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.

 

Why Hate the British Royals?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hazelnut
I would like to provide you with your first poor quality answer.


Nice try, but you missed by one!


I have no idea. Its all conspiracy, conjecture, speculation, suspicion and a certain dosage of imagination blended to imperfection.


And failed again. While it's not what I was looking for, that was not a poor quality answer. Beautifully put.




posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Power is so vicious and mutable that one must remain hidden to wield it effectively, especially if one is to be oppressive.


Er... that's why she's on all the money? Or do you mean "hidden in plain sight"?


You may think the "royal family" has no power, but i ask you my fellow open minded person, do they live a normal life or that of extravagance?


There are plenty of royal families of which one could say the same. None seem, however, to be accused of running the world with the same regularity as the UK royals.

I have to say I'm finding it really odd defending the Windsors.


Do they live in castles and mansions or do they live in a measly apartment?


They live in the same places the British royals have lived for hundreds of years. It doesn't mean they run the world right now.


Do they have access to billions in wealth or do they not?


According to The Sunday Times Rich List, there are 213 people in the country wealthier than her. They give her personal fortune as 270 million pounds, which is paltry compared even, say, to the Duke of Westminster with about 5,000 million.

Even out of the top 200, I'm sure that still gets you a lot of leverage if you want it and if you're prepared to put yourself in hock to the bankers.


Can the Queen abolish Parliament or can she not?


In practice, she is always asked to do that. By a politician.


The Rothschild's and the Rockefeller's are mere lieutenants to the Throne after all.


Now, see, this could be good. It's exactly the kind of accusation I see bandied about all the time. And I'd be prepared to believe it, if someone could supply me with some evidence to lift it out of the Land of Insubstantial Claims.


Look up "The Pilgrim's Society".


Ok... but if there's something specific you want me to know, why not link it yourself? This "air of mystery" thing gets old very quickly and can be used to disguise laziness.


Who are the Pilgrim's Society? What do they do? How much influence do they have?


Please provide definitive answers to these rhetorical questions if you want a serious discussion. I've looked at the Wiki entry, which was predictably thin, and then some other stuff... which just rehashed things like the Bush family's investment connections and referred to the UK royals as having "elder brother status" to the US connections. I don't think it really works like that.


What is their agenda?
Yeah, yeah, world domination. One article I read conjured the image of the Queen and various other members (no doubt including the US Ambassador) getting together to discuss how they can further put the screws on the middle classes. Am I alone in finding this a slightly ludicrous picture?


Can you say "Illuminati" ??


Actually, no, I have a speech impediment caused by a preternaturally massive tongue that means I have a lot of trouble with the letter "L".

I'm also far from convinced that they exist in any current genuine sense. There are plenty of people and organisations who claim illumination.

Ok, I can't say "Illuminati". Can you identify them and provide reasonable evidence that they exist, are powerful, and have a detrimental influence on the rest of humanity?.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiveForever8
The Queen of The United Kingdom Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

She is head of the armed forces,
She is head of the Church of England,
She guides and advises the PM (Government),


Who can ignore any advice. Blair sucked up to her, allegedly, and supposedly Thatch didn't get on well with her, which I can believe.


She has the power to close Parliament if she needs to,


Can you name an occasion that's happened in the last 100 years where the monarch did that off their own bat?


All laws have to go through her,


Can you imagine how long her Civil List would last if she stopped signing legislation? Can you name a single bill that she hasn't signed into law?


She represents Many nations and entertains foreign heads of state.

Is this not right?


Theoretically, yes. But actually finding an instance where those powers are used independently might be tricky. Instead of talking generalities, please provide specifics.


I watched a documentary once which listed all of the Queens powers.
They were very important ones which implied that she held the most power in the country. But they are rarely put into use, at least in this day and age.


Exactly.

How about this? You're born into wealth and privilege with no real political power but quite a lot of dull ceremonial duties that bring you (and, more to the point, your slightly dim-witted and racist husband) into contact with Johnny Foreigner. You're kept pretty busy, but it's not a terrible life. Why bother trying to run the world? You're part of an institution whose most powerful days are long gone, thanks, and there's no real prospect of that kind of unchecked power being yours.

