NationStates Jolt Archive

The Prince of Wales called for urgent action on the environment today, warning that it was now a matter of survival for some smaller countries.

Speaking during his visit to Uganda, Charles said combating climate change was "the greatest challenge facing mankind".

And at a time when the leaders of Commonwealth countries are meeting in the east African republic, he added that for members Tuvalu and the Maldives, the issue was now one of survival.

[...] The two countries have been a focus of concern due to the impact that rising waters would have on them.

In the latest report from Commonwealth Secretary General Don McKinnon, the islands are specifically mentioned as in need of protection.

The report states: "Not only are the least-developed countries and small states likely to suffer most severely from the effects of climate change, they are also often the least able to adapt, because of the geography and lack of resources."

It adds: "States like Tuvalu and Maldives face sea-level rise, increases in severe weather-related disasters and water stress."


(link (http://www.24dash.com/environment/29582.htm))

Prince Charles is of course the son and heir of Elizabeth II, Queen of Tuvalu (and of 15 other countries, including the United Kingdom, the Bahamas, Papua New Guinea and Jamaica).

Prince Philip should just use his God powers to heat that water away

Frankly, I don't even think having the entire of London under water will make this government, or any future Tory government, actually do something about climate change other than offer a few non-binding targets.

Prince Philip should just use his God powers to heat that water away

No. He can only cure psoriasis and create illusory relevance. British monarchs haven't been able to magically boil water since the 40's. That's why they had to start installing central heating.

No. He can only cure psoriasis and create illusory relevance. British monarchs haven't been able to magically boil water since the 40's. That's why they had to start installing central heating.

Another myth bites the dust. :(

Tuvalu sounds like an exotic disease.

"He caught a bad case of tuvalu. Unfortunately, the doctors were unable to keep his testicles from bursting."

:eek:

:p

Frankly, I don't even think having the entire of London under water will make this government, or any future Tory government, actually do something about climate change other than offer a few non-binding targets.
When London's threatened is the only time they'd actually do something about it. London is, after all, the only place in the UK worth anything. It graces us with its presence and provides the whole country with money.

I also hate whiny Londoners who whinge about having to foot the cost of the Olympic Games. Bugger it, you're the only place actually benefitting from it, too.

Kensington is, after all, the only place in the UK worth anything. It graces us with its presence and provides the whole country with money.

Fixed.

Fixed.

well I guess single moms are supported by Kensington anyway...

Tuvalu sounds like an exotic disease.

"He caught a bad case of tuvalu. Unfortunately, the doctors were unable to keep his testicles from bursting."

:eek:

:p



must keep image from mind...... must resist...... *thinks*
AHHHHHHHHHH!!! the pain!! *runs to dump clorax in ear*

(link (http://www.24dash.com/environment/29582.htm))

Prince Charles is of course the son and heir of Elizabeth II, Queen of Tuvalu (and of 15 other countries, including the United Kingdom, the Bahamas, Papua New Guinea and Jamaica).

How can she be Queen Elizabeth II of Tuvalu if there was no first?

Fixed.

Um.. I think you mean the city?

How can she be Queen Elizabeth II of Tuvalu if there was no first?

That's a good question. Likewise, how is it that she's Queen Elizabeth II of Scotland when Scotland never had an Elizabeth I?

Fixed.
I was being ironic about the whole thing.

Damned Londoners...

That's a good question. Likewise, how is it that she's Queen Elizabeth II of Scotland when Scotland never had an Elizabeth I?

She's not, just look at the post boxes there ;)

(from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_box#Symbols)

United Kingdom All post boxes for use in the United Kingdom display the Royal Cipher of the reigning monarch at the time of manufacture. Exceptions are the Anonymous pillar boxes of 1879–87, where the cipher was omitted, and all boxes for use in Scotland manufactured after 1952 (including replicas of the 1866 Penfold design) which show the Queen's Crown of Scotland instead of the English/Welsh cipher for Elizabeth II. Private boxes emptied by Royal Mail do not have to carry a cipher.

edit: see also here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillar_box#Scotland))

How can she be Queen Elizabeth II of Tuvalu if there was no first?

That's a good question. Likewise, how is it that she's Queen Elizabeth II of Scotland when Scotland never had an Elizabeth I?

