It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OP/ED: ATSNN Fact File: United Kingdom

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   
You might wish to read everything I actually said.

36billion was what the Government spends.




posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
You might wish to read everything I actually said.

36billion was what the Government spends.


here is what you originally stated


Last I checked we only spend 36billion a year on the Military, which the Royal Family can afford (once you remove buying new equipment, etc) in fact I think they can afford to spend about 5 to 10billion on troops (pay) which is more than enough to fund an attack/Civil War.


Now again I ask you how can someone with only approximately 420 million worth, fund something in the Billions all on their own?




[edit on 8/22/2005 by shots]



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   
You know, the Queen owns all the swans in England. Well not all, but her website thing says



the Crown retains the right to ownership of all unmarked mute swans in open water, but The Queen only exercises her ownership on certain stretches of the River Thames and its surrounding tributaries.


So she owns a hell of a lot of swans. They do this thing every year called Swan Upping, they pretty much count all the swans up the Thames, checking the weight of Cygnets, making sure they are all healthy and so on. I think you have to have been born into a Swan-Upping family to do it though.

They last did it the week Monday 18th - Friday 22nd July 2005.

I don't know if anyone actually cares, but it's one of the only things I know about our Queen.
I feel a little ashamed lol.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by sammie_doodle
I don't know if anyone actually cares, but it's one of the only things I know about our Queen.
I feel a little ashamed lol.


Nothing to be ashamed of she probably did it for their protection. I highly doubt she has them on a menu for one of her parties.

Rather then be ashamed you should be proud she is protecting them



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Shots, how much do you know about her role as head of the Commonwealth and Head of State for Australia and also the newer versions of the 'Defence of the Realm Act'?


sammie_doodle, I did know that because I went and watched a group og people try to catch the swans to tag and weight them. Was so amusing.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Yeah, can't say I'd really like to chase swans. They bite


And shots, I meant that I was ashamed I didn't know very much about the royal family. I think it's quite cool that she owns all the swans. The royal family used to eat the swans but they don't anymore. Moral reasons I suppose :p Or chicken is cheaper.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Shots, how much do you know about her role as head of the Commonwealth and Head of State for Australia and also the newer versions of the 'Defence of the Realm Act'?


My guess would be be similar to that of the UK. I see no relevance to DORA since it is for use in time of war, we have somthing similar here that allows censorship, rationing etc., during times of war.

Now will you answer my question? You keep coming back with more questions rather then answering how she can afford billions of dollars when she is only worth 420 million all on her own

Your original contention was she could now prove it.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 01:54 AM
link   
It's rather simple.

The Commonwealth.

She is still the Head of State of many Nation's, including ones such as Australia [which voted to keep her] and can raise money to defend the United Kingdom through other Commonwealth Nations.

[Also, I said Royal Family can afford it as well not the Queen].

In fact, right at this moment the Commonwealth of Nation's should be in Zimbabwe protecting the people there but they do not bother.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 03:37 AM
link   
What is all this talk about the "Royal Army" and the TA being Parliaments army...what a bunch of crock.

There is no "Royal Army". It is simply known as the British Army ( or even simpler, the Army). The Queen is technically Commander in Chief of the Army, with various other Royals, such as Charles, having Honorary Ranks in certain Regiments such as the Para's.

The TA is not "Parliaments Army", it is merely an extension of the exisiting British Army and the structure and training is identical. The only difference is that the TA are reservists and are as such part-timers.

It stemmed from the old "Home Guard" formed during the War and has since been renamed and reorganised to enable it to help out the Army.

You will currently find an awful lot of TA reservisits serving alongside the Reg's aborad in places such as Iraq and Bosnia.

Anyway, glad I got that out the way... Otherwise a good thread!

Also, whislt we discuss the Queens powers, do you know she has the power to dissolve parliament (and all the other nasties she can do here) in Australia and Canada (plus others) if she so chooses. Wether or not they would listen is another thing and would probably fuel republican movements, but she could still give it a go!

[edit on 24/8/05 by stumason]



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Also, whislt we discuss the Queens powers, do you know she has the power to dissolve parliament (and all the other nasties she can do here) in Australia and Canada (plus others) if she so chooses. Wether or not they would listen is another thing and would probably fuel republican movements, but she could still give it a go!


Well, we saw a real example of what would happen the first and last time they tried that in 1975, when the Queen's representative, Governor General John Kerr, sacked the Whitlam government. Independent countries don't like having old blue-rinse ladies trying to mess with their sovereignty after Federation, and the particular blue-rinser in question agreed after the whole mess blew up in her and Kerr's face. "Kerr's cur" I believe were the words used by Gough Whitlam. Kerr had to leave the country in shame and died in Britain 16 years later.

[edit on 2005-8-24 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 04:26 AM
link   
-winks-

Funny, the Judiciary and Privy Council seem to think and show otherwise.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Oops...thought that was directed at me. Nevermind.

[edit on 2005-8-24 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

[Also, I said Royal Family can afford it as well not the Queen].

In fact, right at this moment the Commonwealth of Nation's should be in Zimbabwe protecting the people there but they do not bother.


I just knew you were going to bring up the comment on the Royal Family


Care to prove that their combined net worth is in excess of the amount it costs to run the Army, Navy and Air Force for one year, let alone several, all on their own?

If they are responsible for Zimbabwe, shame on them for not protecting their own.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join