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: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by Freeborn
 


At least you attempt to enter into reasoned debate, for that I thank you.



Our entire ‘not free’ system of taxation, hording and artificial scarcity is all based off of and derived from the ‘Divine Right of Kings’.

That so called ‘negligible’ amount of taxation, to support the second wealthiest entity on the planet is all about hording goods and robbing people of quality of life to perpetuate power.


Whether there are Kings and Queens is irrelevant.
We will always pay taxes.



1. The money you are taxed you can not spend to enrich or better your own life.
2. The money you are taxed is what created the second richest entity in the world.
3. You are advocating that system in perpetuity.


Not true.
I think it's something like £1 per household per annum paid to The Royal Family, can't even buy a half of beer for that nowadays!

She is a figure head and can do relatively little with anything she 'owns'.
The vast majority either belongs to The Church Of England, which The General Synod controls in reality or she 'owns' as the Head of State and in reality belongs to 'The United Kingdom'.

In perpetuity?

I doubt it.
Charles is an arse and is thought of with contempt by the vast majority of Brits.
If he stays on the throne for long it will be the death knell for The Royal Family.



Many of the world’s leading criminals and murderers appear to be ‘harmless’ and ‘old’ and ‘frail’ and ‘mannered’ while in reality conspiring in everyway shape and form to make the poor get poorer, the unneeded get deader, and those who truly want to be free anything but.


The comparison is ridiculous.
Giveme one example of any crime, let alone a major one, The Queen is guilty of?
(I could tell you of one but I'll guess that you, along with most people will be unaware of it, and they are a number of other noted individuals who are guilty of the same crime!)



You are governed and regulated by hundreds of thousands of laws that determine everything from the makeup and composition of the food you eat, the clothes you wear, where you can congregate and how, what percentage of proceeds you labor for must be surrendered to the state, when and if you can marry, and even what you can entertain yourself with and doing.


What, and we in the UK are unique in this?
But very little, if any, of this has anything to do with Liz herself.



All this emanates from the Divine Right of Kings, in which you owe a debt to the State from birth to coffin, and that debt is payable to them and collectable by them from birth to coffin.


We chopped Charles I head off to remind them thatt here is no such thing as The Divine Right Of Kings in the UK....and we have quietly disposed of a couple of others who thought they could get away with it.



What an absolutely insane thing to defend.


I don't know anyone who defends something so stupid...and I don't know anyone who suggests it.



Do not confuse your patronage for nostalgia that is what wax museums are for.


Patronage for nostalgia....I like that.
I assure you, I have no yearning for yesteryear and I believe no man has the right to dictate to me.

I just think there are far more evils in this world than an ageing relic from yesteryear who has absolutely no or little influence on anything anymore.
She is like an eccentric Aunt who get's trotted out at family get-together's and is allowed the odd sherry or two and then is put away till the next time we want to remind ourselves we are all a lovely, well adjusted family unit with heritage.



"The most enslaved man, is the one who imagines he is free".


Indeed.
I couldn't agree more.

But the man who see's bar's when there are no bar's at all is shackled by his own fears and mis-conceptions.




posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   

LoLondon, England (CNN) -- Queen Elizabeth II's annual budget this year is £38.2 million ($57.8 million), down from £41.5 million ($62.8 million) last year, Buckingham Palace announced Monday.

That means each British person contributes about 62 pence (94 cents) a year to support the royal household.


CNN.com

When one stops to consider what the minimum wage is in common wealth countries and the quality of life it provides fueling a 58,000,000.00 million dollar a year lifestyle for some one who has no power?


The government covers the Queen's budget in exchange for her surrendering income from royal holdings, the budget report says.


Now here is what the article doesn't state, and that's the income from her Royal Holdings.

Nor does the article state all of the Royal Holdings.

So two questions remain, in addition to the obscene 58,000,000.00 allowance and stipend which does not include her security, how much income is she actually making from holdings she hasn't surrendered, and how much income are the holdings she has surrendered supplying for the state.

In reality the income from those holdings if properly administered should actually pay every subject a stipend, instead of every subject having to subsidize her stipend.

The President of the United States (a corporate employee) makes 250,000.00 per year.

Few CEO's have a 58,000,000.00 million a year lifestyle.

I can't imagine anyone defending this system.



[edit on 6/7/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


1812.
That was nearly 200 years ago.

Good grief man, the world has moved on in case you haven't noticed.

The UK could no more dictate to the US than Luxembourg could!!

BP is a private owned company and has nothing to do whatsoever with the UK government or our Head Of State.

Should we hold the US government responsible for Union Carbide's negligence in Bhopal or for the environmental disaster that is continuing in the Niger Delta as a direct result of Exxon et al's wilful disregard for the local environment.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I think if you look at the expense sheet it more or less balances itself out...and it doesn't go on private yachts and planes etc.