'the Second' means she's the second Elizabeth in her family, not the second queen called Elizabeth. Durrrrr :p

'the Second' means she's the second Elizabeth in her family, not the second queen called Elizabeth. Durrrrr :p

What did she do with the first?

'the Second' means she's the second Elizabeth in her family, not the second queen called Elizabeth. Durrrrr :p
It's something like a monarch of England and Scotland takes the highest number of the ones available. Another James would be James VII, or something.

What did she do with the first?

She's her daughter, I believe.

It's something like a monarch of England and Scotland takes the highest number of the ones available. Another James would be James VII, or something.

No.

Take England's first King James.

He was James I of England and James VI of Scotland.

Similarly the current queen is Elizabeth II, but not in Scotland where some apparently get rather annoyed at the suggestion (see above)

She's her daughter, I believe.

Oh, that one. Forgot about her.

Queen Elizabeth the Queen mother (queen).

Still she never had or contributed to the monarch's numerical value.

She's her daughter, I believe.

Since Elizabeth I died in 1603, that would make Lizzy II remarkably long-lived.

No.

Take England's first King James.

He was James I of England and James VI of Scotland.


Indeed. Although that was before the 1707 Act of Union. After the Act of Union, you had Anne, George, George, George and George, who weren't problems in numerical terms. After that, the Scots found themselves with a King William IV, despite never having had a William III. William III of England had been William II of Scotland.

It's all delightfully confusing. :p

Since Elizabeth I died in 1603, that would make Lizzy II remarkably long-lived.

She's over 400 years old? Has she sent herself 4 telegrams?

Since Elizabeth I died in 1603, that would make Lizzy II remarkably long-lived.

I think he means Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Bowes-Lyon).


Indeed. Although that was before the 1707 Act of Union. After the Act of Union, you had Anne, George, George, George and George, who weren't problems in numerical terms. After that, the Scots found themselves with a King William IV, despite never having had a William III. William III of England had been William II of Scotland.

It's all delightfully confusing. :p

And also an interesting way of charting nationalist sentiment in Scotland.

She's over 400 years old? Has she sent herself 4 telegrams?

One would hope so. Unless she's getting absent-minded. I'm told your memory starts to go wonky when you hit 160...

But affirming the Queen's intention to continue as "the Second" throughout the UK, a policy was announced[1] that all future UK monarchs would be numbered uniformly according either to an English or Scottish reckoning, whichever was higher.
Which is what I meant, even if I didn't say it correctly.

Rolling squid;13240959']must keep image from mind...... must resist...... *thinks*
AHHHHHHHHHH!!! the pain!! *runs to dump clorax in ear*

*writes down results* Interesting...

One would hope so. Unless she's getting absent-minded. I'm told your memory starts to go wonky when you hit 160...

You know that you actually have to apply to get her to send you a letter when you turn 100? You think she'd have enough free time to keep track of these things herself.

Which is what I meant, even if I didn't say it correctly.

Interesting.

*ambles off to look at the wiki*

You know that you actually have to apply to get her to send you a letter when you turn 100? You think she'd have enough free time to keep track of these things herself.

Indeed. On the other hand, anyone who's 99 presumably has enough free time to write a letter. ;)

Indeed. On the other hand, anyone who's 99 presumably has enough free time to write a letter. ;)

This is also true. Perhaps the royl family is in correspondence with 99 year olds across the country. Which might explain why they're so behind the rest of us.

This is also true. Perhaps the royl family is in correspondence with 99 year olds across the country. Which might explain why they're so behind the rest of us.

Heh.

The wiki says:

Future British monarchs will be numbered according to either English or Scottish predecessors, whichever number is higher. Applying this policy retroactively to monarchs since the Act of Union yields the same numbering. However, equivalent rules have not been established in the Commonwealth Realms.


Which means Tuvalu could presumably insist on calling Charles "Charles I", I suppose. Or "George I", since he apparently wants to change his name to George.

What a fascinating place the Wiki is. It even has an article on List of regnal numerals of future British monarchs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regnal_numerals_of_future_British_monarchs). We are cordially reminded that, whether Charles calls himself Charles III or George VII, there have been the same number of Charles' in England and Scotland (for an obvious reason: they're all post-1603; likewise Georges).