On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:40:15 GMT, "John Briggs"
 wrote:

>John Bean wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:56:15 GMT, "John Briggs"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
>>>> In article <QluGi.29336$ka7.19946@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, John Briggs
>>>>  writes
>>>>> The Queen is *Suzerain* of Mann.  The last Under-King (Lord) of
>>>>> Mann sold the office to the Home Office in 1765.  It is absurd to
>>>>> claim that the Queen is Lord of Mann, as that is a subordinate
>>>>> feudal position.
>>>>
>>>> I won't claim to be an expert in feudal law, but I will note that it
>>>> is not at all unknown for the same person to hold several feudal
>>>> titles simultaneously.
>>>
>>> Not ones subordinate to each other.
>>
>> Isn't the Duke of Lancaster subordinate to the Monarch? It's
>> not a rhetorical question, I don't know the answer but
>> assumed it to be the case.
>>
>> And of course Brenda is the current Duke of Lancaster,
>> whether or not she's Lord of Mann.
>>
>> Or am I writing bollocks? (again!)
>
>You are indeed.  The Duchy of Lancaster is in exactly the same position as 
>the Lordship (Kingship) of Man - they have both reverted to the Crown, so 
>there is no current occupant. 

Hm. So this is wrong?

"The Queen is Duke of Lancaster [...]"
(http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page2014.asp)

I don't know much about this subject, but I'm not inclined
to take your word for it when it disagrees with many
references I've scanned. This is just one of many "official"
references that disagree with you and I've yet to find one
that does...

-- 
John Bean

John Bean wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:40:15 GMT, "John Briggs"
>  wrote:
>
>> John Bean wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:56:15 GMT, "John Briggs"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
>>>>> In article <QluGi.29336$ka7.19946@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, John
>>>>> Briggs  writes
>>>>>> The Queen is *Suzerain* of Mann.  The last Under-King (Lord) of
>>>>>> Mann sold the office to the Home Office in 1765.  It is absurd to
>>>>>> claim that the Queen is Lord of Mann, as that is a subordinate
>>>>>> feudal position.
>>>>>
>>>>> I won't claim to be an expert in feudal law, but I will note that
>>>>> it is not at all unknown for the same person to hold several
>>>>> feudal titles simultaneously.
>>>>
>>>> Not ones subordinate to each other.
>>>
>>> Isn't the Duke of Lancaster subordinate to the Monarch? It's
>>> not a rhetorical question, I don't know the answer but
>>> assumed it to be the case.
>>>
>>> And of course Brenda is the current Duke of Lancaster,
>>> whether or not she's Lord of Mann.
>>>
>>> Or am I writing bollocks? (again!)
>>
>> You are indeed.  The Duchy of Lancaster is in exactly the same
>> position as the Lordship (Kingship) of Man - they have both reverted
>> to the Crown, so there is no current occupant.
>
> Hm. So this is wrong?
>
> "The Queen is Duke of Lancaster [...]"
> (http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page2014.asp)
>
> I don't know much about this subject, but I'm not inclined
> to take your word for it when it disagrees with many
> references I've scanned. This is just one of many "official"
> references that disagree with you and I've yet to find one
> that does...

And that makes me wrong, how?  That page is really just for Americans - and 
is less accurate than the one cited earlier.
-- 
John Briggs

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:23:53 GMT, "John Briggs"
 wrote:

>And that makes me wrong, how?  That page is really just for Americans - and 
>is less accurate than the one cited earlier.

So you say. Without anything to back it up of course.

Par for the course around here though, so carry on chaps.

-- 
John Bean

On 2007-09-17, John Briggs  wrote:
>> "The Queen is Duke of Lancaster [...]"
>> (http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page2014.asp)
>
> And that makes me wrong, how?  That page is really just for Americans - and 
> is less accurate than the one cited earlier.

"The Duke of Lancaster has been the reigning sovereign, the King or
Queen, since 1399."
http://www.army.mod.uk/lancs/history/the_duchy.htm

"The estates and jurisdiction known as the Duchy of Lancaster have
belonged to the reigning Sovereign as Duke of Lancaster since 1399."
http://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/output/page5.asp

So, the Queen's official website, the Duchy of Lancaster's official
website, and the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment official website all
say absolutely unequivocally that the Queen is the Duke of Lancaster.

But John Briggs begs to differ! Who to believe, who to believe...?

(As an aside, Burke's Peerage says that, contrary to what you said
ealrier, the Queen *is* her own Lord High Admiral. But I'm sure
they don't know anything about such things.)

Are you engaged on some weird trolling competition? I've left
opportunity for a spelling flame if you'd like.

Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2007-09-17, John Briggs  wrote:
>>> "The Queen is Duke of Lancaster [...]"
>>> (http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page2014.asp)
>>
>> And that makes me wrong, how?  That page is really just for
>> Americans - and is less accurate than the one cited earlier.
>
> "The Duke of Lancaster has been the reigning sovereign, the King or
> Queen, since 1399."
> http://www.army.mod.uk/lancs/history/the_duchy.htm

Plain wrong - but firmly believed in Lancashire, and by the Duke of 
Lancaster's Regiment, of course.

> "The estates and jurisdiction known as the Duchy of Lancaster have
> belonged to the reigning Sovereign as Duke of Lancaster since 1399."
> http://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/output/page5.asp

That is an overstatement of the position.  Certainly, the Duchy has been 
retained by the Crown since 1399.

> So, the Queen's official website, the Duchy of Lancaster's official
> website, and the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment official website all
> say absolutely unequivocally that the Queen is the Duke of Lancaster.
>
> But John Briggs begs to differ! Who to believe, who to believe...?

Well, which one of us is being contemptuous of your intelligence by peddling 
fables which they think you will believe?

> (As an aside, Burke's Peerage says that, contrary to what you said
> ealrier, the Queen *is* her own Lord High Admiral. But I'm sure
> they don't know anything about such things.)

They don't. That's probably not the best source for an authoritative listing 
of the Royal Titles anyway.

While we're at it, the Chief of the Naval Staff calls himself the First Sea 
Lord. What do you think he is a Lord Commissioner of?
-- 
John Briggs

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:14:16 GMT, "John Briggs"
 wrote:

>Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> http://www.army.mod.uk/lancs/history/the_duchy.htm
>
>Plain wrong [...]

>> http://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/output/page5.asp
>
>That is an overstatement of the position. [...]

>> (As an aside, Burke's Peerage says that, contrary to what you said
>> ealrier, the Queen *is* her own Lord High Admiral. But I'm sure
>> they don't know anything about such things.)
>
>They don't. [...]

Well bugger me, what a pack of fools they all are. The whole
world is marching out of step, only little Johnnie Briggs is
in step!

Nice one John.

-- 
John Bean

John Bean wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:14:16 GMT, "John Briggs"
>  wrote:
>
>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> http://www.army.mod.uk/lancs/history/the_duchy.htm
>>
>> Plain wrong [...]
>
>>> http://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/output/page5.asp
>>
>> That is an overstatement of the position. [...]
>
>>> (As an aside, Burke's Peerage says that, contrary to what you said
>>> ealrier, the Queen *is* her own Lord High Admiral. But I'm sure
>>> they don't know anything about such things.)
>>
>> They don't. [...]
>
> Well bugger me, what a pack of fools they all are. The whole
> world is marching out of step, only little Johnnie Briggs is
> in step!
>
> Nice one John.

Are you actually contributing anything to this discussion?  You are not in a 
position to make an informed judgement.
-- 
John Briggs

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:23:18 GMT, "John Briggs"
 wrote:
> You are not in a position to make an informed judgement.

You seem to know everythin John, even down to my "position".
John Briggs, fount of all knowledge.

Do carry on making a fool of yourself, it's amusing.

-- 
John Bean

John Bean wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:23:18 GMT, "John Briggs"
>  wrote:
>> You are not in a position to make an informed judgement.
>
> You seem to know everythin John, even down to my "position".

"Supine", I would imagine.

> John Briggs, fount of all knowledge.

Funnily enough, that is one of my strengths.

> Do carry on making a fool of yourself, it's amusing.

I repeat, what have you actually contributed on this point?
-- 
John Briggs

"David G. Bell" wrote:
> On Tuesday, in article
>     
>     waterfoot@gmail.com "John Bean" wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:23:18 GMT, "John Briggs"
>>  wrote:
>>> You are not in a position to make an informed judgement.
>>
>> You seem to know everythin John, even down to my "position".
>> John Briggs, fount of all knowledge.
>>
>> Do carry on making a fool of yourself, it's amusing.
>
> I can see there being web pages getting this wrong.
>
> But the claim that this includes www.royal.gov.uk is a trifle far-
> fetched. Similarly for Burke's Peerage: they're the professionals in
> this.
>
> There's been flashes of jargon in this, and I wouldn't be surprised if
> that jargon leads to misunderstandings, but I don't see any strong
> evidence for Mr. Briggs' position, even if the rest of us have
> misunderstood some terms.

