Re: Constitutional deposition of monarchs?

Posted by Gary on 1/4/2011, 1:29:54, in reply to "Re: Constitutional deposition of monarchs?"
User logged in as Gary
68.50.124.87

--Previous Message-- : --Previous Message-- : : Not exactly the same that I wrote yesterday : - the people can vote for a no-confidence : vote against the reigning prince, but it : doesn't necessarily mean that he has to step : down because of it (as far as I understand : the article). Interesting. Pretty ambiguous, though.

---

Message Thread Constitutional deposition of monarchs? - Gary 27/3/2011, 23:14:12 Re: Constitutional deposition of monarchs? - Eleonore 28/3/2011, 6:53:49 Re: Constitutional deposition of monarchs? - Gary 28/3/2011, 16:21:12 Re: Constitutional deposition of monarchs? - Eleonore 29/3/2011, 8:52:09 Re: Constitutional deposition of monarchs? - Johan 29/3/2011, 17:35:02 Re: Constitutional deposition of monarchs? - manuel 28/3/2011, 17:43:18 Re: Constitutional deposition of monarchs? - Dag T. Hoelseth 28/3/2011, 21:45:52 Re: Constitutional deposition of monarchs? - Dag T. Hoelseth 29/3/2011, 21:06:03 Re: Constitutional deposition of monarchs? - Gary 1/4/2011, 1:29:54 Norwegian precedence from 1905 - Frank Johansen 28/3/2011, 23:17:55 Re: Norwegian precedence from 1905 - Robert 29/3/2011, 8:24:25 Re: Norwegian precedence from 1905 - Frank Johansen 29/3/2011, 18:57:06 Re: Norwegian precedence from 1905 - Gary 1/4/2011, 1:32:09 The Swedish Constitution - Robert 29/3/2011, 8:41:08 Re: The Swedish Constitution - Gary 1/4/2011, 1:36:07 Re: The Swedish Constitution - Robert 1/4/2011, 9:29:18 Re: The Swedish Constitution - Johan 1/4/2011, 10:22:01 Re: The Swedish Constitution - Gary 1/4/2011, 18:07:19 « Back to index

---

Post a response