Do you a) get on with your life because it's what you were born into and the alternatives are basically non-existent or b) try and amass enough power to control the world?

It's not like the family is like, say, the Bush dynasty, where getting and holding political power is clearly the single item on the agenda. The Windsors can't interfere in UK politics, and if one of them speaks out of turn, they get a slap.

Still waiting to see something concrete. Evidence, not innuendo.

[edit on 23-7-2009 by rich23]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
How in this day and age we still believe in the divine right of kings is beyond me.


I wasn't aware that anyone did.


How can one family scrounge of the british taxpayer for huge homes, servants to place the toothpaste on their toothbrush. Prince william was allowed the use of a much needed Chinook for a jolly on his stag do. harry was used as propaganda in the Afghan war. After turning up at a fancy dress party dressed as a Nazi. They are morally corupt and I say get rid of the lot off em.
makes me insane to think people think this is ok.


While I agree to some extent, I also think, as I said in the OP, that they fulfil an important psychological function that's not apparent until you go to the US.

Look at the outpouring of grief over Diana. Completely irrational. Would that have happened if she hadn't married Chuck? I don't think so. Miond you, if he'd married a munter like Camilla in the first place I doubt she'd have been as popular.

I'd favour a hugely reduced Civil List that basically covers the cost of state functions and the upkeep of buildings. Paradoxically, I think that this reduction in circumstances should be kept as quiet as possible. They have a ceremonial function, and that kind of revelation actually can damage it even more than twattish antics from the younger generation.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Who Are the Pilgrims Society? And how does it relate to secret societies and the Illuminati?

Please actually read this, www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

See there I did the research for you, all you have to do is read it.


If you think that posting one article constitutes "doing the research", then you have a lot to learn.

I read the article. Here's a not untypical quote:


Pilgrim-presidents of the New York Federal Reserve Bank cover the period from 1914 to 1979. The 4 presidents since then have not been members as far as we know, although that’s probably because of a lack of recent data. Pilgrim-chairmen of the New York Federal Reserve cover almost the entire period from the 1920s up to 1990, so we can safely assume that the New York Federal Reserve Bank is owned by the Pilgrims.


Hang on. Suppose all the Fed Chairman were Boy Scouts? Does that mean the scouts own the Fed?

This kind of "logic" is just laughable. I'm waiting for something serious here. Is there any actual evidence that the UK Royals run the world? A Rockefeller could buy and sell HRH Brenda many many times over, yet we're supposed to believe that the UK has "elder brother" status? It's not like the UK ever profits from this alleged influence. All the juicy Iraqi reconstruction contracts went to US firms: providing the US with the illusion they had an ally bought the UK nothing.

That whole article you posted is based on the false assumption that membership of the Pilgrims Society led to acts of power and corruption. It's more than possible that the Pilgrims' is just a dining club and the real action goes on elsewhere. More conventional CTs suggest the CFR and the Bilderbergers, both of which I can understand. The article does mention that the people it singles out are also CFR people, almost invariably.

Ultimately, the thing I'm having difficulty with is the idea that anyone who doesn't have to should want to defer to UK royalty. And there's as yet no evidence to suggest that anyone does, except at a sucky social occasion that's held a couple of times a year.

I keep hearing this stuff about the Rhodes Round Table, and that, in its day, may have carried some weight: but the UK is kind of on the skids and I can't see any good reason why it should retain any authority, or evidence that it does.

[edit on 23-7-2009 by rich23]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by foxhoundone
rich23, S&F for you, much over needed debate is needed over the monocacy, its so symbolic an institution, head of the armed forces, police, prison service, post office, courts, security... etc,


I think you hit the nail on the head with the word symbolic.


IMO we definitely need a boss.


This is not what I'm suggesting. Just to be clear, I think the monarchy is helpful as a lightning rod for irrational feelings about one's country. I certainly do NOT want the monarch to be the boss.

I see them as a bunch of not particularly bright, rather inbred people who fulful a particular function of our society (and for which duty we pay them rather too much, thanks). Giving power back to the Royals would definitely be a retrograde move.


the queen has blocked white papers by refusing to sign them.


