport than an article out of The Naugriad.

Hmmm... I am not sure if a Legal Act / Directive / Legislation would be applicable on a Monarch, is Monarch not above the Law?

Is Yahoo trustworthy source?

Citizenship bit could be a porkie by the Guardian, but not forgetting Passports are a recent development, which are more like a legal contract/agreement between the person and the State/issuing authority.

Hence the illegal immigrants dispose off their passports, making it difficult (even impossible) to deport them.

Let's settle the original question once and for all. This is a tough one.

Duke

• "Duke" was a nickname, not his real name
• Composed more than 1,000 pieces
• 8 US/US R&B number 1 hit singles
• 12 Grammy Awards
• Made the cover of Time Magazine
• Had hits across 5 decades
• Performed across 6 decades
• Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize
• Had a coin issued in his honour
• Never heard of Prince
• Cool. Really, really cool.

Prince

• That's his real name. Had a silly symbol/nickname for a while
• Composed at least 500 and maybe more than 1,000 songs
• 9 US/US R&B number 1 hit singles
• 7 Grammy Awards
• Plenty of artists took time to cover his songs
• Had hits across 4 decades (so far)
• Performed across 5 decades (so far)
• Sold more than 100 million records -- who needs a Pulitzer Prize?
• Probably owns more coins than Duke ever did
• Lists Duke as one of his influences
• A bit effeminate, really, isn't he?

Hmmmm. Given the different eras in which they amassed these achievements, I'm going to award this to ... Duke. So, maybe Duke beats Prince after all.

Attached Thumbnails

   

Stop trolling mate, you'll get banned if some Mod sees it.

Honest question gets an honest answer.

That would have worked had you not already answered the REAL duke vs prince question......

On page 4 of my recent British citizen's passport, it states in note 2:

No right of abode in the United Kingdom derives from the status as British protected persons and British subjects

I am a citizen of the UK, but it looks as though if I was just a subject I would have no right to live in UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_citizenship "


British subjects (other than British subjects by virtue of a connection with the Republic of Ireland) and British protected persons lose British nationality upon acquiring any other form of nationality, whether British, Commonwealth or foreign.

• These provisions do not apply to British citizens.

On 1 January 1983, upon the coming into force of the British Nationality Act 1981, every Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies became either a British Citizen, British Dependent Territories Citizen or British Overseas Citizen.
The use of the term "British subject" was discontinued for all persons who fell into these categories, or who had a national citizenship of any other part of the Commonwealth. The category of "British subjects" now includes only those people formerly known as "British subjects without citizenship", and no other. In statutes passed before 1 January 1983, however, references to "British subjects" continue to be read as if they referred to "Commonwealth citizens".

Correct. For the right to live in the UK, one must be a British citizen or have the right to abode granted for some other reason (such as being born to a mother who was a British citizen)*.

Anyway, Duke beats Prince.

*Until relatively recently, a baby born to a father with British citizenship was entitled automatically to British citizenship, regardless of place of birth, but the same did not apply if it was the mother (only) who had British citizenship. In such cases, the permanent right of abode in the UK (but without other citizens' rights) was granted to the baby. This clearly sexist principle was amended in 1983, and now citizenship can be gained if either parent is a British citizen.

EDIT: It looks like the law has changed on this issue ...

and I suppose that there's still a claim to Spain and Holland too eh ?

Surprisingly, the Spanish claim only comes up when you've killed off 469 people ahead in the line of succession. However, the Spanish royals are pretty much excluded from taking over in the UK as they are Catholic. Catholics can't succeed to the British throne.

And for the Dutch royals to take over the UK they will need to kill off 867 people in line!

Basically I was really surprised how far up the succession list the King of Norway was. Who would've thunk it!?

It's useless but sort of fun information. A bit odd that "they"'ve gone through and created a line of succession that's more than 2000 people long! (And I'm not even on it! )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of...British_throne

__________________

No, the first German King of England was George the 1st, and the rest are his descendants.

Tom

The Germans are well-represented:

England
Netherlands
Belgium

to name but a few

...

and we thought the Germans were not taking over Europe

Mia
I was thinking the other way around.... since both Spain and Holland have had British queens right ?