Wrong category. Your question is about art, not royalty. Just because there are royals invovlved doesn’t make the question fit the category.
And…message? There’s a message? The message is: this is a lovely, gracious, powerful family.
Which hero’s story, King Arthur’s or Sundiata’s, has the more relevant message for young people today? Compose an essay that answers this question, giving at least two examples from the selections and applying them to issues today’s young people face.
o_O
Based on the bible Jesus didn’t have a biological father. So, was his mother the descendant from the King David?
Dennis: I didn’t get your answer. I don’t really know what you are talking about.
Giants of Life: true
MOMMA: Joseph wasn’t the biological father of Jesus and the two of them didn’t get a long at all based on the bible.
J: what question are you answering?
Mike N: lol
They don’t understand christianity? so they try and find reason in everything. Jesus is the almighty son of God 
Being in a government department, and not knowing that google (a government program) owns YOUTUBE, someone has to be ABSOLUTELY FU(KING RETARDED to feel comfortable putting a video up that would DESTROY the image of the marines?
How ignorant are white marines?
Do black marines score higher in exams per se versus white marines?
Just curious which branch has the highest average IQ overall?
NAVY?
I’d say the average marine has a double digit IQ with the ones I met and most black marines stay in longer and seem to be better marines so I’m guessing their smarter. Air force has the highest average iq.
Just curious:
If a king from one country wanted to marry the queen from another, would they be allowed, and if so, what would that mean for the countries in which they rule? Where would they spend their time and what would happen to their children?
1. Yes, King and Queen Regnant of different countries can get married; there is no law in any country against that. In fact, that has happen before quite a few times:
- Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon married each other; it was their union (and consequently, the union of their countries) that created the Spanish Kingdom in the first place.
- Mary I of England married Philip II of Spain.
2. In past, when Monarchs of different countries married, that more or less meant also union of the Crowns; while each of them remained Sovereign of his/her separate country, their Heir Apparent eventually inherited both Kingdoms.
Philip and Mary never had children, but if they did, the child would have been King or Queen Regnant of both England and Spain upon his/her parents’ death.
3. In our times, it is highly unlikely marriage of two people would result in merging of two separate Sovereign states. If such a marriage did take place, it is likely one of the following would happen:
- The countries would agree to share the same Monarch (the future child of the couple) but would still remain separate sovereign states – in other words, personal union of Crowns would take place.
That has happened before; when James VI of Scotland succeeded Elizabeth I as King of England (as James I of England), that meant personal union of Crowns – that did NOT mean the counties merged (that happened a century later, with the creation of Great Britain).
In fact, there is a precedent in our times as well; Queen Elizabeth is Monarch of 16 separate, Sovereign states (United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc); they share the same Monarch but remain separate countries.
- Either the King, or the Queen would have to abdicate.
For example, if Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden (future Queen Regnant of Sweden) had married Crown Prince Haakon of Norway (future King of Norway), it is likely either would choose to abdicate to avoid any potential tensions.
- The Parliaments of the respective countries would come to an agreement about the future Line of Succession.
For example, the eldest child of the couple could inherit the Throne in one country, the second one – in the other.
Its for a project for the brainless people.. I think only 1 person realized that.. and I know hes dead
I don’t think that even the Royal Mail will be able to deliver that letter.He has been dead for a number of years now.
Two users with the most TU are King & Queen. lol
IDK… I’m the paid jester
in their Bible?
Then they make some kind of sophistic remark like it was taken out with good reason . . . that’s not a 1611 King James then! The 1611 King James Version had an Apocrypha in it, and if it’s missing from YOUR Bible, then PICK ANOTHER DATE. A lie is a lie. If you’re talking about God’s word, and it’s important to you. stop lying.
THEN PICK ANOTHER DATE! IT’S NOT a 1611 BIBLE without the Apocrypha!
Dan,
What date was the King James Version Bible printed without an Apocrypha. Better yet, WHAT PRIINTING DATE IS ON THAT FRIGGIN’ BIBLE YOU
HAVE NOW?!?!?! If it’s NOT 1611, then stop lying!!!
