[woubit] Testing 1-2-3 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Lateral Puzzles » Solved Lateral Thinking Puzzles » Solved Puzzles - Feb 2005 » [woubit] Testing 1-2-3 « Previous Next »

Author Message
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 5:12 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Not a puzzle at all. Just a question - you each get one and only one shot.

There is something that the Queen of England cannot and could not have, though the lowliest of her subjects can and do have not one, but several of them. What is that something?
Tim A. Dowd (Bodo)
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 5:16 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Peers?
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 5:22 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Tim A. Dowd (Bodo) on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 05:16 am:

Peers? No, but very good thinking indeed. You are allowed another shot :)
Dref (Dref)
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 5:51 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Lawsuits? (I heard the Queen cannot sue in her own courts.)

I doubt this is the answer, but one shot is one shot, so...
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 1:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Dref (Dref) on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 05:51 am:

Lawsuits? (I heard the Queen cannot sue in her own courts.)

I doubt this is the answer, but one shot is one shot, so... not a bad shot either, but not what I was looking for
Simon Downham (Beroean)
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Tax benefits/allowances? (do I get another shot?)
Tim A. Dowd (Bodo)
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Well, since I've been granted a second shot I'll try not to over-think it...

Daughters?
David Joshua Faber (Taliesintwo)
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

just a clarification, mister woubit...

when you say "the Queen of England" do you mean whoever is in the position of Queen or do you mean the specific current queen?

not sure of British custom and all that - i'm from "across the pond"

here's a stab though....

the Queen cannot and could not have a favorite member of the royal family (just as a mother cannot declare one of her children to be her favorite)
however, a regular British guy or gal has no qualms about being a big fan of their favorite princes or princesses or earls and therefore have one or several favorite members of the royal family

whether it is right or not, I tried
Lynne (Lynne)
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 4:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

A vote?
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 6:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Simon Downham (Beroean) on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 03:16 pm:

Tax benefits/allowances? (do I get another shot?) of course you do, and you need one :)

By Tim A. Dowd (Bodo) on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 03:19 pm:

Well, since I've been granted a second shot I'll try not to over-think it...

Daughters? The Queen has a daughter, and I don't think she did this in defiance of the Constitution :)

By David Joshua Faber (Taliesintwo) on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 03:31 pm:

when you say "the Queen of England" do you mean whoever is in the position of Queen yes or do you mean the specific current queen? and this also

the Queen cannot and could not have a favorite member of the royal family (just as a mother cannot declare one of her children to be her favorite) an interesting answer :) Not what I had in mind, though.

whether it is right or not, I tried you did, and it is good to see you back here :)

By Lynne (Lynne) on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 04:06 pm:

A vote? Good shot, but members of the House of Lords are not allowed to vote either

We will relax the one-shot restriction, I think. Take as many as you like - this is only a very silly puzzle, posted at a ridiculous hour of the morning when my brain was not working.
Dref (Dref)
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 6:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

And that's different than any other hour because...?

Joke. :)

Another shot: A bow before the Queen?
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 6:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Dref (Dref) on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 06:19 pm:

And that's different than any other hour because...? well, my brain does not work at any hour of the day or night. But sometimes this does not matter, because I am asleep.

Another shot: A bow before the Queen? good try, but not what I have in mind either
Lynne (Lynne)
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 6:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Do all of her subjects have several? Or just the possibility of several?
Alizon (Alizon)
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 7:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Would it be against the Constitution/any other law or regulation/physically impossible for her to have one?

Is "it" tangible or intangible?
miroac (Miroac)
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 8:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

career aspirations?
David Joshua Faber (Taliesintwo)
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 9:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I'm flattered that you remembered me....i've always thought of you as a woubit...

chances to see the Queen of England (without using mirror/camera/image capturing device)

similar to the tennis champ who cannot see anyone who beat him while everyone else can see someone who has beaten him
Jens Weber (Sundowner)
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:03 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is it something that the Queen can not have, but a King of England could?
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:56 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Lynne (Lynne) on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 06:43 pm:

Do all of her subjects have several? no - some have none, some have one, others more than one Or just the possibility of several? yes

By Alizon (Alizon) on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 07:10 pm:

Would it be against the Constitution/any other law or regulation/physically impossible for her to have one? it would be unconstitutional for her to have one, and it would also be contrary to a particular law. I should say here that Britain does not actually have a written Constitution, but the principle is the same.

Is "it" tangible this one or intangible?

By miroac (Miroac) on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 08:10 pm:

career aspirations? another good shot - indeed, some of these answers have been more ingenious than the one I thought of :) But still not what I had in mind.

By David Joshua Faber (Taliesintwo) on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 09:42 pm:

chances to see the Queen of England (without using mirror/camera/image capturing device)

similar to the tennis champ who cannot see anyone who beat him while everyone else can see someone who has beaten him again, a good shot, but nothing as complex as this

By Jens Weber (Sundowner) on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:03 am:

Is it something that the Queen can not have, but a King of England could? it is indeed :) This is turning into a proper question-and-answer puzzle after all, and I am quite happy for it to continue in this vein, though I am sure it will be solved very quickly.
Lynne (Lynne)
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 1:28 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is it something to do with currency? Postage stamps? Marriage? Something she cannot wear?
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 1:33 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Lynne (Lynne) on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 01:28 am:

Is it something to do with currency? no Postage stamps? no Marriage? no Something she cannot wear? and no. Sorry :(
Lynne (Lynne)
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 1:35 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is the something essentially female? Or masculine?
miroac (Miroac)
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 2:34 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

wives? (this isn't Utah, US, in the 1800's, is it?)
Johanna (Buzzard)
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 9:29 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Brothers?
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 9:57 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Lynne (Lynne) on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 01:35 am:

Is the something essentially female? Or masculine? this one

By miroac (Miroac) on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 02:34 am:

wives? no (this isn't Utah, US, in the 1800's, is it?) not as far as I can tell

By Johanna (Buzzard) on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 09:29 am:

Brothers? bingo - I should have known you would only need one shot :)

***** SPOILER *****

Succession to the throne of Britain (and therefore, of course, the throne of England) is by "male primogeniture" - that is, the first-born son of the reigning monarch is heir apparent to the throne, regardless of whether he has older sisters. So says the Act of Union of 1800, which restates the provisions of the Act of Settlement of 1701 and the Bill of Rights of 1689.

