[joeysteele]

The question is, is it morally right.
The only answer can be really is yes.
Morally, legally and constitutionally right.
Because it is the new King's decision to make and he has.

Personal feelings for or against are immaterial.
So yes it's morally right.

[Kazanne]

Im not bothered either way,I do feel a bit sorry for her though,some of the names she gets called are awfully unkind, I kind of warmed to her when she was a good friend of Paul O Gradys and is an ambassador for battersby dogs home and have seen that she is a very kind lady,I loved Diana too,but she has gone we cant change the past and as Ive said before just because someone is beautiful doesnt not make them someone who can do no wrong , behind closed doors and all that

[smudgie]

She is the Queen as she is married to the King.
In the same way Diana would have been and that Kate will be one day.

[bots]

how would chess work if the king and queen were equal

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

how would chess work if the king and queen were equal

It would stop the king being so useless

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

how would chess work if the king and queen were equal

Good point !!

I wonder why the creators gave all the power to the Queen ??

Very modern idea !!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Zizu

Good point !!

I wonder why the creators gave all the power to the Queen ??

Very modern idea !!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

?

Do you play chess?

The Queen is the strongest and most useful piece on the board but the game is about killing the King ... the King is still the rimary piece on the board. A skilled enough player can win a game of chess even if they lose their queen half way through the game. Probably not against a very good/evenly matched player, but a professional player would likely still easily beat an average player even if they started with NO queen at all.

I suppose you could modernise the game by letting the player pick which piece takes each role? An interesting twist .

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

?

Do you play chess?

The Queen is the strongest and most useful piece on the board but the game is about killing the King ... the King is still the rimary piece on the board. A skilled enough player can win a game of chess even if they lose their queen half way through the game. Probably not against a very good/evenly matched player, but a professional player would likely still easily beat an average player even if they started with NO queen at all.

I suppose you could modernise the game by letting the player pick which piece takes each role? An interesting twist .

I know the basics and even then I always relied very heavily on the Queen


As regards your idea about choosing which piece plays which role .. I’m thinking you could spice things up by each having two all-powerful Queens !!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Zizu

I know the basics and even then I always relied very heavily on the Queen


As regards your idea about choosing which piece plays which role .. I’m thinking you could spice things up by each having two all-powerful Queens !!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

You can promote pawns to queens so, technically, you could have up to 9 queens. Realistically more than 2 or 3 seems unlikely

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Zizu

Good point !!

I wonder why the creators gave all the power to the Queen ??

Very modern idea !!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Before chess came to Europe there was no queen, the piece was the king's advisor but its moves were more restricted. The queen was introduced to Europe in the 15th century and it's believed the queen was made a powerful figure because of European queens at the time and their power struggles. That's how I understand it at least.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

Before chess came to Europe there was no queen, the piece was the king's advisor but its moves were more restricted. The queen was introduced to Europe in the 15th century and it's believed the queen was made a powerful figure because of European queens at the time and their power struggles. That's how I understand it at least.

That's quite interesting actually Livia . It does make sense in terms of how the game is played, that the "King" is really just a generic "ruler" (be it king, Queen, Emperor or whatever) and the "Queen" is more like a Game-of-Thrones style "Kingsguard".

[UserSince2005]

Queen of the *****s, yes

[user104658]

The concept of royalty and inheritance of titles by birthright (and by extension marriage) is inherently immoral so it's not "morally right" for any of them to be known as any of these titles.

However, taking as given that these titles are going to continue to exist, it's a bit of a fudging of the question as I understand it? The two categories are "Queen Consort" and "Queen Regnant", both of which are types of "Queen". So Elizabeth was Queen Regnant, Camilla is Queen Consort, but both can be referred to in the shorthand as "The Queen".

[bots]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

The concept of royalty and inheritance of titles by birthright (and by extension marriage) is inherently immoral so it's not "morally right" for any of them to be known as any of these titles.

However, taking as given that these titles are going to continue to exist, it's a bit of a fudging of the question as I understand it? The two categories are "Queen Consort" and "Queen Regnant", both of which are types of "Queen". So Elizabeth was Queen Regnant, Camilla is Queen Consort, but both can be referred to in the shorthand as "The Queen".

and for Alf, they can both be shortened to 'Q''

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

and for Alf, they can both be shortened to 'Q''

I’ve shortened it to ….

Na .. best not




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

The concept of royalty and inheritance of titles by birthright (and by extension marriage) is inherently immoral so it's not "morally right" for any of them to be known as any of these titles.

However, taking as given that these titles are going to continue to exist, it's a bit of a fudging of the question as I understand it? The two categories are "Queen Consort" and "Queen Regnant", both of which are types of "Queen". So Elizabeth was Queen Regnant, Camilla is Queen Consort, but both can be referred to in the shorthand as "The Queen".

Well I’ve learnt something then !!

I’ve never heard of Queen Regnant only Queen Regent !!

::::

A queen regnant possesses and exercises sovereign powers, whereas a queen consort or queen regent shares her spouse's and/or child's rank and titles but does not share the sovereignty of her spouse or child.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Crimson Dynamo]

She isnt the queen

she is the queen consort

not to happy with the DT callin' her the queen

that aint right

[Livia]

The poll speaks volumes.

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by Livia

The poll speaks volumes.

Oddly enough the poll does not reflect the comments/feelings on this very thread ?!?

There were about 6 detractors on page 1 alone from what I can see

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Zizu

Oddly enough the poll does not reflect the comments/feelings on this very thread ?!?

There were about 6 detractors on page 1 alone from what I can see

Because the minority is small but you're all so loud and relentless.

[Kate!]

Originally Posted by Livia

Because the minority is small but you're all so loud and relentless.

Roughly a third are against it. That's a significant percentage.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kate!

Roughly a third are against it. That's a significant percentage.

On this forum. This forum is not representative of the country.

[thesheriff443]

Also for that knock their privileges and wealth there is not one single person on this forum that would change places with them!

That tell you all you need to know.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

Also for that knock their privileges and wealth there is not one single person on this forum that would change places with them!

That tell you all you need to know.

correct

[user104658]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

Also for that knock their privileges and wealth there is not one single person on this forum that would change places with them!

That tell you all you need to know.

"People wouldn't swap places with those privileged, wealthy people if they weren't privileged and wealthy!!"

Come on now Sheriff even you can see this is a poor argument.

"Yes he's muscly but I bet you wouldn't swap bodies with Henry Caville if his face got burned off in a house fire would you! AHA! Gotchaaa."