Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Queen to Address U.N. for 1st Time in Over 50 Years

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Hi all,

The Queen is to address the UN General Assembly for the first time in over 50 years this June.

I wonder if this has any significance at all, or she is planning to say something important here?




The Queen is to address the United Nations General Assembly in New York this summer for the first time in more than 50 years, Buckingham Palace says.

She will make her speech on 6 July, following a royal tour of Canada accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh.


The last time she addressed the UN was in 1957 and here is what she said -



I thank you, Mr. President, for your words of welcome.

I wish first to express to you, to the Secretary-General and to the General Assembly of the United Nations my great pleasure at being here today.

This Assembly was born of the endeavours of countless men and women from different nations who, over the centuries, have pursued the aims of the preservation of peace between nations, equality of justice for all before the law and the right of the peoples of the world to live their lives in freedom and security.

The Charter of the United Nations was framed with a view to giving expression to these great purposes and so forming a fitting memorial to the men and women whose toil and sacrifices turned those ideas into articles of faith for the nations of today.

Time has in fact made the task of the United Nations more difficult than it seemed when the terms of the charter were agreed at San Francisco twelve years ago. We are still far from the achievement of the ideals which I have mentioned but we must not be discouraged. The peoples of the world expect the United Nations to persevere in its efforts.

Ten Commonwealth countries are represented in this Assembly - countries which form a free association of fully independent states and which have widely different histories, cultures and traditions. Common ideals and hopes, not formal bonds, unite the members of the Commonwealth and promote that association between them which, in my belief, has contributed significantly to the cause of human freedom.

The countries of the Commonwealth regard their continuing association with one another and joint service to their high ideals as still an essential contribution to world peace and justice. They add and will continue to add to a tried element of strength, and of accumulated experience.

The United Nations is an organisation, dedicated to peace, where representatives from all over the world meet to examine the problems of the time. In it men and women from all these countries - large or small, powerful or weak - can exercise an influence that might otherwise be denied them. The United Nations also originates and inspires a wide range of social and economic activities for the benefit of the whole human race.

But, Mr. President, the future of this Organisation will be determined, not only by the degree to which its members observe strictly the provisions of the charter and co-operate in its practical activities, but also by the strength of its people's devotion to the pursuit of those great ideals to which I have referred. When justice and respect for obligations are firmly established, the United Nations will the more confidently achieve the goal of a world at peace, law abiding and prosperous for which men and women have striven so long and which is the heart's desire of every nation here represented. I offer you my best wishes in your task and pray that you may be successful


So, is she going to say that they have been successful? Or Unsuccessful?

I think it will be interesting to hear what she says in June. What do you all think of this?

g.


en.wikisource.org...'s_Address_to_the_United_Nations_General_Assembly

news.bbc.co.uk...




posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Well if its anything like that speech seems to me that she will interduce the NWO, but maybe I am wrong guess we will have to wait and see.

Maybe to tell use we will have a new king soon Prince Henery

[edit on 22-1-2010 by slipknotrules2009]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Interesting...

I'm guessing that since she has only done this once, to comment on its importance, I see 2 scenarios unfolding:

-Something big is going to happen between now and July 6th

or

-She is just going to comment on the "progress" that has been made since its inception.

Don't forget to realize is that monarchies represent the soul of their nation; to adresse the united nations on behalf of her country is a big statement indeed.

Whether or not they are reptilian shapeshifters, as David Icke claims, they still represent the soul and hope of their country.

When a nazi invasion of Great Britain seemed imminent (to the point where they were actually preparing the country and civilians to fight), King George refused to go to Canada- He was going to stay with his country till the end.

I hope that admirable sense of patriotism resides with the queen... and that whatever happens, she will be on the right side.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Monts
 





I'm guessing that since she has only done this once, to comment on its importance


That's what I thought too. Maybe she is thinking after 50 yrs it's a good time to talk before Prince william becomes King?

Or is there something else?




posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
I guess Queen Elisabeth will be talking as head of state of all "her" countries, Australia, Canada, NZ & the UK etc ? They're some of the most advanced nations on earth in terms of political stability, economic prosperity, liberal thought & progressive social policies ... as are many of the fully independent nations in the Commonwealth. So I think that gives her a unique perspective as head of state, head of the Commonwealth and because of the continuity she represents. I hope she writes her own speech and that it's not written by her governments.

I think she's a intriguing character, still a bit of an enigma despite all her life being in the public gaze. One Scottish friend of mine, an arch-socialist, said that he hated the monarchy until he realised how grateful he should be that there was still one person still left in Britain to whom Margaret Thatcher had to defer ... and curtsy ! And he softened his opinion about Elisabeth over the years, although not a fan of royalty he lost his objections.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
my mum thinks she is about to step down as monarchy which is plausible and even skip Charles and hand the throne to William which i also think could be the case. so me and mum have a fiver bet against each other on this. any one noticed the terror level in Britain has been raised to severe which is classed as immanent. and then their trying to tel you theirs no threat is this connected forgetting the abdication thing for a second



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Maybe she will comfort us after the barrage of terror attacks she knows are coming.

She might even offer a solution.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   
In reality the Queen is no longer the sovereign of Britain because she has signed our sovereignty away.

