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.

 

God Save the Queen - of Australia, Canada, and NZ?

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
IMO the monarchy does need to end ASAP in Australia, and perhaps the other former colonies too if they wish it. I would sooner see them all hang to death (the royals) than bow down to them.




posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   
The monarchy needs to end ASAP in Australia and the other colonies too (if they wish it).

Personally though, I would rather see them all shot than bow down to them. **** the monarchy.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ivycutler
The Queen of the UK has never legally been the head of state of Australia. The legal framework that the settlement/invasion of the land of geographic Australia was based on has been overturned in the High court of Australia in the Mabo case 1992.

www.mabonativetitle.com...
.............

Experiment with this yourselves Australians. If you end up in court or get a fine. Request that the court prove its legal jurisdiction to operate within whatever indigenous nation you may be in. They can't do it. If it's just a minor charge you'll often get let off with an annoyed warning.




Wont happen. Mabo is based on native title on areas of land that have been continuously occupied by the original tribes. Not many of them left. Mind you , it would be a laugh for someone to try and claim back Sydney.....



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yazman
The monarchy needs to end ASAP in Australia and the other colonies too (if they wish it).

Personally though, I would rather see them all shot than bow down to them. **** the monarchy.


What has the monarchy done in Australia for you to want them all dead? Do you have some personal grudge we don't know about?

And nobody bows down to the royals, except maybe Obama. They're just a tourist attration.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whine Flu reply to post by aorAki
 
Oh shi-

Originally posted by yizzel

Originally posted by Whine Flu New Zealand here. Who's the queen?
She's that woman with the crown on her head as depicted on your coins. Funny cause one of your national anthems is God save the Queen, and you don't know who she is?
It was a joke. I know who she is, but what I meant by that was that she has no control over anyone of us here.
No? Like any Uber-Rich, she can buy off your media & pay for just the right incidents for that media to spin into the story she wants; the "public perception" which best suits her agenda. She also has a distinct advantage over her non-royal elitist competitors, because she is well in with the law makers & also has tradition & patriotism on her side.
No control my arse!



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by kindred
 

We also have the lamest national anthem on the face of the Earth. "God save the Queen". It should be, "Land of hope and glory". Maybe someday it will be, once we have rid ourselves of these parasites
I thought we changed it in the 70s to "Come'n'ave a go if yer fink yer 'ard enuf!"
We should change it again to something more relevant to today...
"Fat Bottomed Girls Make The Rockin World Go Round"
No?



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by yizzel


Apologies for making lame jokes...


[edit on 4-9-2009 by yizzel]

Noneed to apologise.
I love lame jokes



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunken Drum

Originally posted by Whine Flu reply to post by aorAki
 
Oh shi-

Originally posted by yizzel

Originally posted by Whine Flu New Zealand here. Who's the queen?
She's that woman with the crown on her head as depicted on your coins. Funny cause one of your national anthems is God save the Queen, and you don't know who she is?
It was a joke. I know who she is, but what I meant by that was that she has no control over anyone of us here.
No? Like any Uber-Rich, she can buy off your media & pay for just the right incidents for that media to spin into the story she wants; the "public perception" which best suits her agenda. She also has a distinct advantage over her non-royal elitist competitors, because she is well in with the law makers & also has tradition & patriotism on her side.
No control my arse!


Yeah, she can but she hasn't. Besides, NZ'ers are a rather cynical bunch. It might be a small country but a lot of the people are no nonsense types of people and have prided themselves on it for years. If the Queen did something foul, she could expect some strong enemies.

She already has enough people who hate her in this country.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by Whine Flu]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Whine Flu
 
How do you know what events she's paid for to have happen in your country? How do you know what media stories she has had spun her way? You dont. You cant. People with that kind of clout are insulated from scrutiny by whole layers of lackies. There are even laws that allow the financial transactions of royalty to be handled in secret by particular investment houses. Ostensibly this is to prevent the market from being destabilised by investors "following the smart money", its just a coincidence that it creates yet another layer of obfustication to anyone who would like to know what they're upto... right?



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 

Can you point me to some evidence of this?

I'm interested in to know how you got to this conclusion.

[edit on 4/9/2009 by lepracornman]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by Whine Flu
 
How do you know what events she's paid for to have happen in your country? How do you know what media stories she has had spun her way? You dont. You cant. People with that kind of clout are insulated from scrutiny by whole layers of lackies. There are even laws that allow the financial transactions of royalty to be handled in secret by particular investment houses. Ostensibly this is to prevent the market from being destabilised by investors "following the smart money", its just a coincidence that it creates yet another layer of obfustication to anyone who would like to know what they're upto... right?


Oh man, then the Queen's totally ruining our country by showing stuff on the news like the time an obscure little town had a bake sale, and *gasp*...The latest weather updates!

That Queen sure is sinister.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by eMachine
 


I can understand your bewilderment. There are many people here in NZ who are not royalists - including me.

But sometimes I think better the devil you know - at least queenie keeps dictators and other creeps away.

We have a governor general here who is British and appointed by the queen - that is probably another good control.

But, yes, it is a name only thing.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by lepracornman
 
Why certainly...