At least this has been moved from US Political Madness to General Chit Chat.

I would have thought Complete And Utter Bollocks would be more appropriate.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 



GENOCIDE CHARGES TO BE LAID AGAINST QUEEN II OF ENGLAND

Monday 13 March 2006

Press Release: Black GST Austalia

Black GST Elder Robbie Thorpe today announced Charges will be laid against the Sovereign Head of Australia, Queen Elizabeth II for Crimes against humanity, including Genocide, against the Indigenous peoples of Australia under the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the United Kingdom International Criminal Court Act 2001, and the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 (Amendment Division 268 2002) — Genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes against the administration of the justice of the International Criminal Court.

"Successive Australian Colonial Governments have been, and are unwilling or unable to resolve these fundamental questions of law. Therefore, the Queen of Australia is personally responsible for the crimes perpetrated against our people and I will be presenting these charges against her when she arrives in Melbourne next week" said Mr. Thorpe today.

"Queen Elizabeth II has been the sovereign ruler of Australia for the entire time that these laws have been in place and she has done nothing to stop the continuing genocide of our peoples, which is going on in this country.**

"The Queen is demonstrating utter contempt towards the Sovereign law of our people if she is to visit this country without addressing these fundamental legal issues, and for this, she must be brought to account under International Law.

"The Queen is the defender of the Christian Faith which defines her laws and it is incumbent upon her to visit the Sacred Fire to discuss Sovereignty and Treaty issues with our Sovereign people.

"The onus is on the Queen to rectify and address this unfinished business or she will have to answer these questions in the International Criminal Court.


Genocide seems a fairly serious crime to me!

The truth is that what you know of your monarchy is simply the pomp and circumstance it puts on to entertain the masses and give them a sense of heredity and oneness, and nationalistic pride.

A nation that is currently engaged in at the very least one war, that she as the head of the armed forces could end the nation’s involvement in.

Which Saudi Arabian living in Afghanistan attacked Big Ben?

I certainly missed it!

You are relying entirely on your imagination in regards to what worldwide ventures the Queen of England is involved with and who, because the reality is no, you are not privy to her inner circles, you are privy to the ‘approved’ tabloid gossip.

Yes a King and Queen have beheaded here and there, overthrown here and there, yet the monarchy endures.

The math works out to 59,183,673 people and one half an infant paying the .98 cents a year to support her lifestyle.

When in reality the Crown Holdings probably make enough income for her to not only be self supportive but pay the subjects who helped the Royal Family acquire those holdings a far more generous stipend than the .98 cents they are fleeced in this process.

Taxation is a byproduct of religion, and religious sacrifice, the Divine Right of Kings also emanates from Religion which is why the title always starts out with “By the Grace of God”.

God is legally the Vicar of Christ, the Pope in Rome a distinction granted in large part by English and other Kings in medieval times.

So the Pope in Rome allows the Queen to administer for a profit a vast swath of land and people, including the United States of America and the Queen along with the Pope and various other Monarchs and Patricians conspire to keep this from the people while selling them the illusion of self governance, while you nonetheless fork over money and property to these entities from the fruits of your labor.

Taxation exists, because some people are inclined to imagine what their tax dollars are really going to as being a benefit to them, and a necessity to maintain a quality of life and security in their person and property.

It’s called extortion.

A rose by any other name is still but a rose.

War of the Roses, where have I heard that before????



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


The Pope has been in Rome since St. Peter. :shk:

King Henry VIII instigated The Reformation to break free from The Pope whilst the majority of Europe's monarch's remained Catholic for the time being, England stood alone in defiance of The Pope.

He was obvioulsy excommunicated and it was never rescinded.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Which is rediculous as the King continued to keep the Roman Christian Concept of God so there was no break in idealogy or the control grid, and further...

King George years later was not just a prince of the Holy Roman Empire, but a Prince Elector and Arch-Treasurer.

The Queen is also descendant from that same Holy Roman Empire house of princes and electors in Germany, as is her husband.

So, you can spout dogmas all day long, meant at fooling the masses into imagining they are free, and more importantly who not to rebel against, but the truth is that it's all a dishonest system based on lies, and illusions, hording, deprevation, war, violence, harsh laws, stiff penalties and taxes, that at the top of, you get paid 58,000,000.00 per year to fuel your extravagant and luxurious lifestyle in exchange for letting people fawn all over you and to pretend that they are free.

What a world.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


So what crime is Liz guilty of there?

As far as I can see the only thing she is guilty of is letting The Australians govern themselves, they are the alleged guilty party but The Queen as Head Of State is responsible.

So it's not really a crime she personally has committed but rather has let other's commit in her name.

Pales into insignificance compared to the crimes recently being committed.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Hell, I'm under no illusions.

I know none of us are free.