1972 Treaty of Accession
1986 Single European Act
1991 Maastricht Treaty
1997 Amsterdam Treaty
2001 Nice Treaty
2007 Lisbon Treaty(Constitution)

The last of these, the Lisbon Treaty is in fact a Constitution - a self amending Constitution, meaning that the Kommissars in Brussels can change it at any time to whatsoever takes their fancy without any reference to anyone.

Having signed all the above the Queen is now a citizen of the EUSSR, as we all are here in the UK. And the UK is nothing more than a grubby province of the greater EUSSR. It is not a sovereign country.

Any speech she makes will most certainly be written by politicians and read out in her monotone - same as her Christmas day speech. In all my years, (I was a very young schoolchild when she was crowned in 1953), I have never heard her or known her to say anything spontaneous or off the cuff - ever. It is my belief that is why she is so adored by the media and political classes - the ultimate lapdog.

IMHO if she is addressing the UN there is an ulterior motive. Maybe she has been designated, in a roundabout, covert sort of way to convey to the ignorant masses that the UN is to take over world governance.








posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by emmiem
 




I have never heard her or known her to say anything spontaneous or off the cuff - ever


You're right, I think we need her husband up there to say a speech. now he is the King of 'off the cuff' remarks!!



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by grantbeed
You're right, I think we need her husband up there to say a speech. now he is the King of 'off the cuff' remarks!!


Philip is the King of Morons. At least Liz has been able to keep him caged lately. An aristocrat that has NO empathy for the commoner. Liz isn't going to last forever, I'd wager she sees that. This may be a last attempt to let the world know what the Commonwealth is about.

America made a different exit from the Commonwealth than most countries. You will find that the Commonwealth is extremely loyal to the Mother country. More countries than you know. Oz, Canada come to mind. What about Jamaica? Nigeria? Also part of the Common wealth.

I don't think that Charles will be able to be looked over. He won't rule long though. Interesting times. We're used to having 1 monarch. In this lifetime we may see 3. Probably will.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by danielhanson420
 


In order for William to be King, an Act of Parliament in each of the Commonwealth countries she is Monarch would be required to pass over the throne from Charles. This isn't on the cards, so I doubt this will happen.

reply to post by slipknotrules2009
 


Who is Prince Henery?

I doubt this speech will be anything ominous, it will probably just be another "keep up the good work, fight the good fight" etc etc.. She is (stubbonly, one might say as many would like her stick her oar in with Brown and Co) apolitical and won't rock the boat.

[edit on 22/1/10 by stumason]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Well we will see what she has to say.

Not likely anything important, since shes apart of the elite.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
The OP says that the monarchies represent the soul of their nation.
Well as a Brit, I'm happy to say that the old trout represents nothing to do with the ordinary man.
She's probably going to say what a fantastic lavish lifestyle her and her massive useless family have enjoyed for the last 50 years, and long may it continue.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Just for reference. The Commonwealth nations:

en.wikipedia.org...

1 in 3 people on the planet STILL are part of the British Empire to varying degrees.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Maybe Williams' Kingship announcement along with his wedding announcement. Kill two birds with one stone. Ey?



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ukmadmax
 


I think your terribly misinformed. The monarchy represents a link to our history and culture. Not only that, but it's also an important link between the Uk and the other nations, such as Oz and Canada.

Also, they are not as wealthy or nor do they live such a fantastic life as some people seem to think.

Most of the crowns wealth was removed from them in the 19th century and are now owned by the state. They also live in a constant spotlight, their every move scrutinised and they have their lives planned and orchestrated to the nth degree by a hoard of civil servants and politcians.

And if your going to bring up "cost", the Royal family costs around £50 million a year, thats for all the state visitis we send them on as ambassadors and representives to other nations. The Crown Estate brings in over 10 times that amount in income to the Treasury, not to count the benefit to tourism and business they bring. T



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


So they live their lives under public scrutiny ?
So what were they all up to yesterday then ?
And if you think they are not all wealthy beyond our comprehension, I must ask are you an oil rich Sheik or something similar ?



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ukmadmax
 


Yesterday? The Queen was at Sandringham Womans Insititute, Prince William was in Australia, Prince Harry is getting ready for a trip to Barbados next week, although I am not sure exactly what Charles was up to yesterday, but on wednesday he was in Inverness awarding medals to returning soldiers.

Satisified?

And no, they are not that wealthy. The Times "Rich List" counts the crown estate when it calculates the Queens wealth, but these are actually owned by the state. The actual value of the Queens wealth is much less than £100m. The others are much, much less than that. Most successful business people have more cash than they do. She doesn't even own most of the big houses and Castles, these too are owned by the State.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by grantbeed
reply to post by emmiem
 




I have never heard her or known her to say anything spontaneous or off the cuff - ever


You're right, I think we need her husband up there to say a speech. now he is the King of 'off the cuff' remarks!!


Yeah, that would be good. His 'slitty eyes' comment would go down well, (do the Chinese have a seat on UN?). And if he could be persuaded to mention his great desire to 'return as a virus to kill as many people as possible', I feel that might liven up the proceedings.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 




The actual value of the Queens wealth is much less than £100m.


Her reported wealth. Still a very substantial sum.

But do you honestly believe they don't have even more tucked away in secret Swiss accounts and/or elsewhere?





new topics




 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join