Satanism, child sacrifice, vampirism and the royal family

a reply to: ManyMasks
Is this real I mean I know Lizzie is short for lizard but cmon...

originally posted by: oldcarpy

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.

You're not worth it pal and i'm not one to resort to intellectual bullying or pretending to be a keyboard warrior.

If you can raise any tangible evidence or proof to backup your points and opinions i will be happy to listen and debate.

Right now tho you just look like a fool.

Your argument that Boris Johnson has more power than the largest land owner on earth and the commander of our military is so foolish i just don't even know where to begin.

a reply to: Grenade


You are the one that needs some tangible evidence and/or proof.
So far you have nothing but childish insults.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I do think that Prince Andrew has a lot to answer for...

In what way?

What do you believe he has to answer for?

a reply to: oldcarpy

Come on guys . Fighting in the forums isn't called for

Keep this as a nice friendly discussion , even if you disagree . It would make more of a man of both of you

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grenade


You are the one that needs some tangible evidence and/or proof.
So far you have nothing but childish insults.

Sure,

QE2 is the commander of the British Military
QE2 is the largest land owner on planet Earth
QE2 has her face printed on British currency
Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, Her Majesty's Prison Service, Her Majesty's Armed forces, ,Her Majesty's courts etc etc.
QE2 owns the majority of the Mayfair, the most expensive retail portfolio in London
QE2 has multiple palaces throughout the UK, all defended by British soldiers, whole battalions of them.
QE2 is the head of the commonwealth, ruler of South Africa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand
QE2 is the longest living, longest reigning monarch as well as the longest serving female head of state.
The Royal Family have assets well into the Billions yet are exempt from tax (not including her land holdings).
QE2 is immune to prosecution.

I'd say that's a good start at correlating the power structure she has at her back.

Now if you can list where Boris Johnson can trump or even match any of these i'll happily concede.

a reply to: Grenade

You are forgetting the role of Parliament since 1642 etc.
Her maj cannot enter Parliament without Black Rod and all that.
Look up Charles 1st and how that all worked out.
We have a Constitutional Monarchy, not an Absolute one as you seem to think.
When people talk about the Crown they are not referring to the Queen in person but to the power that is actually invested in the Govt.
All this QE2 v Boris stuff is all a bit juvenile.

a reply to: JonathanSpencer

Spoilsport.

a reply to: oldcarpy
I'm well aware of the powers of Parliament, none of the points or power i listed require any consultation of Parliament.

The Royal family likely have no interest in who makes the countries laws. As i stated before why would you lower yourself to politics when you are above the law.

Although it's unlikely you realise the Queen could sack the prime minister or any other minister she decides.

a reply to: Grenade

Why do you think it is unlikely i knew that?
Of course, the last time a monarch sacked a PM was in 1834 when William IV dismissed the Whig Govt of the time.
If you really think the Queen can just do whatever she likes then you do not understand how things actually work in the real world.
The scope for a monarch to appoint and dismiss PMs is determined entirely by what is acceptable to the elected representatives in
Parliament whose role you seem to misunderstand.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Well John Kerr dismissed the Whitlam Government in Oz in 1975, acting on behalf of the Queen, so that bit about 1834 is innacurate

This appeal hearing was the latest instalment in the long-running “Palace letters” case which I initiated in the federal court two years ago, seeking the release of secret letters between the Queen and the governor general relating to Kerr’s dismissal of the Whitlam government. These historic letters, critical to our understanding of the dismissal, are held by our National Archives in Canberra where they are kept hidden from us under the strict, and potentially indefinite, embargo of the Queen. The Palace letters are considered by Archives as personal rather than Commonwealth records, enabling Kerr to place his own conditions for access on them and avoiding the usual requirements for public access to the records of the National Archives.

Glimpses of the baroque workings of the Palace, Government House and of the remnant colonial ties between Britain and Australia, could be seen through the prism of the Palace letters. As an autonomous post-colonial nation,we assume that the Queen exercises no residual monarchical power over our system of governance, much less over records held by our National Archives. This case and these letters, however, show that this assumption is misplaced.

a reply to: Grenade



"UK: LONDON: QUEEN ELIZABETH GREETS US PRESIDENT CLINTON"

Or to be more accurate - US presidents escorted "under arms"



"The US is a corporate subsidiary of the Crown"


www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

It was not done just for the hell of it there was a constitutional crisis.
Anyway, we are talking about the UK here.
If our colonies cant sort themselves out then this sort of thing was inevitable.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

It was not done just for the hell of it there was a constitutional crisis.
Anyway, we are talking about the UK here.
If our colonies cant sort themselves out then this sort of thing was inevitable.

I've tried my best but clearly it's a lost cause.

The real power in this world does not reside with it's governments or elected officials. If you want to believe that fantasy then i guess that's your prerogative.

Buckingham Palace alone is valued between £3-5 billion.

a reply to: Grenade

You have yet to give any example as to how the Queen has actually behaved other than impeccably and in accordance with long established constitutional rules.
So, try harder.
Got anything at all rather than your own fantasy?

a reply to: Grenade

The Queen does not own Buck House. She occupies it.
Its owned by the Crown Estate. Before you claim its the same thing please do some research. It isn't.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grenade

The Queen does not own Buck House. She occupies it.
Its owned by the Crown Estate. Before you claim its the same thing please do some research. It isn't.

You mean the Crown Estate which pays a percentage to the Queen each year and has it's board approved by her?

I'm sure they could sell her property to fund the public purse from under her nose and set her up in a little country house.

A tax dodge and excuse to avoid taxes / paying upkeep on the properties of the Crown instead being funded by public taxes.

They own the Crown Jewels as well however the only person i see wearing the estimated £500 million crown is the Queen.

I think you are underestimating the influence of the Queen. Most if not all of these convoluted parliamentary powers are simply that, pieces of paper approved by the Crown for their own benefit to appease the people will still maintaining sole access to their assets.

a reply to: Grenade

I mean the crown estate that gives its profits from property owned to the public purse ie the treasury with 15% going to the sovereign grant.
Again, do you have any example of the queen doing anything naughty?
Apart from Diana's mur.......i mean "tragic accident"?
Try harder and come back when you have any actual example of what you claim.
Ie anything other than nothing at all.

a reply to: oldcarpy

I never claimed she's done anything naughty, other than that nazi salute as a kid.

I'm simply stating the Royal Family have the power to do whatever the hell they want without parliamentary approval or repercussions from the law.

I'd say they have a pretty decent way of life so carefully manage their image so as not to jeopardise their opulent wealth.

They have reached the pinnacle of wealth and power in our country, through hundreds of years of war, bloodshed, drug trafficking, slavery and all manner of nefarious acts.

Now their sitting back and reaping the rewards.

Have a look at her husband and how his family wealth was built on the back of a Chinese opium epidemic.

a reply to: Grenade

So the royals have the power to do all sorts of nefarious things and are above the law but you can't cite any examples of them actually having done so?
What is your take on Diana's mur.... Sorry - tragic accident?
You might be onto something there - allegedly.