Jul 24, 2013 12:11 AM

I wonder who was first in line to give her the sperm infusion. I guess we'll have to wait and see who the little creature looks like.

Hmmmmm, I'm willing to put a fiver on Harry the alleged Di-Hewitt love child making a run for power...after all, he's bound to be more fun in the sack than his half brother boring Bill :P

The shamrock toting princess has sired... not the harp which represents the 26 county body politic, The shamrock which was used by the vatican in the st. patrick "story" there is a huge media push here in ireland to share in the "joy" & psychologically accept his birth/title, we recently had the queens ceremonial visit/inspection... can you give me your view on whats unfolding for ireland please Scott??

I haven't tried ROYAL baby before... they might be good eatin' if shake n baked...

you've said before that 400million sovereigns in the US were a massive problem. my understanding of the set up here is that the state, the commercial entity was granted sovereignty in its internal policies?, our declaration of independence was only recognised by Russia & there has been talk of taking oaths to queen lizzy on here, i know i speak for others when i say our current "beliefs" make us choke on that thought, while not part of the UK/commonwealth its obvious they are still here, thats a fact, so, whats our standing? whats the bigger picture here? i have beliefs that need kicking?

"sovereignty in its internal policies" - ALL private trusts have that.

so the king in 1922 was the settlor(also trustee, the state is also the trustee/same PERSON, we the benficiaries, who haven't formally appointed administrators & so fiduciary duty on the trustee forces them to act, that exact trust is still in place today & why queenie was "FORCED" to inspect?, so by setting up private trusts & operating through them we gain equal footing with the state? the first trust evolved from taking control of nobles castles in england all the way up to entire countries but this was all done from the perspective of the first trust, meaning they always are acting in our interest under LAW, however they can rely on our ignorance to allow them full benefit of ourselves & resources in the meantime ..... or am i way off bat here??

My head is about to explode, I am taking a couple days.. Time for some weed and and hookers...

pmsl, i call this feeling my "squirm" but i'm done running from it (Y)

I am on overload... perma confused these days.. I need a little rest..

the 1922 constitution "included an oath to the king".... The trust is governed by the terms under which it was created which would be the constitution. Although the Oath doesn't appear in the 1937 constitution, it didn't need to be because nothing effected the terms of the first & only trust... it was merely window dressing? the trust is their intelectual property & so the creation of a trust must be done in the same manner... by swearing an oath? i'm sorry for this but its neccesary for me to understand because the suggestion of that oath has caused me mental consternation, i'm being a victim of irish history books i know.

Quebecers version of Ant-Terrorist :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyUGl3sxvHY

Scott Duncan: "sovereignty in its internal policies" - ALL private trusts have that

Nice....added that! ;-)