And that would be the case whether we have a constitutional monarch or not!
There'd be no difference at all.

As for religion..I despise all organised religions...they are the bane of mankind...personally I am Agnostic.

But unfortunately not everyone see's things like me.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


So what crime is Liz guilty of there?

As far as I can see the only thing she is guilty of is letting The Australians govern themselves, they are the alleged guilty party but The Queen as Head Of State is responsible.

So it's not really a crime she personally has committed but rather has let other's commit in her name.

Pales into insignificance compared to the crimes recently being committed.


I believe the charges in the case of Genocide regarding aborignal people in Australia is laid out by those very people.

In reality you are advocating the very same principle of not holding the Head of State responsible that led to them deceptively allowing you to believe you get to make your own laws and control your destiny.

Here is a good one for you.

Rudd's motorcadee pulls up to a 4 way stop sign, and the Queens motorcade pulls up to a 4 way stop sign at the same intersection.

Both arrive from different directions at the same precise moment, who do you imagine has the right of way?

The Queen or the Prime Minister, that would be the person in charge!

Protocols exist for a reason to ensure a pecking order that is all about power, and privelege.

As someone who has met the Queen of England in person after being invited to a charity function being hosted by her, I can honestly say I am a bit familiar with the protocols.

In short my firend, there is a hidden system of governance, a shadow government if you will, and all the surviving monarchs who derive their power by the 'Grace of God' (The pope in Rome) play a prominent role in that shadow government.

It is rather eternal because the bulk of people not only do not know it exists but further most people will choose to deny it's existence as they continue to watch quality of life erode, and liberties fall by the way side, while cheefully paying a stipend to the very people who secretly rule over us all in ways the average person is afraid and ill prepared and ill informed to contemplate.

It is what it is, and what it is, is not pretty, no matter how many glittering jewels you adorn on to the emperor's clothes, or how much velvet you wrap them in.

Thanks.



[edit on 6/7/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Hell, I'm under no illusions.

I know none of us are free.

And that would be the case whether we have a constitutional monarch or not!
There'd be no difference at all.

As for religion..I despise all organised religions...they are the bane of mankind...personally I am Agnostic.

But unfortunately not everyone see's things like me.


Now reverse this and understand those that enjoy the Divine Right of Kings and Sovereign Head of State Status do not suffer from this type of self defeating thinking.

In reality they think the opposite, which is how they were able to set up and maintain a system that favors them at everyone else's expense.

In fact they are living proof of just how wrong and self defeating such thinking is, as they have achieved the very opposite by not thinking that way, but encouraging you to.

That's how it works, that's where the divinity comes from, people divided into different schools of thought, one being Masters one being slaves.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


And the war and exploitation would be different if we had no Kings or Queens just Presidents and Prime Ministers?

Sorry, it would be just the same.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


And the war and exploitation would be different if we had no Kings or Queens just Presidents and Prime Ministers?

Sorry, it would be just the same.


Once again self defeating thinking. Call your leader the Man from Uncle for all I care, if it involves psuedo democracy where the only thing you get to select is a pre-screened candidate from a pre-approved list, to then make all your decisions and laws for you regardless of what the people want, then what you have is dictatorship by committee versus dictatorship by the individual.

All of this is once again born of the notion that we owe a debt to the state we can never pay or be free and clear of in it's entirety and an allegiance to the state, to obey stifling laws that rob of us quality of life and freedom and promote the concept of might makes right that leads people to see war as a virtue and a legitimate option to communication and mutual understanding.

Why compromise when you can dictate, why insist for a real quality of life when you can run around patting yourself on the back, because your nation's smart bombs kill more people more effeciently than the pitiful improvised explosives they can put together to defend themselves?

It's all just dogma and programming, that abdicates the same responsibility personally that you imagine your Queen has.

She makes sure she gets hers, not bad for a harmless little old sweet lady, no doubt wishing she was home right now watching her servants bake cookies for the grandkids to have the servants serve them to the grandkids.

Excuses for tolerating something are really in fact just excuses.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Listen, I owe no-one nothing.

My whole arguement here is the singleing out of Queen Elizabeth II as some sort of evil tyrant.

I dislike anyone who rules over me.

Unfortunately we live in a real world not some idyllic utopia which doesn't take into account human nature.

The Queen is an anachronism from a bygone time.

There are numerous other people in this world who are far more deserving your hatred.

You mis-understand my viewpoint, possibly because I have not explained myself well enough, I disagree with parts of yours.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Who said I hate the Queen? I hate the system, and no the Divine Right of Kings is not a system she invented.

She too has authorities more powerful that she must answer to, that bind her.

Religion has managed to trick the people of this planet into believing utopia can not be achieved in this realm.

So do understand you are confusing my dislike of a system that is blithely indifferent to the needless suffering of others through the very hardships that system creates.

