Meet the Dragons

[Dr. Caligari]

The "14 words" is a slogan of U.S.-based neo-Nazi white supremacists. First time I've seen it used by anyone in the U.K. Scary.

[morrand]

It ties into something else I'd happened across, though, which is explained in the last paragraph of the Wikipedia entry under White dragon.

I hope this is just a nasty coincidence. Not optimistic of it being so, but I hope that it is.

[grixit]

There was a time when 'rough music' meant something. The victim was suitably ashamed and the perpetrators had a legitimate grievance. Now, it's just a few numpties rattling saucepans.

Rough music has always been a local practice, internal to the community. It was never acceptable for the peasants to shame the crown.

[letissier14]

Pretend Dragons, lead by professional begger Graham Moore, are writing to the Queen to tell her they will be attending Buckingham Palace to petition her

[Gregg]

So, these aren't the awful webels who are in awful webellion against the Queen, and they don't seem to put much stock in Magnum Carter? Its so hard to keep all the nuts in the proper packets.
And I'm a dirty colonist so help me out, but isn't HM The Queen the Sovereign? And the government is HER government, and in formality if not practically doesn't Parliament answer to her, and serve at her pleasure?

I'm not sure your dragons know much about how your country is actually governed.

[katiHWB]

Pretend Dragons, lead by professional begger Graham Moore, are writing to the Queen to tell her they will be attending Buckingham Palace to petition her

But ... William III (the Prince of Orange they are referring to from 1688) was not British by birth. He was born in The Hague (Dutch Republic) in 1650 and inherited the title from his father Stadtholder William II ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_II_of_Orange ) at birth.
Although the Treaty of Westminster ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of ... ter_(1654) ) ~ that ended the Anglo-Dutch War ~ had an annex (the Act of Seclusion - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Seclusion ) that forbade any member of the House of Orange becoming Stadtholder. This Act was declared void after the English Restoration ... paving the way for William III to rise in power.

How can these "White Pen dragons" say that a foreigner's rules are lawful when our own country's legislations and laws are not??

[The Seventh String]

So, these aren't the awful webels who are in awful webellion against the Queen, and they don't seem to put much stock in Magnum Carter? Its so hard to keep all the nuts in the proper packets.
And I'm a dirty colonist so help me out, but isn't HM The Queen the Sovereign? And the government is HER government, and in formality if not practically doesn't Parliament answer to her, and serve at her pleasure?

I'm not sure your dragons know much about how your country is actually governed.

They seem to know very little.

The Queen is the Sovereign and head of state, but though she reigns she does not rule.

She can not over-rule Parliament and Parliament could dispense with the monarchy in a space of a few minutes if it wanted to. The sovereign legislative and executive body in the UK is “The Queen In Parliament” but it’s Parliament that calls all the shots if push comes to shove. The Queen mostly provides a kind of constitutional back-stop in that an Act isn’t law until she signs it so if Parliament didn’t follow correct procedure the Queen is supposed to refuse to sign off the legislation.

But in practice she signs off everything and lets the courts worry about the legality. She is responsible for disolving Parliament and triggering a general election, but can only do that if requested to by the sitting Prime Minister or a petition from a majority of MPs in the Commons. The Queen formally appoints “her” Prime Minister but it’s always the MP who seems most able to command a majority of votes in the Commons if a motion of “no confidence in the government” is moved.

There’s also this thing called “The Crown”, which once meant the sovereign in person but hasn’t for a very long time. Nowadays it’s kind of the perpetual establishment and property of the UK state. It employs the civil service, manages the Crown estates - land, buildings etc., the courts and other state functions.

Despite what some think, we don’t have to bow to anyone nor obey anyone just because they are called Lord, Duke or even Your Majesty. There’s no legal obligation for the citizenry to refer to the Queen other than as Ms Elizabeth Windsor. The last two monarchs who tried to rule as well as reign didn’t come out of it very well. The first lost his head (Charles I, 1649) and the second had to be slung out and replaced by his daughter and Dutch son-in law (James II, 1688). When the monarch dies or abdicates it is Parliament who decides who their heir and successor is.

For a brief explanation of the UK’s complex constitution, try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitut ... ed_Kingdom

Read that and you will know more than all the FOTLers there have ever been or will be.
Read that and you will understand more than all the FOTLers combined.

[The Seventh String]

How can these "White Pen dragons" say that a foreigner's rules are lawful when our own country's legislations and laws are not??

Expecting sense out of people who think Magna Carta (which Magna Carta, there were several...) is unalterable law for all time is a pretty hopeless task.

Especially when William and Mary, the son-in-law and daughter of the reigning James II, became joint monarchs because an Act of Parliament said James wasn’t monarch and they were.

Parliament has been the legal sovereign power and decided who, if anyone, the monarch of the United Kingdom is ever since Charles I had a very severe haircut in January 1649.

