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.

 

I think I'd make a better King

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Before anyone snickers off right - I am directly related to the deposed royal family (the Tutors and the Stuarts) through the first Duke of Suffolk - married to the first daughter of Henry VIII or whatever blah blah.

Doesn't really matter - that's so long ago.

What does matter - is I'm bored...but I do believe I would make a better King than either Charles or his wayward sons.

Right now Britain is little more than a puppet of the US - with Nasdaq trying to purchase the London Stock Exchange. That probably won't go through but that's how things have gone.

As your King I would definately re-unite the Empire. Particularly in Africa - where lack of good administration and stability has given cause for bleeding hearts like Bono to complain about their misery and pestilence.

Under good British Government - Africa has the most to gain.

The ultimate goal of wrestling from the US their dominance of the Chinese market, to contain Russia and move her former Empire farther from her, and to re-establish a strong industrial sector through out the Empire.

These goals are better than the mentioned goals the Queen recently gave - of combating terrorism (not a threat needing concerted national effort) or "anti-social behavior" which the people get from Hollywood.

Expnanding British influence in Saudi Arabia should not be hard to do - since the Sauds copied the British crown system that they admired so much and for the first time in Arab history they introduced a new word and concept: "Kingdom".

Such an expansion back into the middle east would give the UK more sway over international law.

There used to be a time when international law was strong and administered by Britain - now it is weak and non-existent in most parts of the world. The US is only concerned with maintaining their hegemony - not with administering the world.

Britain was interested in the later - and did well for a time, but lack of cahones has lost that Empire.

As your King - I'd return the UK to her former glory as the British Empire.

Also, a revision of the Knights of the British Empire has to be made - comedians and artisans should not be "Knights". I would reserve that more for the elite combatants of the nation - a title with great honor for great service.




posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 03:33 AM
link   
Alas, the Monarch doesn't have the power to do most of what you want to do. Perhaps you'd like to be Prime Minister instead?



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   
A leap back in time as 'the answer'?

I don't think so.

.....and where are those states clamouring for a return to the old colonial status meant to be?

What was the quote.......the first time is tragedy the second mere farce?

If you want to live a time-warp life and avoid the difficult reality of real life as it really is you can; stay in and watch endless reruns of 1970s/80's/90's TV on satellite and cable.

Just please don't propose condemning the rest of us to this pointless horror.


[edit on 22-11-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Hmmm..., where to begin?


Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
As your King I would definately re-unite the Empire. Particularly in Africa - where lack of good administration and stability has given cause for bleeding hearts like Bono to complain about their misery and pestilence.


Now don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of just about anything that removes self rightous and absurdly wealthy hypocrites from my television but even assuming that you conjured up the power to reunite the empire I'm not sure you're going to be overwhelmed by support for this one from the old empire states.

If you go down this route you're going to end up with vast military resources bogged down in inhospitable areas of the world fighting colonial wars thereby reducing the motherland to economic disarray and provoking racial intolerance at every turn.

Oh, hang on...



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 06:47 AM
link   


posted by Stratrf_Rus

I am directly related to the deposed royal family (the Tutors and the Stuarts) through the first Duke of Suffolk - married to the first daughter of Henry VIII . . [Edited by Don W]



Henry VIII and his courageous and visionary daughter, the first Queen Elizabeth, are both in my pantheon of demigods.



Doesn't really matter . . I do believe I would make a better King than either Charles or his wayward sons. Right now Britain is little more than a puppet of the US - with Nasdaq trying to purchase the London Stock Exchange. That probably won't go through but that's how things have gone.



Over here, the 1914-1945 period is sometimes called the Second Thirty Years War. As the first Thirty Years War ended the Wars of Religion in Europe, so the second ended the Days of Empire. Barely 2 years later - 1947 - the Empire on which the Sun never set, lost its “jewel in the crown” when India gained its independence. Overseen by Lord Louis Mountbatten, another Brit to be found in my pantheon. I have read that after WW1, running the Empire cost more than it brought in. The not always immediately apparent laws of economics may have spelt the end to all the old style empires. If you consider the 13 colonies here as the “mother country” then the US has always been an empire but of a different sort.