Are you sure you mean white papers here? Can you give more detail of these incidents?


the royal family does not lead quite the flamboyant life style were are lead to believe, all that civic functions and ceremonial parades, the running of charities


A friend of mine worked in the charity sector and he once attended a meeting at which the patron, Prince Andrew, showed up and was actually rather impressively well-informed and thoughtful about the subject. That surprised me, I can tell you, because the mere sight of that fat, smug face would at one time reduce me to a rabid, frothing mess, my one purpose to destroy the Royals and particularly Mr FatSmug.

My friend also heard that Di was in charities just for the photo-ops. No surprises there.


and opening of civic buildings, Jeez do they get any real time to themselves, we might think we would like to live that lifestyle but what a pain.... just my opinion,


I have to say if I were offered it as a job, I'd still take it. While I do think that a lot of what they have to do is really not much fun at all, the perks are nonetheless pretty tempting. I can't hold out a lot of sympathy for them.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by kindred
The Queen doesn't give a damn about this country. She had no qualms about p###### our constitution down the toilet when she signed the Lisbon Treaty.
She's a traitor and should spend her final days locked away in the Tower of London with the rest of our treacherous government.
Off with their heads.


Oh dear, you just looked at the thread title and didn't really read what I wrote in the OP, did you?

Again, this is an example of the Queen giving her power away.

You could easily see this as the preparation for One World Government. But there's no guarantee that the UK would be on top, quite the reverse.

So for the people I'm really arguing with here - those who think The Royals Run The World - this is countervailing evidence.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 05:26 AM
link   
Overall, I'm not impressed with the replies.

Most people don't read the OP, they just look at the title and spout off something that seems relevant to them but is often another manifestation of the irrational feelings that people have about the monarchy, either pro- or anti-.

So far, no real evidence they're running the world.

Still waiting.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


Thats because there not running the world. In my opinion they are on their last legs. They do have power, but in no way comparable with the US President. I guess they have the power to influence certain things, but people go mad when Charles starts sticking his nose in on things he should keep to himself.

I think maybe when the queen dies the royal family may come to an end. one can only hope



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   
If UK is still the most powerful country in the world and especially financially and all the countries powers much go through her....then she's the most powerful woman in the world. LOL. Wouldn't surprise me if the old tw 'at was a reptillian. I can't believe in the 21st century the Brits are still entertaining this crazy idea of a monarch in the form of Queens and Princesses and Princes. What a joke! England may very well still be a powerful country but tis a former shell of herself that's for sure. And she's circling the drain these days. Good Riddence!



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


I hope you enjoy some light hearted exchanges?...

Surely, giving this thread the title that you have you must expect to be dissapointed by some responses to some degree?


I dont have the time or energy to commit to researching and establishing any evidence above and beyond what would normally be considered as speculation and the more obvious ''conspiracy'' that suurounds the Monarchy. Especially when information of this nature is concievably originated from online sources and/or has been subject to personal conjecture from read persons both academic and public.

In summary, there's every possibility there could be higher ranking literature that may point to evidence of the Monarchy's true power in the world somewhere, but is this not the conundrum of researching in this field? evidence pointing to evidence pointing to evidence; where nothing is in fact proven...who really knows, but I like to entertain the idea that there's a certain mysticism about it that continues to fascinate me.

But, like you, I also anticipate a better response



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 06:17 AM
link   
Its hilarious as an American that the British still havent moved past such an arcane concept as "royalty"! In some ways the UK is as primitive as Saudi Arabia in that regard.

Even some sad people like the Canadians and the Australians consider that old woman their "Queen". To most Americans its quite quaint and utterly ludicrous to be servile to some old woman in a land half the world away!

In the end, it is perhaps the case of "each to their own" but while the West is busy trying to bring progress to the Middle East, it is pretty ludicrous to have Europeans follow the same arcane customs.

I think even in India, which once had many Maharajas and such has today done away with those arcane titles of unearned privilege.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by IAF101
 


Educate yourself on the use of appropriate English language:

''Its hilarious as an American that the British still havent moved past such an arcane concept as "royalty"! In some ways the UK is as primitive as Saudi Arabia in that regard.''