Ivanhoe,
THEN PICK ANOTHER DATE. If there is no Apocrypha. it’s NOT a 1611!
No chance,
It’s not about the Bible at all actually! lol
It’s about how people get trapped into saying something traditional to say, a phrase without a genuine thought in their heads, and head off like sheep to the slaughter. I want Christians to be smarted than that, it is a war against the evil spirits after all. They are smart enough to get Christians to say they use 1611 King James Bibles, when they most likely never even seen one.
We have to be smarter than that!
mopar Mike,
You can’t be close to God, and reject what I’ve been saying about him and faith, grace, peace with God through Christ. So you sound like another person who has succumbed to the powers of darkness, preaching another Gospel, which is not a Gospel at all, who don’t think Gay people can be Christian. Furthermore, you assume too much about my sexual life. It’s typical, and a lie. So repent yourself, you just bore false testimony about me, and you probably wont repent, seeing that your stance is right, and will not accept any other testimony no matter what I say.
Paul,
I used to have an Oxford Bible with Apocrypha. So there is an Apocrypha in some Bibles. You just listen to the traditionalists concerning the Apocrypha, and make assumptions, and then judge by those assumptions. And Christian who is a serious Bible student should read the Apocrypha, in my opinion.
If you don’t read Maccabees at least, you wont understand the mindset of the Zealots during the time of Jesus.
1) Why do some Christians lie and tell us that they use the 1611 King James, when there is no Apocrypha . . .?
in their Bible?
They aren’t *intentionally* lying (at least, in my experience) – they simply have been misinformed, and they are repeating that misinformation.
2) Then they make some kind of sophistic remark like it was taken out with good reason . . . that’s not a 1611 King James then!
Agreed….though you may be being a little too picky here.
The 1611 editions of the King James Version did include the Apocrypha and did not employ modern spelling standards. Also, it employed a Germanic font rather than Roman font. As far as I know, there is no 1611 reprint available that omits the Apocrypha. Extremely few people use an actual 1611 edition (or reprint thereof – even a reprint using Roman font, which is available) – but some **believe that they are** using a 1611 edition when they are not.
http://www.bibleselector.com/r_kjv.html
Nearly all people use the King James Version "Standard Text", which was produced in 1769 (and which is now available either with or without the Apocrypha, though originally it, too, included the Apocrypha).
However, I would say that it would not be a lie if a Christian said, "I use the 1769 King James Version" – because the wording *is* identical, even if the contents are not. In other words: nearly all modern editions are reprints of that 1769 Standard Text (whether or not they include the Apocrypha) – so it *is* justifiable to claim that they are using the 1769 text, even when their Bible was not published in 1769 and even though it does not include all of the contents of the 1769 edition.
Conclusion: for most people, it is not correct to claim that they are using a 1611 KJV. However, I would say that it *is* accurate to claim that a reprint of an edition (e.g. the 1611 edition) *is* "the 1611 edition" even if some of the contents are not included (like the Apocrypha) and even if it does not use the same font. SO: in my opinion you are being a *little* too persnickety about this, but your point *is* still a valid one – there are certainly significant differences between the 1611 edition and most modern editions (as can be seen by comparing the samples at the above web site).
- Jim
How so? It seems to make sense to me that taking over a government is what a big bad would want to do.
(Sorry for re-posting. I didn’t get many answers last time)
The thing is, it is overused for a reason. That’s what people expect a bad guy to do. He’d want to take over the land so he could control people and show off his power. If you want to make it less cliche, you could have your antagonist be a good guy trying to help the kingdom and your main character be the bad dictator/king.
Let’s imagine there is a king and a queen, and they have a son that is two years old, and this two-year-old son is first in line to become king.
If the queen and the king die, would this child really become king at such a young age?
How would it work in this case?
There’s no minimum age as such but in the UK the rule is that the child will have a regent who carries out the role of a monarch until the child is 18. A regent will also be appointed if the monarch is incapacitated in any way (e.g. The future George IV was appointed Prince Regent when his father went mad).