It is forbidden for Parliament to discuss the fact that the Queen has kept her private wealth a secret. But, in 1977, it was discovered through a Parliamentary question, that the Bank of England had established a special nominee company, the Bank of England Nominees Ltd. (BOEN), to hide investments of the Queen's portfolio, as well as those of others whom she recommends, such as King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, the Sultan of Brunei, King Bhumibhol Adulayadej of Thailand, and the Kuwaiti Investment Office.

The Crown Jewels_ The Queen Is The Ultimate Insider Trader
Worth reading the whole article, but you get the picture. She could pay anyone off with stocks, cash or even just financial info. Nobody could ever find out. Unless it were leaked, in which case it would be denied & a convincing smear of the leaker put together.
 

@Whine Flu
So there's never any events in NZ that have an impact on your domestic politics, is that what you're saying?



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Everything that impacts us here is mainly due to the US. Maybe, technically, she is pulling the strings of this country via her theorised control of the US.

I guess she does have an impact on politics when concerned with land rights and stuff like that, but the majority of us don't seem to care. Only select activists. Like Tariana Turia.

Feels insulting when she talks like she talks for all Maori of NZ. I am not part of "her people" as she seems to like to think. Probably more scared of her than the Queen. Stuff like this just creates unnecessary tension - But that's a whole 'nother story!



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by kindred
The Royal Family are nothing more than parasites on the back of the British people. The only decent person to grace the Royal Family was Princess Diana and look what happened to her. She did more for charity and humanitarian causes than the entire Royal Family put together. The sooner we step on and crush these parasites, the better.



The above is utter rubbish. All the Royal Family are regulary carrying out charitable acts. Charles runs several, as do the others and they have raised hundreds of millions for charity. For you to even write the above and believe it shows that you don't actual know anything.

And parasites? We control these people. They live their entire lives under the spotlight, unable to live life as they please and constantly having to attend "engagements" at the behst of the Government. They are trained, groomed and prepared for a life of servitude to the state.

If one of them is unlucky enough to eventually become Monarch, then what little freedom they had is gone forever. You might think it would be cool to be King, but I'd hate it. Unable to make a single choice about what to do with your day as it's been planned months in advance by beureacrats and politicians.

The lucky ones might get to have a career of their own, like Andrew or Harry, but even then it's the subject of intense public scrutiny.

Sod that for a game of cricket.

And we're their subjects? Not likely, try the other way round.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


Thank you kind sir

So essentially what this article is saying is that the queens wealth is that of a material kind, in the form of gold and jewels (crown Jewels)? and secret investments which the government of england is not suppose to discuss? And this wealth give her the ability to influence commonwealth nations and give pay outs to media institutions in commonwealth nations?

Mind my interuptation it is 4 in the morning, if it seems a little obscure. I will give it a good read in the morning.

I personally am curious as to where New Zealand is heading, not many people seem to discuss this. My Father whom works for the ministry of Defence, head of codified operations here, told me that it was only a matter of time before we join with Australia. Mind you, he was a bit intoxicated, heh, but i bet he wasn't expecting me to be on Above top secret.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by lepracornman
 


Firstly, lets just clarify, there is no "Government of England". Due to the mess of devolution, Scotland, Wales and NI all have their own Parliaments but England does not. We are still governed directly by the UK Parliament, where Scots, welsh and Irish MP's sit and decide on laws affecting England, but do not affect their own constituencies.

Secondly, the Queens wealth has been well documented over many years. Much of her monetary wealth comes from land investments and it is estimated she is worth a few Billion quid. Most of the Castles and all the Crown estates are actually owned by the State, not the Queen and we get money from them.

It is commonly assumed that the £15 million a year the monarchy costs is a waste of money, but the former colonies get the Queen for free. Plus, the income from the Crown Estates far outweighs the amount they cost in expenses every year.

Recent opinion polls show support for the monarchy is quite high, at around 2/3rds of people are happy with it.

[edit on 5/9/09 by stumason]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 

I'm just stating what the article Bunken Drum posted suggested, I'm not assuming anything, just stating what this article briefly goes over.

Perhaps you should give it read, it seems a bit challenging by my standards. But really, it all comes down to ones judgement of their government.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by lepracornman
 


Oh no, I wasn't picking on you, per se, just clarifying some misconceptions on this thread.

I was going to retort to the fool who posted the Queen own's 60% of the worlds available land mass. I decided that such a silly claim was so absurd it didn't warrant a response.

EDIT: Bunken Drums links don't seem to work for me.

[edit on 5/9/09 by stumason]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Ah, no need worry about it friend, the link he posted was part of a seemingly radical journal (fine by me) in Jstor and proquest. Am not sure if you have access to these, but they are a great resource. Luckily my International Relations Lecturer protested to get these sites paid for by the university for Students like me, whom love to search for validity hehe.



I mean to be honest, i'd be more worried about the company that 'apparently runs United Kingdom'

Serco

good read my friend. I wonder how liable it is though, I personally am not an economic guru.







[edit on 5/9/2009 by lepracornman]

[edit on 5/9/2009 by lepracornman]

[edit on 5/9/2009 by lepracornman]

[edit on 5/9/2009 by lepracornman]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join