Let's take the simplest case, which no-one has answered: the Chief of the 
Naval Staff calls himself the First Sea Lord. What do you think he is a Lord 
Commissioner of?
-- 
John Briggs

"David G. Bell" wrote:
> On Tuesday, in article
>     <yLPHi.66127$1G1.47348@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>
>     john.briggs4@ntlworld.com "John Briggs" wrote:
>
>> "David G. Bell" wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, in article
>>>     
>>>     waterfoot@gmail.com "John Bean" wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:23:18 GMT, "John Briggs"
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>> You are not in a position to make an informed judgement.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to know everythin John, even down to my "position".
>>>> John Briggs, fount of all knowledge.
>>>>
>>>> Do carry on making a fool of yourself, it's amusing.
>>>
>>> I can see there being web pages getting this wrong.
>>>
>>> But the claim that this includes www.royal.gov.uk is a trifle far-
>>> fetched. Similarly for Burke's Peerage: they're the professionals in
>>> this.
>>>
>>> There's been flashes of jargon in this, and I wouldn't be surprised
>>> if that jargon leads to misunderstandings, but I don't see any
>>> strong evidence for Mr. Briggs' position, even if the rest of us
>>> have misunderstood some terms.
>>
>> Let's take the simplest case, which no-one has answered: the Chief
>> of the Naval Staff calls himself the First Sea Lord. What do you
>> think he is a Lord Commissioner of?
>
> Does he have to be a Commissioner of anything.

You seem to have a remarkable lack of curiosity - as well as a trusting 
nature :-)

> And he doesn't "call himself" the First Sea Lord. It's what the Royal
> Navy calls him.

[I think, in the circumstances, he would be the one to tell them to call him 
that]  OK, why do they call him that?  How long have they called him that? 
What is the justification (since 1 April 1964) for calling him that?

> "First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff" is what the Royal Navy
> website calls him. He's on a list of "Naval Members of the Admiralty
> Board" which can be found on www.royal-navy.mod.uk

And what is the "Admiralty Board"?

> I think the Royal Navy might know what they are doing.

You obviously haven't worked with the Royal Navy :-)
-- 
John Briggs

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:40:34 GMT, "John Briggs"
 wrote:

>John Bean wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:23:18 GMT, "John Briggs"
>>  wrote:
>>> You are not in a position to make an informed judgement.
>>
>> You seem to know everythin John, even down to my "position".
>
>"Supine", I would imagine.
>
>> John Briggs, fount of all knowledge.
>
>Funnily enough, that is one of my strengths.
>
>> Do carry on making a fool of yourself, it's amusing.
>
>I repeat, what have you actually contributed on this point?

Some facts.

James Farrar wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:40:34 GMT, "John Briggs"
>  wrote:
>
>> John Bean wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:23:18 GMT, "John Briggs"
>>>  wrote:
>>>> You are not in a position to make an informed judgement.
>>>
>>> You seem to know everythin John, even down to my "position".
>>
>> "Supine", I would imagine.
>>
>>> John Briggs, fount of all knowledge.
>>
>> Funnily enough, that is one of my strengths.
>>
>>> Do carry on making a fool of yourself, it's amusing.
>>
>> I repeat, what have you actually contributed on this point?
>
> Some facts.

No, he has contributed a single link to a web-page.
-- 
John Briggs

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:51:09 GMT, "John Briggs"
 wrote:

>James Farrar wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:40:34 GMT, "John Briggs"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> John Bean wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:23:18 GMT, "John Briggs"
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>> You are not in a position to make an informed judgement.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to know everythin John, even down to my "position".
>>>
>>> "Supine", I would imagine.
>>>
>>>> John Briggs, fount of all knowledge.
>>>
>>> Funnily enough, that is one of my strengths.
>>>
>>>> Do carry on making a fool of yourself, it's amusing.
>>>
>>> I repeat, what have you actually contributed on this point?
>>
>> Some facts.
>
>No, he has contributed a single link to a web-page.

The two statements are equivalent when the web-page in question is the
definitive word on the subject.

What I don't understand is why you have this bee in your bonnet.

James Farrar wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:51:09 GMT, "John Briggs"
>  wrote:
>
>> James Farrar wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:40:34 GMT, "John Briggs"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Bean wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:23:18 GMT, "John Briggs"
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>> You are not in a position to make an informed judgement.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to know everythin John, even down to my "position".
>>>>
>>>> "Supine", I would imagine.
>>>>
>>>>> John Briggs, fount of all knowledge.
>>>>
>>>> Funnily enough, that is one of my strengths.
>>>>
>>>>> Do carry on making a fool of yourself, it's amusing.
>>>>
>>>> I repeat, what have you actually contributed on this point?
>>>
>>> Some facts.
>>
>> No, he has contributed a single link to a web-page.
>
> The two statements are equivalent when the web-page in question is the
> definitive word on the subject.
>
> What I don't understand is why you have this bee in your bonnet.

Because the web-page is wrong - it is peddling a myth.  And myths are never 
harmless.  (For example, one theoretical basis of Fascism is the 
institutionalisation of the Myth.)
-- 
John Briggs

In  on Tue, 18 Sep 2007
15:26:48 +0100 (BST), dbell@zhochaka.org.uk ("David G. Bell")
wrote:

>I think the Royal Navy might know what they are doing.

Absolutely.

"Left hand up a bit, number 1"

"Aye, aye, ski..... I say, anyone speak Iranian?"

-- 
DG