Satanism, child sacrifice, vampirism and the royal family

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: oldcarpy

Research Royal Assent.

Sure, the Royals want us to believe they are just ceremonial in power however i'm not fooled.

I think you have forgotten that she is the commander in chief of our military and ever soldier swears allegiance to her. That to me suggest she holds the ultimate power.

Parliament may propose laws, she has to ratify them.

In the event the people revolt it's soldiers who will enforce her will.

e3.365dm.com...e3... .365dm.com/19/07/1600x900/skynews-boris-queen_4727125.jpg

Have a look at that picture and re-evaluate your opinion.

I have personally met princess Anne and it was no joke. Special branch, sniffer dogs, cordons and every other security measure you can imagine. I was not allowed to offer a handshake unless it was in return. Or to speak unless spoken to.

Can you cite any instance when royal assent has ever been refused?

a reply to: Grenade

Research the English Civil War.
Remind me, how did that work out for Charles 1st?

Ok so let's address them one at a time.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
I don't think you understand any of this and I'm afraid i have neither the time or the inclination to educate you.

I'm sure you realise yourself this is completely pointless post. "Your wrong, i could explain why however i don't have the time or effort to explain why just now". Yeah ok.

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: oldcarpy

I think her multiple palaces in prime locations throughout London, her reign being unquestioned for nearly 60 years speaks for itself.

That and the fact her face is printed on our currency, her family is literally above the law. Our revenue, customs, prison service, army all reference her in their name suggests your talking out of your ass.

Tell me, is the prime minister liable to criminal prosecution?

Yes he could be prosecuted for a criminal offence. Are you confused about "Parliamentary immunity"?

No, i'm not confused, you actually just fell into my trap.

You state the PM has more power than the Queen yet then state he's liable to criminal prosecution. Now ask yourself is the Queen beholden to the same laws?

I would argue if you are above the law then you care not who makes them.

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: oldcarpy

Research Royal Assent.

Sure, the Royals want us to believe they are just ceremonial in power however i'm not fooled.

I think you have forgotten that she is the commander in chief of our military and ever soldier swears allegiance to her. That to me suggest she holds the ultimate power.

Parliament may propose laws, she has to ratify them.

In the event the people revolt it's soldiers who will enforce her will.

e3.365dm.com...e3... .365dm.com/19/07/1600x900/skynews-boris-queen_4727125.jpg

Have a look at that picture and re-evaluate your opinion.

I have personally met princess Anne and it was no joke. Special branch, sniffer dogs, cordons and every other security measure you can imagine. I was not allowed to offer a handshake unless it was in return. Or to speak unless spoken to.

Can you cite any instance when royal assent has ever been refused?

No, because you don't choose to use your power, doesn't take it away.

The Royals are more savvy than in the past. Their image is carefully crafted and protected. To be honest i think they see politics as below them, which it is.

Remember, the Queen has the power to declare WAR without the approval of parliament.

a reply to: Grenade
Imagine that her Majesty serving under her Majesties pleasure

Sounds kinky!

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grenade

Research the English Civil War.
Remind me, how did that work out for Charles 1st?

I'm well aware of our history. But you surely can't be claiming any relevance between the social and political landscape of the mid 17th century to today?

Now, i'm sure we could find common ground, hell maybe even help each other and have a constructive debate but making blanket statements without backing them up, taking a condescending and patronising attitude and generally stinking of arrogance will not help us to that end.

Finally, the largest land owner on planet Earth does not answer to Boris Johnson. Come on..

originally posted by: ManyMasks
a reply to: Grenade
Imagine that her Majesty serving under her Majesties pleasure

Sounds kinky!

Well thats me and the missus roleplay sorted tonight.

originally posted by: Grenade

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: oldcarpy

I think her multiple palaces in prime locations throughout London, her reign being unquestioned for nearly 60 years speaks for itself.

That and the fact her face is printed on our currency, her family is literally above the law. Our revenue, customs, prison service, army all reference her in their name suggests your talking out of your ass.

Tell me, is the prime minister liable to criminal prosecution?

Yes he could be prosecuted for a criminal offence. Are you confused about "Parliamentary immunity"?

No, i'm not confused, you actually just fell into my trap.

You state the PM has more power than the Queen yet then state he's liable to criminal prosecution. Now ask yourself is the Queen beholden to the same laws?

I would argue if you are above the law then you care not who makes them.

Your trap?
Get over yourself.

originally posted by: Grenade

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grenade

Research the English Civil War.
Remind me, how did that work out for Charles 1st?

I'm well aware of our history. But you surely can't be claiming any relevance between the social and political landscape of the mid 17th century to today?

Now, i'm sure we could find common ground, hell maybe even help each other and have a constructive debate but making blanket statements without backing them up, taking a condescending and patronising attitude and generally stinking of arrogance will not help us to that end.

Says you with your attitude.

originally posted by: Grenade

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: oldcarpy

Research Royal Assent.

Sure, the Royals want us to believe they are just ceremonial in power however i'm not fooled.

I think you have forgotten that she is the commander in chief of our military and ever soldier swears allegiance to her. That to me suggest she holds the ultimate power.

