Marry Harry?

@IAmJess So basically U don't give a f**k?

@Adam1985 About some random dude in England getting married? Why would I?

What I really don't understand is why England still believes in royalty and royal blood and all that stupidity in 2018.

Tradition?🤷

@IAmJess You reside in a country where a majority of people believe in an invisible man in the sky who grants wishes...

I think having royalty is at least a little more sensible than that 🤔

@Quizzical Royalty is an offshoot of that. The monarchy is the monarchy because it is "anointed" by god almighty.

At least here believing in a god or gods is optional. In England it is part of your government and laws.

@IAmJess Actually, their ancestors tended to end up monarchs & leaders because they were bigger murdering bastards than everyone else around them.

The 'annointed by god' bullshit came a lot later.

@Quizzical Yes, of course. I wasn't implying that the anointed by god thing was actually real.

But today, in 2018, the United Kingdom does indeed state that it is ruled by God's personal representative here on earth. 🙄

So pick on my country all you want for believing in god. At least here it is a personal choice.

@IAmJess None of us actually believe it, and the Monarch doesn't really have any power... It's just someone to send to foreign countries, wave a lot, and attract tourists.

@Quizzical Dude, you're missing my point entirely. I know most of you don't believe it (at least I certainly hope you don't).

But it's the Supreme law in your country. "God save the queen" and all that. Every single law passed by parliament needs her approval before it becomes law.

@IAmJess No one in the UK is forced to believe in god. It's personal choice here as well. Richard Dawkins would have been locked up long ago if it wasn't. 😉

@IAmJess It's a token procedure... She'd never really be able to say no. Power on paper but none in reality.

@fazer1k I know no one is forced to believe anything. That would be silly. But Quiz was criticizing America because some people here do believe in God. (So what?) My response was to point out that the UK is based on the premise that God has "anointed" your monarch.

@Quizzical You can say that if you want, but no law passed in your country is valid unless approved by God's representative. That is silly. You criticize America because some people believe in God and yet your country requires God's approval on everything. That's the epitome of hypocrisy.

@IAmJess Do you know how the Church of England was formed?

@IAmJess I don't understand your hostility - actually all I said is that no one in the UK is forced to believe in god. I said nothing about America. And, yes, many historic ideas are ridiculous by modern standards. The queen has no authority over parliament now. If you have been taught differently you were taught wrongly.

@Quizzical Yes, it was a break from the Holy Roman Catholic Church due to a dispute between the King and the Pope over a divorce. Why?

@fazer1k I'm not intending to sound hostile at all. If I am coming across that way, then I apologize.

I didn't claim that you said anything about America. I was telling you why I said what I said. It was because Quiz (Quizzical) criticized America because some people believe in God. I'm not sure why that is such a negative, but his words clearly indicate that to him it was a criticism.

My claim was not that the queen currently exercises any authority over parliament. What I said was that the basis for your law, the very foundation of it by your government's own definition, is the authority of God vested in the monarchy.

When your parliament passes a law, it is not exercising power granted to it by the people. It is exercising the power of God Almighty vested in it by the queen. That is your law, not my opinion. My point was that in 2018, that seems a bit absurd.

@IAmJess The situation you describe is totally absurd but it's bound to be historic and many such laws (as I understand it) become irrelevant over time but no one bothers to change or repeal them. I just know how the system works here in practice which is Parliament first, House of Lords approve (or not). I don't know if the queen performs a rubber stamping type exercise but, if she does, a rubber stamping technicality must be all it is.

Regarding 'Quiz' I guess I'm blocked so don't see his posts. If the latter part of your comment was directed to him the name must have been hidden from me so I wasn't aware. (Oops!)

@fazer1k Oh! I had no idea you couldn't see his comments!! Lol, then yes, half of my comments must have made no sense!

And yes, in your system (which I just finished studying) the House of Commons (the lower chamber of parliament) passes an act first and then it is sent to the House of Lords (the upper chamber of parliament). If both chambers approve the Act, then it is sent to the queen for royal assent. It does not become law until the Queen provides her assent.

Rubber stamp or not, that is your law. And the power that your Parliament (Commons & Lords) exercises is power that was granted to it by previous kings & queens and they got the power from god. Crazy, huh?

In our case, the power that our Congress wields was granted to it by the people through the states.

@IAmJess Ahh, we have someone I cannot see... That would explain why some of your comments made little sense to me either, lol

@Quizzical Lol, yes, I've been talking to both of you and not understanding why things were getting so confusing!!! hahahaha

Quizzical & fazer1k ... I guess at some point, one of you didn't like the other. But right now, you are of almost one mind on this topic. :)

@IAmJess I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day, lol

@Quizzical I love that saying.