[grixit]

What i've been wondering is why they use the phrase "pen dragon". Is it possible that they do not know that "pendragon", one word, is a supposed chiefly title assigned to the legendary Arthur and his also legendary father Uther? Do they think that "pen dragon", two words, is an official title for a "lawful rebel", perhaps meaning "one who writes ferociously in ink"?

[notorial dissent]

Oh come on Grixit, you know darn good and well that ignorant and illiterate go hand in hand as those missives clearly prove. I seriously doubt they even know what the word actually means.

[Gregg]

So, these aren't the awful webels who are in awful webellion against the Queen, and they don't seem to put much stock in Magnum Carter? Its so hard to keep all the nuts in the proper packets.
And I'm a dirty colonist so help me out, but isn't HM The Queen the Sovereign? And the government is HER government, and in formality if not practically doesn't Parliament answer to her, and serve at her pleasure?

I'm not sure your dragons know much about how your country is actually governed.

They seem to know very little.

The Queen is the Sovereign and head of state, but though she reigns she does not rule.

She can not over-rule Parliament and Parliament could dispense with the monarchy in a space of a few minutes if it wanted to. The sovereign legislative and executive body in the UK is “The Queen In Parliament” but it’s Parliament that calls all the shots if push comes to shove. The Queen mostly provides a kind of constitutional back-stop in that an Act isn’t law until she signs it so if Parliament didn’t follow correct procedure the Queen is supposed to refuse to sign off the legislation.

But in practice she signs off everything and lets the courts worry about the legality. She is responsible for disolving Parliament and triggering a general election, but can only do that if requested to by the sitting Prime Minister or a petition from a majority of MPs in the Commons. The Queen formally appoints “her” Prime Minister but it’s always the MP who seems most able to command a majority of votes in the Commons if a motion of “no confidence in the government” is moved.

There’s also this thing called “The Crown”, which once meant the sovereign in person but hasn’t for a very long time. Nowadays it’s kind of the perpetual establishment and property of the UK state. It employs the civil service, manages the Crown estates - land, buildings etc., the courts and other state functions.

Despite what some think, we don’t have to bow to anyone nor obey anyone just because they are called Lord, Duke or even Your Majesty. There’s no legal obligation for the citizenry to refer to the Queen other than as Ms Elizabeth Windsor. The last two monarchs who tried to rule as well as reign didn’t come out of it very well. The first lost his head (Charles I, 1649) and the second had to be slung out and replaced by his daughter and Dutch son-in law (James II, 1688). When the monarch dies or abdicates it is Parliament who decides who their heir and successor is.

For a brief explanation of the UK’s complex constitution, try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitut ... ed_Kingdom

Read that and you will know more than all the FOTLers there have ever been or will be.
Read that and you will understand more than all the FOTLers combined.

Actually, my question was rhetorical, I pretty much knew all that, but thanks.

[The Seventh String]

I was feeling in a literal mood

[letissier14]

Well the Dragons have turned up at Buckingham Palace in force ~ well two of them

https://www.facebook.com/graham.moore.1 ... 715314691/

[Hercule Parrot]

Well the Dragons have turned up at Buckingham Palace in force ~ well two of them
https://www.facebook.com/graham.moore.1 ... 715314691/

Goodness me, that helmet doesn't do any favours for Graham Moore. Accentuates his fat, smirking face. And his style of speech and accent is appalling, he sounds like a comedian's parody of a stupid, belligerent racist.

[He Who Knows]

Jeez, how many times does he have to mention "Constitutional Hill"? It's actually called Constitution Hill. And it's nothing to do with the English/British Constitution because we don't have one, Graham.

The road obtained its name in the 17th century from King Charles II's habit of taking constitutional walks there.

[notorial dissent]

Well, that's two more than I expected.

What I said about illiterate and ignorant still applies.

[SteveUK]

Sad sad sad individuals.

[King Lud]

An embarrassing display of absolute ignorance. The story of his encounter with the police is obviously total b.s. As is the nonsense about the police being told to expect them. I'm sure the Met were all briefed to be ready for two half wits spouting nonsense.

The way things are in London and around the palace they really should be careful what they wish for. If the police do actually start paying attention to them they might get a bit more than they bargained for and no amount of spluttering about statutes will help them.

[notorial dissent]

An embarrassing display of absolute ignorance. The story of his encounter with the police is obviously total b.s. As is the nonsense about the police being told to expect them. I'm sure the Met were all briefed to be ready for two half wits spouting nonsense.

The way things are in London and around the palace they really should be careful what they wish for. If the police do actually start paying attention to them they might get a bit more than they bargained for and no amount of spluttering about statutes will help them.

I think you're giving them far more credit than is due, maybe barely a quarter each.

[ArthurWankspittle]

An embarrassing display of absolute ignorance. The story of his encounter with the police is obviously total b.s. As is the nonsense about the police being told to expect them. I'm sure the Met were all briefed to be ready for two half wits spouting nonsense.

The way things are in London and around the palace they really should be careful what they wish for. If the police do actually start paying attention to them they might get a bit more than they bargained for and no amount of spluttering about statutes will help them.

Or a bit of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmGQo_ETwTA