Parliament may propose laws, she has to ratify them.

In the event the people revolt it's soldiers who will enforce her will.

e3.365dm.com...e3... .365dm.com/19/07/1600x900/skynews-boris-queen_4727125.jpg

Have a look at that picture and re-evaluate your opinion.

I have personally met princess Anne and it was no joke. Special branch, sniffer dogs, cordons and every other security measure you can imagine. I was not allowed to offer a handshake unless it was in return. Or to speak unless spoken to.

Can you cite any instance when royal assent has ever been refused?

No, because you don't choose to use your power, doesn't take it away.

The Royals are more savvy than in the past. Their image is carefully crafted and protected. To be honest i think they see politics as below them, which it is.

Remember, the Queen has the power to declare WAR without the approval of parliament.

Yeah right.
Has that ever happened?
No, it has not.
I wonder why?
Because it never has or will.

originally posted by: Grenade

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: oldcarpy

Research Royal Assent.

Sure, the Royals want us to believe they are just ceremonial in power however i'm not fooled.

I think you have forgotten that she is the commander in chief of our military and ever soldier swears allegiance to her. That to me suggest she holds the ultimate power.

Parliament may propose laws, she has to ratify them.

In the event the people revolt it's soldiers who will enforce her will.

e3.365dm.com...e3... .365dm.com/19/07/1600x900/skynews-boris-queen_4727125.jpg

Have a look at that picture and re-evaluate your opinion.

I have personally met princess Anne and it was no joke. Special branch, sniffer dogs, cordons and every other security measure you can imagine. I was not allowed to offer a handshake unless it was in return. Or to speak unless spoken to.

Can you cite any instance when royal assent has ever been refused?

No, because you don't choose to use your power, doesn't take it away.

The Royals are more savvy than in the past. Their image is carefully crafted and protected. To be honest i think they see politics as below them, which it is.

Remember, the Queen has the power to declare WAR without the approval of parliament.

So as she has never exercised this so called power because she does not have it your point is?
Are you english?
I ask because you seem clueless about how things work in our green and pleasant land.

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: Grenade

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: oldcarpy

Research Royal Assent.

Sure, the Royals want us to believe they are just ceremonial in power however i'm not fooled.

I think you have forgotten that she is the commander in chief of our military and ever soldier swears allegiance to her. That to me suggest she holds the ultimate power.

Parliament may propose laws, she has to ratify them.

In the event the people revolt it's soldiers who will enforce her will.

e3.365dm.com...e3... .365dm.com/19/07/1600x900/skynews-boris-queen_4727125.jpg

Have a look at that picture and re-evaluate your opinion.

I have personally met princess Anne and it was no joke. Special branch, sniffer dogs, cordons and every other security measure you can imagine. I was not allowed to offer a handshake unless it was in return. Or to speak unless spoken to.

Can you cite any instance when royal assent has ever been refused?

No, because you don't choose to use your power, doesn't take it away.

The Royals are more savvy than in the past. Their image is carefully crafted and protected. To be honest i think they see politics as below them, which it is.

Remember, the Queen has the power to declare WAR without the approval of parliament.

Yeah right.
Has that ever happened?
No, it has not.
I wonder why?
Because it never has or will.

Kings and Queens invented wars and have been declaring them since the creation of Kings and Queens. It's kind of what they do.

a reply to: Grenade

Care to cite an example of where that actually happened? Apart from the 17th century obviously.

a reply to: oldcarpy

It hasn't under the current monarchs rule. It did under the last.

"A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. In the United Kingdom, only the monarch has the power to declare war and peace, under the royal prerogative.[1] There have been no declarations of war since the Second World War, though British Armed Forces have taken part in armed conflict on numerous occasions nonetheless.

There has been a long-running debate[2][3] regarding whether Parliament alone should have the power to declare war and more widely to commit British forces to armed conflict. This was attempted (to the limited extent of possible war against Iraq) in 1999 with the introduction of the Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill. However Queen Elizabeth II, acting upon the advice of her government at the time, refused to grant her consent[4] to allow the bill to be debated in Parliament and so it was dropped (Queen's Consent was needed before debate could take place because the bill affected the royal prerogative).[4] The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 originally included a section that would have required Parliamentary approval for use of the armed forces, but this was dropped from the bill before royal assent."

However Queen Elizabeth II, acting upon the advice of her government at the time, refused to grant her consent[4]

Highlighted that little part for you.

a reply to: Grenade

Last monarch?
You seem to not understand the role of parliament bit.
Again, are you actually english?
You still have no clue, apparently

a reply to: oldcarpy

I can't be bothered anymore friend. I love the UK, I'm just saying if you wanted to pick a fight I'd suggest Boris Johnson rather than The Queen. She will mess you up!

a reply to: Grenade

And your condescending stinking of arrogance response is?

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: oldcarpy

I can't be bothered anymore friend. I love the UK, I'm just saying if you wanted to pick a fight I'd suggest Boris Johnson rather than The Queen. She will mess you up!

You seem confused.
I thought you were going for her maj being boss but off you go.