In the mass media, "King Peter," alias Peter Fitzek, is repeatedly referred to as a "false king," even though his approximately 5,000 followers recognize him as their king. So why should he be a "false" king, unlike, for example, "King Charles," who also only holds this title because of his followers? I, for example, do not recognize the English "royal house."
(4 votes)
Loading...Where in France are flights and accommodation cheapest?
I was shopping at Rewe yesterday and was shocked – sweets like Duplp and Twix as well as other products are now at 4-5 euros on average instead of between 2-3 euros How are things with you?
Or is it only for the rich? Because very few people live there. So could it be that only the elite are allowed in? Do you know anything about that?
Does anyone have a comprehensive list of major sporting events taking place worldwide? On the internet I only ever find the 10 or 20 biggest, but I need a more comprehensive list with significantly more major sporting events. Does anyone have something like that? Thank you and best regards
That you reject the UK Constitution is your thing. The fact that someone himself declares himself king and that in your eyes has the same significance as a constitutional constitution, is not worth a discussion.
The English “Königshaus” has also only emerged because someone has called himself to the king when.
The English royal house was created because Wilhelm the conqueror had conquered England in 1066 and was crowned king there. His followers received the lands as fiefs and swore fidelity to him.
The English royal house is not quite as old, but can look back on a century line and is thereby legitimated by the desire of the people.
Olaf’s line only goes back to his special school degree and to the first crown he deserves: the crown cork of his first beer bottle.
And there became a monarchy and then a parliamentary monarchy. At Peter Fitzek I don’t see a tendency to change the basic law and to use it as a monarch.
The United Kingdom has no conventional constitution.
Too bad. I actually wanted to win you as a follower for my kingdom of Absurdistan 😉
No. I’m afraid you’re going to get me into a point-free discussion now by twisting arguments or deliberately misinterpreting. I’m out, look for others.
The difference is therefore only in the number of followers.
Tradition is missing. The legal basis is missing. There are both in Englang. Great Britain is also a world-renowned state. I would personally abolish all monarchies. In Germany, for example, there is a GG which generally prohibits stalls – because all people are the same before the law.
In addition, a guy who claims to be a reincarnation from the Archangel Uriel and fought against demons and to have been by Astral projection in the White House… now… that would not want to have a normal person as a “king”…
The difference to the English royal house is not really great. The king of England also bases his claim to the throne and crown with the grace of God. justifying state power or religious power with God is an ancient, widespread concept. Only it appears with types such as “King Peter” abstruser due to their unexistent history.
in Germany only one name
if he wants to be king, he shall make an application to the appropriate authority – I suspect that it is too cumbersome or rejected, he may marry a woman king – then he may accept her name
otherwise I refer to a song of the Beatles:
a real nowhere man
Sitting in his nowhere land
making all his nowhere plans for nobody
Greetings!
The difference is that the United Kingdom is an internationally recognized state where the King is the Head of State, the other type has simply appointed himself king and play a few debes.
The number of debes following their kings is greater with King Charles than with King Peter, that is all.
What makes the Kingdom of Great Britain and its current state form enjoy international recognition and would all laugh about the criminal Fitzek if it were not more to cry.
To compare the German criminal Peter with any activities that a government (and Britain was already a constitutional monarchy for centuries) has committed in the last centuries only your championship in Pigeon out. I’m sure you have good chances in the candidate tournament. I’m out.
They are all criminals, or what do you think, how much blood all the kingdoms recognized today have stuck to their fingers? On the other hand, “King Peter,” who has so much I know to this day only for driving without a driving permit, is just an innocent angel.
It is now that in a rule of law not every depp can call out to the king. He can do this privately, but has no rights or powers. If his followers are so stupid and aliment him, that’s their private thing. You never die.
I don’t know why King Peters’ Followers should be debris than the followers of King Charles. I don’t have the impression that King Peter is absolutely stupid as King Charles, who wants to be a tampon according to his own statement.
I am not a friend of the monarchy, neither do I need a King Charles of God’s mercy, nor a King Peter of his own mercy.
I am not;-)
Legally, Charles III is but king of the UK.
Peter Fitzek’s rule has no legal basis.
Because the followership of the King of England is simply greater by the long history. King Peter’s monarchy is in the beginnings.
This has something to do with legality. The English monarchy is a thousand years old and has always been part of the political system. She has land, subjects, armies and money.
Fitzek doesn’t have anything.
Nothing’s wrong. King Peter currently has a follow-up of 5000 followers. This is more than I have 😉
Good question.
I see you no difference.
Charles can only sell himself better.
What country does King Peter think? Or what is he representing?
See…
The “Kingdom of Germany” currently fighting for state recognition.
…which does not exist…
This “Kingdom of Germany” invented by “King Peter” deprives of any historical or international basis – there is only in the imagination of this “king” and its handful of anaesthesia!
That’s wrong.
Then you should read the German constitution…
Not the history or otherwise what is decisive, but the size of the adherence. If a sufficiently large number of people are a kingdom or They can do that. If, for example, Bavaria has a majority of its own kingdom or They could enforce it. There would be no German state power that could prevent this, even if you were still crunching so much with your teeth in Berlin. “King Peter” will probably not be able to mobilize enough followers, but generally this is possible.