Michael

In 1952, when George VI died, Ireland took the opportunity to redo its Constitution removing UK Sovereign as Head of State. When Elizabeth dies, how many of the 16 nations will remove the Sovereign (at that point Charles) as Head of State? I don't believe Canada will dump the House of Windsor. However what about Australia? I've heard Jamaica is considering it. There's New Zealand, Belize, & that bunch of islands out in the middle of the Pacific. How about Scotland? There's a movement afoot to separate it from the UK. Pro-separation groups have made public statements that the Sovereign will be Head of State and then made public statements that the Sovereign won't be the Head of State. So which realms will keep Charles III or George VII or whatever he chooses to call himself as their Head of State?

The Titles Deprivation Act of 1917 led to the Duke of Albany, the Duke of Cumberland, the Duke of Cumberland's son, and Henry, Viscount Taaffe to be deprived of their UK titles for fighting for the Germans & against the Brits. There was a loophole in the Act that would allow their heirs to petition the Sovereign of the UK, currently Elizabeth II, to have their titles reinstated. So why haven't they?

It's been almost a 100 years, all 4 are dead, George V is dead, and their contemporaries are dead. (Viscount Taffe's son & heir died without heirs so that title is extinct).

The "pretended" Duke of Albany is in the line of Succession to the UK throne and the "pretended" Duke of Cumberland was in the line albeit both are quite a ways down the list. As a member of the succession line, the "pretended" Duke of Cumberland, Prince Ernst August of Hanover, a German citizen, asked the Elizabeth II's permission to marry in accordance with British law(Royal Marriages Act of 1772) prior to marrying Princess Caroline of Monaco even though marrying a Catholic removes him from the succession line. This plus his many business interests in the UK demonstrate, I believe, that he isn't disinterested in UK matters and thus should be interested in having his Dukedom reinstated.

In 1917, King George V of the UK stripped the Duke of Albany and the Duke of Cumberland of their dukedoms because these 2 members of the extended British Royal Family lived in Germany and supported Germany during WW1 against Britain. However their heirs, also members of the extended British Royal Family and in the Line of Succession to the British throne, are free to request that the dukedoms be restored. The Duke of Albany would be Hubertus Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha (German Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) and the Duke of Cumberland would be Ernst August V, Prince of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick. Ernst happens to be the current husband of Princess Caroline of Monaco. (Since Caroline is Catholic, Ernst is no longer in the Line of Succession to the UK throne, but his children by his previous wife are). So what gives? It's been almost 100 years since WW1 and since these dukedoms are still being held in reserve for these guys restoration shouldn't be a problem. In fact their respective fathers and grandfathers could have asked for restoration. It's not like they don't play by British Royalty rules, Ernst even asked Queen Elizabeth's permission to marry Caroline

Before military action against Afghanistan, Bush got Congressional approval, spoke to the American people beforehand, even got UN and NATO sanctioning, and there were war protesters demonstrating against it.......Before military action against Iraq, Bush got Congressional approval, spoke to the American people beforehand, and there were war protesters demonstrating against it.......Before military action against Libya, Obama did nothing. He just attacked. He didn't speak to Congress beforehand, let alone get approval. His own Secretary of Defense stated on national TV on a Sunday Morning News Talk program that he didn't know why we were in Libya. Obama didn't speak to the American people beforehand, in fact he stayed in South America a few more days before coming home and still didn't speak to the American people for 3 days after that. Yet, no war protesters. In fact, other than some grumbling from Congressional Republicans and Democrats about not being informed let alone getting approval there has been silence. No protests, no demonstrations. Nothing. Why? Is it because it's a Democratic administration conducting the war this time or is it because there are indeed war protesters and media outlets aren't publicizing them due to their continuing love affair with Obama or is it because US ground troops are not involved?

Everywhere Calipari goes at the college level (UMass and Memphis) he leaves behind a program on probation, wins forfeited, championships and Final 4s vacated. Tarkanian at Long Beach State, UNLV, and then Fresno State----programs on probation, wins forfeited, law suits....so who's worse? Also will Calipari do to Kentucky what he has done before and Ky will be forced in about 3-5 years to forfeit this year's wins and vacate the East Regional Champ. or National Champ?

Ted Kennedy challenged President Jimmy Carter in the 1980 Democratic Primaries and Convention. Carter won, primarily thanks to Primary/Convention Rules of the time regarding delegates. The Dems changed the rules because of 1980 and if today's rules were in place in 1980, Kennedy would have defeated Carter at the Convention and faced Reagan in the 1980 General Election. So Reagan vs Kennedy. Who wins and why?

Everybody knows that Reagan beat Carter in 1980. However, Reagan came very close to beating Gerald Ford at the 1976 Republican Convention. Had Reagan beaten Ford and faced Carter in the General Election, could Reagan have won? Remember----1976--no hostages in Iran; no energy crisis; economy not in the tank primarily due to Carter's policies; Watergate, Nixon's resignation, and Ford's pardon of Nixon still fresh in everyone's minds. Under those political conditions does Reagan win? or would it be like 2008----the US would have voted for any Democrat with a pulse regardless of who the Republicans put up?

Typically before any military action, the US President informs the Speaker of the US House, the President Pro Tempore of the US Senate and the leadership of the Republicans and Democrats in both the House and Senate. This time around, the Speaker and other Republicans as well as many Democrats in both the House and Senate are upset that Obama didn't inform Congress let alone consult them. They found out about US military action in Libya the same way the rest of America did.....they saw it on the news.

Also back about 2005-06, then- US Senator, now US Vice President Joe Biden said that any US President who commits to military action without Congressional approval should be impeached. He probably has a different opinion now.

Who decides which ship gets what name? Is it the House and/or Senate Armed Services Committee? Someone in the office of the Secretary of the Navy or someone in the office of the Chief of Naval Operations. I have researched, but all I can find is that a name was assigned or that some group petitioned for a particular name. Not who did the actual assigning.