The Queen of England, therefore, cannot have a brother, for if she did, he would be King and she would not be Queen.

Thanks to everyone who provided other answers, and to Buzzard for providing the right one. I will think of a proper puzzle soon.
Lynne (Lynne)
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 10:12 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Of course! Well done Buzzard. :)
Johanna (Buzzard)
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 10:27 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

But what about a Queen who is the wife of a King, rather than the daughter of one?
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 10:46 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

We have abolished those. We are going to have a Princess Consort instead, which sounds to me more like a car than a Queen.
Lynne (Lynne)
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 11:04 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

And what if the Queen Mother had remarried after Elizabeth became Queen and had a son? Could she pass on the title in her own right, or could only the son of King be sufficient? Where would he stand in line to the throne?
Johanna (Buzzard)
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 1:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Or, what if the Queen Mother had been pregnant with what would turn out to be a son when Elizabeth became Queen?
Lynne (Lynne)
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 1:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ooooh, yes. She'd probably have to be a regent or something. I wonder whether they'd have cancelled the Coronation? That was more than nine months after the King's death after all.
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 2:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Since the Act of Settlement, the question of who succeeds to the throne is ultimately determined by Parliament. A Sovereign can be deposed if he or she misgoverns the country, and Parliament may appoint any Protestant it wishes who is not married to a Roman Catholic.

But once a King or Queen is on the throne, he or she cannot be removed except through abdicating, being deposed, or dying. The Act of Settlement provided that the succession would pass to the heirs of William III and Mary II (who had no children), then to the heirs of Princess Anne of Denmark (later Queen Anne, daughter of James II), then to the heirs of Mary if William predeceased her and she had children by another husband (in the event, Mary died of smallpox in 1694, while William died in 1702, not having remarried). Anne ruled until 1714, but although she conceived a staggering number of children, most were stillborn, and the longest-lived - Duke William of Gloucester - died aged 11, before his poor mother. This meant that George I, though 52nd in line to the throne at the time of Anne's death, was the nearest non-disqualified candidate on religious grounds.

Once Elizabeth II came to the throne in 1952, then, she had the job for life, unless she made a mess of it - or unless Parliament legislated to the contrary, as it retains the right to do.
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 2:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Lynne (Lynne) on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 01:53 pm:

Ooooh, yes. She'd probably have to be a regent or something. I wonder whether they'd have cancelled the Coronation? That was more than nine months after the King's death after all. It was, but the heir apparent becomes the Sovereign on the death of the reigning monarch, not when he or she is crowned. Edward VIII, for example, was never crowned, but he was still King.
Lynne (Lynne)
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 2:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

But you could argue the case that the unborn son was alive at the time of his father's death and therefore judged to be an heir apparent (albeit less apparent than one who's unbiblical cord had been cut}. :)
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 3:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

You could. But in order to be an heir apparent, one needs to appear :)
David Joshua Faber (Taliesintwo)
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 3:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

couldn't the Queen's mother/father adopt children after the Queen is Queen and provide her with brothers?

just trying to make waves...
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 3:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

For the Queen to become Queen, her father would need to be dead. In principle, though, I suppose it is possible that - as Buzzard suggests - the Queen's mother could adopt, or bear, a male child. In the former case, there would be no difficulty - such a child would not be descended from the Electress Sophia of Hanover, and would be nowhere in the line of succession. In the latter case, I am not sure what would happen - Parliament might need to make a decision of some kind.

When King George VI died, he was 56 and his wife was 52 - this certainly did not preclude the scenario that Buzzard describes. Fortunately, in those days at any rate, we had a Royal Family who knew how to behave themselves :)
Alizon (Alizon)
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 7:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

And what if:

the Queen-to-be has a male sibling who is severely mentally challenged/marries a seven times divorced Catholic porn star/ commits another atrocity disqualifying him from the succession? Of course, all this when their father is still alive and on the throne.

Not that I want to nitpick but I can't help having some lateral thoughts...
kerry hearne (Kerry)
Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 3:30 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

i suspect that in the early to mid 20th century(and certainly before that), and notwithstanding the edward/mrs simpson events) the royal family would be well schooled in what would and would not be acceptable. once the line to the throne was well established, ie, elizabeth then margaret (and later charles, andrew etc) there is no way anyone would be permitted to throw a spanner in the works.....even if it meant abstinence, skullduggery or even worse, im sure we would never have seen the sudden appearnace of a male heir to rock the boat.....

just the idle thoughts of an ignorant aussie...:)
Lynne (Lynne)
Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 11:31 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Yes, but if King George had been killed in an accident then the Queen Mother could hardly be blamed for being pregnant at the time of his death. It could be argued that they were doing their best to provide a male heir...

Just the ignorant thoughts of an idle Brit...:O
David Joshua Faber (Taliesintwo)
Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 8:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

and now for the thoughts of an idle, ignorant American....wait, what thoughts? oh well.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: