Talk:Royal lives clause: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:28, 30 March 2023

Law Start‑class Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Re: Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

Would it be appropriate to update the "outside of the UK" section to include as an example case the recently reported clause in the agreement passed by the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District that includes a Royal Lives Clause. The reporting is available at this source? https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-ne-disney-new-reedy-creek-board-powerless-20230329-qalagcs4wjfe3iwkpzjsz2v4qm-story.html OriginalOranges (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'King of England' (sic)

Not 'sic' at all. He is definitely King of England, and if you talk to the right people in Wales and Scotland, they'll say they had no choice about who Westminster says is in charge. I understand the editor who added that notation was thinking 'King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' etc etc, but that might not be true for much longer. England, however, will always be correct in this case.

Corgi (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Completely incorrect. The title 'King of England' does not exist and has not existed since the 1690s (before US independence!) The popular use of the term King/Queen of England is irrelevant - it has no legal basis. Whether or not it will be 'true for much longer' is also irrelevant; at the time the contract was signed, it was (and is) incorrect. They could have used no fewer than fifteen different titles, including King of Canada/Jamaica, but King of England is a misnomer. 2A00:23C8:4383:9301:517D:F1B:37D:8D1D (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 08:03, 30 March 2023 edit Sffcorgi (talk \| contribs) 419 edits →‎'King of England' (sic): new section Tag: New topic ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:28, 30 March 2023 edit undo 2a00:23c8:4383:9301:517d:f1b:37d:8d1d (talk) →‎'King of England' (sic): Reply Tag: Reply Next edit →
Line 10:		Line 10:

	[[User:Sffcorgi\|Corgi]] ([[User talk:Sffcorgi\|talk]]) 08:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)		[[User:Sffcorgi\|Corgi]] ([[User talk:Sffcorgi\|talk]]) 08:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

			:Completely incorrect. The title 'King of England' does not exist and has not existed since the 1690s (before US independence!) The popular use of the term King/Queen of England is irrelevant - it has no legal basis. Whether or not it will be 'true for much longer' is also irrelevant; at the time the contract was signed, it was (and is) incorrect. They could have used no fewer than fifteen different titles, including King of Canada/Jamaica, but King of England is a misnomer. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C8:4383:9301:517D:F1B:37D:8D1D\|2A00:23C8:4383:9301:517D:F1B:37D:8D1D]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C8:4383:9301:517D:F1B:37D:8D1D\|talk]]) 21:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)