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.

 

Queen of England is saying she is the Queen of Canada?!?!

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Of course she is Canada’s queen… she also just said she’s the “Sovereign” (queen) of 16 member states at the UN. The Queen reigns in 32 countries, a little over one quarter of the planet.

The Queen is the world’s largest landowner. She owns the land of the UK and all of its territories and dependencies: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and 28 other countries and territories for a total of. 6.7 billion acres, $33.5 trillion @ $5,000 per acre.

The Queen owns all the land in Canada at 2.46 billion acres. There is no provision is the Constitution Act 1982, for any Canadian to own physical land in Canada. All that Canadians citizens may hold, in conformity with medieval and feudal law, is freehold tenure: “an interest in an estate in land in fee simple” Fee simple (amount paid to represent that freehold is actually tenancy and the monarch was ultimate owner). Free hold land is “held” not “owned”.

All legislation in Canada at the federal level or the provincial level must receive Royal Assent before it becomes law. It must therefore be signed by the Governor General, the Queen’s direct representative for the Federal jurisdiction in Canada, or the Lieutenant Governor, the Queen’s direct representative in a Province in Canada.

Canada’s military is the Queen’s Militia (1904 Militia Act) and is administered by the Governor General who is the Commander in Chief of the Canadian military on behalf of the Queen.

The queen appoints the Governor General (the queen’s direct representative) after which the two remain in direct contact. The Governor General, like the lieutenant Governors of each province, serve At Her Majesty’s pleasure which means all their authority comes from the Queen.

The Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors of each province have reserve powers that they can exercise without the approval of another branch of the Canadian or provincial governments. If there is a constitutional crisis, the Governor General may exercise Royal Prerogative (Royal Right) against the Prime Minister without the advice of the Prime Minister.

“The sovereign”, or the Governor General, outranks other members of the Royal Family.

The Queen rules Canada through the Privy Council for Canada which is a branch or subset of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council located in London. The office of the Privy Council has an advisory role to the queen upon which advice the queen declares her proclamations. (Revealed in Section 3 B.N.A. Act 1867)

The Queen can give orders or directives through the council called “Orders of the Governor in Council.”

All government ministers are sworn in as members of the Privy Council before being sworn to their first portfolio. They are the council of advisors to the Queen of Canada whose members are appointed by the Governor General FOR LIFE. Established by the British North America Act, 1867.

All members of the Privy Council swear an oath of allegiance and secrecy to the Queen not to reveal to the public “all matters committed and revealed to [him/her] in this capacity. And in all things shall be a faithful and true servant to the Queen.

Appointees to the Queen's Privy Council must recite the following requisite oath:

"I, [name], do solemnly and sincerely swear (declare) that I shall be a true and faithful servant to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, as a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council for Canada. I will in all things to be treated, debated and resolved in Privy Council, faithfully, honestly and truly declare my mind and my opinion. I shall keep secret all matters committed and revealed to me in this capacity, or that shall be secretly treated of in Council. Generally, in all things I shall do as a faithful and true servant ought to do for Her Majesty."[5]

Each new privy councilor signs the Privy Council Oath Book, which is also signed by the Governor General and the Clerk of the Privy Council.

Current Member List (over 400)


Members:

Ø All living current and former federal cabinet ministers

Ø All the Chief Justices of Canada

Ø All former Governor Generals.

Ø On occasion leaders of Her Majesty’s Loyal opposition and other opposition leaders

Ø by law all members of the Security Intelligence Review Committee (they oversee the Canadian Security Intelligence Service – CSIS)

Ø Under Paul Martin Parliamentary Secretaries were sworn into the Privy Council

Ø Certain Provincial Premiers

Ø And selected private citizens like Conrad Black

All members have access to information under the Security of Information Act (Canadian Anti Terrorism Act received Royal Assent just before Christmas December 2001) which includes all sensitive information administered by the Department of National Defense (DND), Information handled by all government agencies: CSIS, RCMP, Dept of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and Canada Border Services Agency

The above system of “The Sovereign” rule is the same in all 32 countries ruled by the Queen.




posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 04:10 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Isn't she just wonderful, we must all our bow our heads and show the upmost respect to the Queen, she and her family are all far far more important than any of you and your families. I think we should give them more money, I dont think they have enough. Such a large family to support through these tough times, we as a commonwealth must ensure her families reign continues. They re such a spectacular family, with such high morals and values. They are an example to us all.

Dont forget to bow your heads remember from the neck not the waist!



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
I think we should give them more money,


That would be an insult. They scoff at money... that's for the ignorant peasants to play with, as well as the plastic cards to get them in the hole.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 05:09 AM
link   
The queen of England is also the queen of Australia??








I really, really don't want to think about that.


I tend to agree with the cat who knows. I don't really see an advantage to the monarchy for Australia (or NZ) anymore. Sure, it gives her a place to visit, and we get to be in the commonwealth games, but is that enough?



[edit on 6/7/10 by GobbledokTChipeater]

Mod Edit: Removed quote of an actioned post.

[edit on 7/6/2010 by seagull]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by tracer7
Yes she is the queen of the commonwealth realms. which include the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis.

She is also the supreme governor of the church of England. and has more money than she knows what to do with.


You forgot a major one. The United States of America.

There are many historical documents that point to this. England only allowed The USA to set up their own form of Government so it could run itself. But England never acknowledged our Independence and never relinquished it's authority over us as the rightful owners of the English colonies that were funded by England for England's purposes. To this day we still pay taxes to England, Our Motherland. This can be proven by a study of the IRS and our 1040 tax forms.

And also England is owned by the Vatican and The Pope.

forums.liveleak.com...

www.godlikeproductions.com...

www.apfn.net...



[edit on 6-7-2010 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   
'I didn't make her queen... what is this, "Alice in Wonderland"?

Sad we let the ideals of a Monarchy live on... America had it right the first time...

Independence.

Period. '

yer and look how messed up america is now, you should of stuck with us you would be far better of in the long run



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 05:42 AM
link   
You do know that the Queen can dissolve any goverment she wants?? Including those of the commonwealth



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Haydn_17
You do know that the Queen can dissolve any goverment she wants?? Including those of the commonwealth

Only in theory. Nobody since the time of King William !V has ever tried to make use of it.
This is the old traditional British compromise, that anachronisms are allowed to exist as long as they remain dormant.
(Similarly, the right of "trial by combat" was allowed to survIve into the nineteenth century. Then somebody appealed to it- and it was promptly abolished)



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by tracer7
Yes she is the queen of the commonwealth realms. which include the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis.

She is also the supreme governor of the church of England. and has more money than she knows what to do with.


Actually they dont have that much money, there were estimates released back in the early 00's that they only had maybe 100,000 pounds.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Man I can't believe how many people here fawn over that woman! It's insane! She's a big part of the NWO! And those of you say that the US is still part of her empire, well you're most likely correct. At least in the sense of the government of the US still being involved in their little club of thieves and murderers (NWO). But, the citizens of this country would just assume step on her as anything else. I'm with them on that. She's a joke and so are the rest of the NWO. I wouldn't give a rat toot what they have to say, I do as I please as a free man. The only laws that I follow are natural laws. You know like do onto others, etc. Get a clue people they and she are not only no better than you, they are much much worse!

[edit on 6-7-2010 by Redwookieaz]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Redwookieaz
Man I can't believe how many people here fawn over that woman! It's insane! She's a big part of the NWO! And those of you say that the US is still part of her empire, well you're most likely correct. At least in the sense of the government of the US still being involved in their little club of thieves and murderers (NWO). But, the citizens of this country would just assume step on her as anything else. I'm with them on that. She's a joke and so are the rest of the NWO. I wouldn't give a rat toot what they have to say, I do as I please as a free man. The only laws that I follow are natural laws. You know like do onto others, etc. Get a clue people they and she are not only no better than you, they are much much worse!

