During The American Revolutionary War, the state religion of Great Britain was Christianity?

This land ain't your land
This land ain't my land
The owner lives
On a distant island

One of his officers did issue the command "Disperse, ye rebels!"

They didn't.

There's a big difference between reality and tradition.
Strictly speaking all land in the UK belongs to the Crown.
So if you own a house in theory it is 'held from the Crown,'
as opposed to being owned outright.

In practice if the Queen tried to exercise those rights
she would be plain old Liz Windsor in a matter of seconds.

izzythepush wrote:

There's a big difference between reality and tradition.
Strictly speaking all land in the UK belongs to the Crown.
So if you own a house in theory it is 'held from the Crown,'
as opposed to being owned outright.

In practice if the Queen tried to exercise those rights
she would be plain old Liz Windsor in a matter of seconds.

That 's because the Royal Army was defeated 2ice, in the 16OOs (House of Stuart).

izzythepush wrote:

There's a big difference between reality and tradition.
Strictly speaking all land in the UK belongs to the Crown.
So if you own a house in theory it is 'held from the Crown,'
as opposed to being owned outright.

In practice if the Queen tried to exercise those rights
she would be plain old Liz Windsor in a matter of seconds.

That 's because the Royal Army was defeated 2ice, in the 16OOs (House of Stuart).

No , it's because she is merely a figurehead.
Armies and guns have nothing to do with it.

That 's because the Royal Army was defeated 2ice, in the 16OOs (House of Stuart).

oristarA wrote:

It seems that David wants to justify the invasion of England by William the Conqueror?

Yes. He was the rightful heir.

David

This land ain't your land
This land ain't my land
The owner lives
On a distant island

George wrote:

This land ain't your land
This land ain't my land
The owner lives
On a distant island

We robbed him of his real estate.
My point was that we made it clear that we objected to his
Royal abuse of our people here (taxation without representation, etc.),
but we did not explain what right that gave us to grab his property.
I don 't believe that point ever became the subject of dispute.
We did not address that point in the Declaration of Independence
and the King 's only challenge to that Declaration was purely military, not intellectual.


Re-iterating, here:
The King coud have, but did not (so far as I know)
tell the American colonists: if u don t like my rule,
then get the hell off my land and go where u prefer.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:

It seems that David wants to justify the invasion of England by William the Conqueror?

Yes. He was the rightful heir.

David

Again, on what moral code have you judged it to be rightful?

That 's because the Royal Army was defeated 2ice, in the 16OOs (House of Stuart).

3 times actually, but Charles II was still asked back when Cromwell died. By then we'd had a bellyful of generals. When parliament deposed James II he was replaced by William and Mary straight away.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

George wrote:

This land ain't your land
This land ain't my land
The owner lives
On a distant island

We robbed him of his real estate.
My point was that we made it clear that we objected to his
Royal abuse of our people here (taxation without representation, etc.),
but we did not explain what right that gave us to grab his property.
I don 't believe that point ever became the subject of dispute.
We did not address that point in the Declaration of Independence
and the King 's only challenge to that Declaration was purely military, not intellectual.


Re-iterating, here:
The King coud have, but did not (so far as I know)
tell the American colonists: if u don t like my rule,
then get the hell off my land and go where u prefer.

The answer has already been there, only if you have a comprehensive perspective on history.
Jefferson's wisdom shines once again.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:

It seems that David wants to justify the invasion of England by William the Conqueror?

Yes. He was the rightful heir.

David

Again, on what moral code have you judged it to be rightful?

Alright Omsig, don't get your knickers in a twist and go all multicoloured.

"NO. She is merely a figurehead,
because her ancestors' armies and their guns failed
and THAT has EVERYTHING to do with it."

No, the PARLIAMENT of her ancestor had the FIGUREHEAD of the King hanging around whilst they fought the colonies. They lost.

The British PARLIAMENT officially came into being about 70 years before all this happened.
The KING at the time could strut and be kingly as much as he liked, but it was PARLIAMENT that decided things.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:

It seems that David wants to justify the invasion of England by William the Conqueror?

Yes. He was the rightful heir.

David

Again, on what moral code have you judged it to be rightful?

It was up to the Witenagemot to convene and select the next Monarch.

They chose Harold.