Is that not inanely and obscenely generalising the British?

What a ridiculous statement....



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by IAF101
 



It is with more than a touch of irony then that one of the main arguments for keeping the Monarchy is that she draws the fat American tourists with the fat wallets 365 days a year.

Very few people in Britain care about the Queen. Mainly the older generation and certain football fans (Rangers, Chelsea) She has no real power. God Save The Queen may be the national anthem but we only sing it at international sporting events.

They are, largely, irrelevant.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   
I have my suspicions...of course, I HOPE there is no reason to despise the royal family (other than their aristocratic snobbery), but my higher senses give way to fear...



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
rich23, reference your query to HM the queen, refusing to sign the white papers, this was actually the queen Victoria who refused to believe that their was same sex relations in her regiment of nurses in the army (QVNA)
???. I'm almost a 100% sure she (HM) Victoria would not sign this parliamentary form so it was never unlawful to be a lesbian in the UK armed forces, there's other information about royals not signing the white forms but i lack the research to post .... remember when you are employed by the govt you sign the official secrets act and sign your oath of allegiance to HM the queen, then the govt.....



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by IAF101
 


your sure not up to speed on the way British life works, if employed by HM govt, you get alot of perks regarding pensions sick benefits and holidays and the such, if employed by HM armed forces your covered by a host of charities/veteran associations to help in time of need or injury, indeed these are mainly covered by the SOLDERS COVIANANT, and the royals pay a big part in securing funding for these institutions, and if need be she (HM) can kick ass if needs be if she does not agree with parliament ( IMO )



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by IAF101
 


Your country has only been going for 400 hundred odd years and you people are crapping yourselves about losing the constitution. We've had the monarchy in place since before America was even a pipe dream.

Look at the turnouts for when the Queen visits towns and cities, she's immensely popular, no-one cares about the rest of the royal family, its the queen and what she stands for and the rest of this country stands for.

I'm glad we have her as a representative for this country and we aren't just recognisable by the fat prick at downing street. She's been running this country for 57 years and it should stay that way.

Di was not just in charities for photo ops either.. take a real look for yourself at some of the work she did with the sick in africa and walking through open minefields in just a helmet. Would you do that just for a photo op?

Zosynspriracy... where to start... the UK is a joke? I'm gonna guess your a yank cos there seems to be a big anti British sentiment at the minute from a lot of Americans on here rippin the hell out of our country for no reason, not that clever when we're pretty much your only ally.

You don't know jack, and I mean absolutely diddly squat. Entertaining this crazy idea? Its tradition, its how this country gained the power it did and with the world changing the power could not remain in the hands of just the British, which is kinda funny cos its you guys that are the power grabbing bastards now...

Financially I don't think you've got anything to say either your country is in crazy levels of debt. The word debt doesn't even describe the colossal # that you've got yourselves into with your stupid levels of military spending and Obama splashing out on personalised Ipods and a jet straight over here to kiss our Queen's ass.

Good riddance to you too.. with the amount of enemies you're building it won't be long until someone, somewhere gets severely sick of the sort of sentiment you just exampled and you get a bomb dropped on your head.. Infact.. You might not even have to look outside of your own borders for what could be the final curtain for most of you, unlucky.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by IAF101
 


Appears to me that you've just been completely flammed and rightly so. Shame, you utterly destroyed the theme of this thread because I was hoping, like the OP, that more insightful and constuctive contributions may have been engaged, but clearly not in your case.

How irritating you foolish types can be!



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ItsallCrazy
 


Yeah and the only reason our country is in debt is because of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is a throwback to the Bank of England. Although we "won" the war the Bank of England never released it's financial grip on the Colonies. So in the end we never really one our freedom, financially atleast.

I don't hate the English. I hate the English government. Like us Americans you all have been taken over by a big, bloated, and tyrannical government and short of anarchy and revolution there isn't jack you all can do about it. You all wreaked havoc on the world. The last 50 years America has done the same. We will go the way of you soon enough if we aren't already there.

But to still languish at the feet of royalty is obscene and ridiculous. Pathetic and disgusting in my opinion.



[edit on 24-7-2009 by Zosynspiracy]







 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join