[edit on 6-7-2010 by Redwookieaz]


That was kinda the point of my post. Monarchies have very long rule of thousands and thousands of years. Just because a couple of hundred years go by that does not mean their collective thinking has to change drastically. The USA is only 234 years old. That's nothing to England. England can afford to wait till this young upstart brat of a kid gets tired of it's temper tantrum and gets folded back into the Motherland.

There are laws and treatises that still are legally binding concerning England's ownership of the USA from very long ago. A couple of hundred years hasn't changed that.

It's going to take something much more drastic than our declaring independence for England to change it's little talked about laws and treatises concerning the USA.

It's not even about the Queen. She is just a puppet herself. She and her governments are just as controlled by international bankers and corporations as are every other country. The elite of the NWO don't mind that she can go on TV and claim to be the Queen of the planet essentially - it keeps their faces in the dark where they cannot get attacked.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   
She is the Queen of the Commonwealth, so she probably is the Queen of Canada. Besides, her likeness is on all the money. She's aged over the years and her portrait has reflected that.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 06:47 AM
link   
As Monty Python says....she holds the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch!




For more information on the orb and scepter, this may interest some of you.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 06:59 AM
link   
It seems to me this is the latest salvo in the clash of the titans which is going on behind the scenes and which involves trillions of dollars and which is never mentioned in the media.

Thses, I believe, are the 'urgent matters' which she obliquely refers to.

For more info on the desperate and ferocious fighting which is going on between members of the cabal, see worldreports.org. I think this site has their own bias too, but I believe a lot of the general facts are true and to some extent verifiable.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 06:59 AM
link   
The queen does have much more than £100,000.

www.telegraph.co.uk...


n April, Her Majesty's private wealth was estimated to be £320million by Forbes magazine, which included a personal investment portfolio valued at £100million.


Queenie has a huge portfolio of stocks and shares, she is more than likely to have a great advantage in her share dealings as she has weekly meetings with the British Pm, yet she is exempt from 'inside trading' laws. She also has private collections of jewelry and art.



Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is the wealthiest crone in the world, who gives new meaning to the phrase, ``stinking rich.'' Her total wealth is divided into two parts. One is a Venetian-style fondo (trust), that is, it is inalienable and must be passed on to her heir, free from inheritance tax. The second part of her wealth consists of her private collection of castles, jewelry, and art, and a portfolio of blue chip stocks and bonds and real estate investments around the world. Her investment portfolio is estimated to be worth £3 billion.
One of the secrets to her disposable wealth is that she amassed it tax free until 1992--the Annus Horribilis, which started with the separation of Charles and Diana and ended with the fire at Windsor Castle--when she entered a memorandum of understanding to pay taxes on income, capital gains, and inheritance on this portfolio; although, the Queen can break this agreement at any time she desires.




The Queen has some 310 residences. Almost all are part of the inalienable fondo to be passed on to her heir, and most are ``grace and favor'' houses for family members and retainers, ranging from the humble to the magnificent. Included in the fondo are five castles: Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh, Kensington Palace (occupied by Princess Diana), and St. James Palace (occupied by Prince Charles). Two other castles, Balmoral and Sandringham, are private property, originally purchases of Queen Victoria. All these properties are maintained by the Department of the Environment (presumably because they are the habitat of an endangered species).
Queen Elizabeth recently created the Royal Collection Trust--which she heads, as will her heir--to which were transferred all the 7,000 paintings, 20,000 Old Master drawings, and various antiques acquired before Queen Victoria's reign, all part of the fondo. At the instigation of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, a chapel owned by the royal family was converted to a museum for the display of this art, a fraction at a time. As part of her private fortune, the Queen has a large collection of art works ranging from Renaissance masterpieces, such as Leonardo da Vinci's notebooks, to the craziest of modern art.