As your King I would re-unite the Empire. Particularly in Africa - under good British Government - Africa has the most to gain. The ultimate goal of wrestling from the US their dominance of the Chinese market, to contain Russia and move her former Empire farther from her, and to re-establish a strong industrial sector through out the Empire.



I think you will find Africa is like the genie in the bottle. Once released, it cannot be recaptured. Russia remains and has always been heavily handicapped by its geography, located in the high latitudes. It's too damned cold! If it weren't so large in area, it would hardly be noticed. People who make sense to me warn that China - the PRC - is at the verge of imploding. 300 million “coastal” Chinese versus the 1 billion “inland” Chinese. China’s financial structure has reached the limits of its capacity. The internal policies that have made the rapid growth of China possible I date from 1977's 6th Party Congress. I mean to say, China is not a participant in the international monetary system. It has operated internally and oblivious to international norms. China’s state banks are beginning to crack around the edges.

Because China is not managed under international banking rules, the inevitable and unchecked mis-handling of resources has put China in a very bad situation, money-wise. Half the loans made over the past 20 years are in default. China has made the fatal mistake bankers seek to avoid; they have loaned so much to borrowers they cannot afford to call the loan. They have become partners. The banker’s worst nightmare. Because remote and aloof politicians rule the banks, loans in default are carried on the books as assets. China can’t “float” the yuan. It would sink! China is to banking what America is to Iraq. Aside: It is now accepted we have destroyed Iraq as a viable state; the issue now is how do we get out without destroying ourselves! It's deja vu Vietnam!



These goals are better than the mentioned goals the Queen recently gave - of combating terrorism (not a threat needing concerted national effort) or "anti-social behavior" which the people get from Hollywood.



I strongly agree with you here, Mr S/R. By the bye, I owe you on another thread. The American Grand Strategy. Neither the US nor the UK can afford the current War on Terror the way Bush43 chose to wage it. Texas-style. Quick draw. Shoot first. Questoins later. We must learn to fight smart, not to fight dumb. The terrorists can and have whipsawed us. They spend a few 1000s or even millions, and we counter by spending many billions. In the 2004 election, a cd - which proved to be 3 years old - was “leaked” to the press. It showed what the Republicans said was a scouting out of targets in NYC’s Wall Street and in W-DC. Both cities put police on overtime and spent $70 million. The cd, later identified by an observant property owner in NYC, proved to be nothing.

OTOH, Bill Clinton pursued the first WTC bombers with the FBI as a criminal act and the perpetrators are now in prison. The country was not put $8 T. in debt nor were our basic laws violated. We did not kill 50-150,000 people, mostly innocent, nor lose nearly 3,000 of our own KIA on a fools errand. Say hello Hillary Clinton!



Expanding British influence in Saudi Arabia should not be hard to do - such an expansion back into the Middle East would give the UK more sway over international law. The US is only concerned with maintaining their hegemony - not with administering the world.



The US learned early on how to have the benefits of empire without the burden of governance. We impose locals who are willing to work with our corporate representatives - lackeys - and the USMC keeps down any dissenters. How do you think I can still buy bananas at 39 cents a pound, which is the same price it was 10 years ago? The United Fruit Company is the largest land owner in Nicaragua, where the election of Ortega is the reason the US has re-established the infamous US Army School of the Americas. Say hello torture and death squads. But we have cheap bananas.



I'd return the UK to her former glory as the British Empire. Also, a revision of the Knights of the British Empire has to be made - I would reserve that more for the elite combatants of the nation - a title with great honor for great service.



Would you not concede the Mahatma served India better than a dozen field marshals? Admittedly made possible because Brits are not Belgians or even French. For which you may take considerable pride. (I am not Franco bashing. I acknowledge the debt we Americans owe the French for their inestimable and essential aid in our War of 1775-1783, without which aid we’d still be colonies.)


[edit on 11/23/2006 by donwhite]



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join