I truly hate to bore you all to death with a thread that consists entirely of excerpts from previous posts, but yesterday's Alex Jones show had Alex panicking, once again, over the throne speech and the periodic closure of public thoroughfares in demonstration of the Queen's proprietorship over them.
***
Here's an excerpt from an earlier post of mine concerning the first part of my statement:
"When the new parliament opens, the Governor General (or, perhaps, even the Queen herself) delivers a speech written for her by the new government, outlining their legislative agenda for the coming term. This speech is known as the "Throne Speech"."
Please note that I've clearly stated that the Throne Speech is written for the Queen, or for her Governor General of Canada, or for her Provincial Lieutenant Governor, by the local government in question: it's not the Queen's agenda being promulgated in the Throne Speech, but, rather, the sitting Government's agenda, which is why the Queen, or her Governor General of Canada, or her Provincial Lieutenant Governor sounds like a Socialist one year only to sound like a rock-ribbed Conservative the following year.
Here's an excerpt from an earlier post of mine concerning my second point:
"Alex has, in the past, referred to the practice of Queen Elizabeth closing off access to certain of her properties (including highways) with the implication that this behavio(u)r on her part was some sort of arrogant power play. In fact, this is standard practice among owners of property that might be construed as public thoroughfares if the general public were allowed to use them constantly without obstruction. Allowing someone other than the owner or his invitees or licensees to allow free access to one's private property is known in law as "Sufferance of Open and Notorious Adverse Possession", which is a way of saying that one's allowing free use by others of his property constitutes a constructive quitclaim deed to the property, i.e., you lose the property on the basis of your having abandoned it. While the statute of limitations for allowing squatters on one's property without losing it is usually around twenty years, it's simply sound practice to close it off one day per year (usually the slowest Sunday of the year). I am aware of a private property parcel in downtown Hartford, Connecticut which had a little street running through it: one Sunday every summer (at the height of vacation season, when the street would be little used), it was roped off. It wasn't that noone could use it, it's just that, if you had legitimate business on the property, you had to explain your purpose to the owner's agent (in this case the security guard), and he would let you enter; the essential point is that access to the property was thereby limited to the owner's invitees and licensees."
Once again, closure of public thoroughfares is simple (and advisable) legal precaution in demonstrating one's proprietorship over realty, and not necessarily an exercise of aristocratic arrogance.
***
Alex. would you PLEASE familiarize yourself with these matters?
PLEASE?
?