The Duchy of Lancaster is also part of her fondo: The duchy is comprised of properties stolen in the 13th Century from the rebel Simon de Monfort, who tried to create a powerful Parliament and failed in 1265, only to have his land and life taken by Edmund Crouchback, youngest son of Henry III. In 1987, the Duchy of Lancaster was 36,456 acres, mainly agricultural land; within the duchy, the freehold of 2.25 acres in the Strand area of London (lying between the Savoy Hotel and Somerset House) is so valuable, that the Queen had The Duchy of Lancaster Act of 1988 steered through Parliament allowing her to develop and sell this area.

The Prince of Wales, the Heir Presumptive, Charles, came into the income of the second royal family duchy, the Duchy of Cornwall, which has 44,000 acres, including another posh section of London. Prince Charles agreed to return 50% of Cornwall's earnings to the state, which was reduced to 25% upon his marriage to Lady Diana. As for the Queen, she uses part of the income from the Duchy of Lancaster to supplement the Civil List in giving an income to her close relatives.


american..._almanac.tripod.com/crown.htm


Most normal people would be set up for life if they decided to sell one of their stately homes, or one of the leonardo divinci note books they had knocking around or a castle or two. Maybe she could cash in her shares and live off the interest and maybe Prince Charles could just be content with the millions he makes from his Duchy of Cornwall estate...but it's not enough, they ask to be funded by their subjects.

In these days of political correctness and racial sensitivity why should this family be exempt from so many laws and be funded by those much poorer than them just because of their genetics?



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by CitizenNum287119327
 


Having said that, the queen is a very nice lady - and she is probably stopping a worse government.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Yes she's the Queen of Canada, and Australia and New Zealand aswell! and to be honest if you don't like her being your Queen then stop complaining and do something about it! Somebody said "most people" don't want her anymore, especially in Australia and New Zealand, well as i recall, didn't Australia have a referendum on the Monarchy, which ended up saying that "most people" did in fact want her as Queen. Granted i think we could all live with out her family, but i happen to quite like the Queen herself, when she goes then i think there should be a change, but i'm not sure Britain could prosper as a Republic.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Seems to me this is the latest salvo in the clash of the titans which is going on behind the scenes between the top ranking illuminati, and which involves trillions of dollars which have been stolen from various nations - and the Queen herself is involved in this battle.

These, I think, are the 'urgent matters' to which she obliquely refers.

For more info on this behind the scenes economic war which is going on, and which involves the US cabal, many other powers, the World Court, etc, see worldreports.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by Haydn_17
You do know that the Queen can dissolve any goverment she wants?? Including those of the commonwealth

Only in theory. Nobody since the time of King William !V has ever tried to make use of it.
This is the old traditional British compromise, that anachronisms are allowed to exist as long as they remain dormant.
(Similarly, the right of "trial by combat" was allowed to survIve into the nineteenth century. Then somebody appealed to it- and it was promptly abolished)


There is no theory, only fact....

In the absence of a written constitution the Queen still has the so-called personal prerogatives. One of them is the power to dissolve Parliament.

There is no “law” that prevents the Queen from dissolving Parliament. But there is an important constitutional convention that enables the Prime Minister alone to decide the timing of a dissolution and general election and to advise the Queen.

There is no “law” that prevents the Queen from dissolving Parliament. But there is an important constitutional convention that enables the Prime Minister alone to decide the timing of a dissolution and general election and to advise the Queen.

It has from time to time been suggested that the Queen has a personal discretion in the matter and that her discretion can, in fact, be exercised despite prime ministerial advice to the contrary.

However, since 1834 there has been no exercise of the personal prerogative in relation to dissolving Parliament.

The short answer to whether the Queen would ever do the unthinkable and dissolve Parliament contrary to the Government’s wishes is that there is, almost certainly, no legal impediment to her doing so. But the constitutional objections against such a course would be likely to prove overwhelming unless there were some constitutional crisis.

Source: business.timesonline.co.uk...


GOD BLESS OUR QUEEN LONG MAY SHE REIGN (BECAUSE WE LOVE HER AND WE DON'T WANT THAT ARSE CHARLES ON THE THRONE
)

[edit on 6/7/10 by woogleuk]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join