Actually having watched the G-20 Kettle Videos yes England is under tyrannical rule, point the finger at whoever you like for that, a liberal parliament, a banking or corporate cartel, a shadow government, but the truth is that yes, the Queen is the figure head, for that system, and the official head of state for that system.

The world evolves when people evolve in their thinking, and move away from failure to see and believe in the possibilities and making excuses for a system that is in fact nothing to be proud of.

Billions of the worlds inhabitants will go without a meal today, many will starve to death and are even as we debate these facts, many more will succumb needlessly to disease, and many more will succumb to violence born out of the system of artificial scarcity and hording, while many more will be murdered outright, simply by the system that covets resources and control of the land they had the misfortune to be born on.

Meanwhile, you are in fact arguing in favor of 58,000,000 people willingly paying for and supporting one person’s 58 million dollar a year lifestyle, which you contend is a person with no political power or control and totally harmless.

Meanwhile if you pretend her assets belong to the State she is the 125th richest woman in the world, and can support herself, or if you believe she controls her assets and they belong to her, she is the richest woman in the world, and the third richest entity.

In fact that 58,000,000.00 stipend works out to 158,904 dollars per day, which would in fact go a long way towards feeding a good portion of the people starving to death even as we speak.

So yes, I would have to say you are under quite a few illusions to be ignoring all these things, people often lie, but numbers never do!



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


There is NO Divine Right Of Kings And Queens.

It is no more.

Abolished.

Gone for good!


And as for the monies she receives from The Civil List this goes on the upkeep of her employees, training, wages, uniforms in addition to computer systems, cars, blah, blah, blah.

She received less last year than previous years, approximately 62p per year per person.

Apparently she spent part of her personal wealth which relatively speaking is not a lot.
After spending an estimated £7.2M of her own money this year it is anticipated that she will then only have £8M left of her money.
www.thisislondon.co.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...

As for utopia here on earth, hopefully one day my friend...but we are a long way off that at present due to an apparent inherent urge for man to exploit man.

Religion has been guilty of propogating the 'your reward is after you die' lie and myth which encourages and brain washes people into accepting the crap lives they have today.

Aboloshing The Monarchy will not bring about world peace and won't help the starving millions one little bit!
I am in full and total agreement with you there.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Really 58,000,000.00 dollars at the expense of 58,000,000 people almost all of whom are vastly poorer, multiple palaces, yachts, cars, carraiges, and government soldiers standing guard over it all for you sounds pretty divine to me.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


There is NO Divine Right Of Kings And Queens.

It is no more.

Abolished.

Gone for good!



Where does it say that in the BNA Act of 1867? You're drivel is for ignorant peasantry consumption. The Sovereigns just don’t seize to exists and hand over all their conquered territory and their vast wealth that they’ve accumulated for over a 1000 years of wars and bloody conquest just because an anonymous ATSer says they did or at the flimsy stroke of a puppet’s pen. The Sovereigns will only seize to exist and give up their ruling supremacy, vast land holdings, mineral wealth and accumulated riches after violent global upheaval.

The salaries (provisions) provided to the Royals is for the dumbed down public consumption.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by soleprobe
 


1867?

It was well before that my friend.

Charles I was beheaded on 30th January 1649.




The charge against Charles I stated that the king, "for accomplishment of such his designs, and for the protecting of himself and his adherents in his and their wicked practices, to the same ends hath traitorously and maliciously levied war against the present Parliament, and the people therein represented...", that the "wicked designs, wars, and evil practices of him, the said Charles Stuart, have been, and are carried on for the advancement and upholding of a personal interest of will, power, and pretended prerogative to himself and his family, against the public interest, common right, liberty, justice, and peace of the people of this nation."


Charles proclaimed



"Then for the law of this land, I am no less confident, that no learned lawyer will affirm that an impeachment can lie against the King, they all going in his name: and one of their maxims is, that the King can do no wrong"


The result;



The indictment against the king therefore held him "guilty of all the treasons, murders, rapines, burnings, spoils, desolations, damages and mischiefs to this nation, acted and committed in the said wars, or occasioned thereby."


en.wikipedia.org...

That was the practical end to any thoughts monarchs had of The Divine Rights Of Kings.
The movement had started in the 1500's but became pretty much engrained by the time of The Glorious Revolution of 1688- 89 when the ruling Whig Party of the day stripped the monarchy of what remaining power it had.

Ever since we have been a constitutional monarchy where the ruling monarch is The Head Of State with very few remaining powers.
On the few times monarchshave even thought about using them powers they have been quitely reminded of their ancestors fate.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Why hardly any power at all, just the Head of the Church, the Head of the Armed Forces, the Head of State and the recipient of a 58,000,000.00 per year stipend at everyone elses expense.

I mean like what just about everyone else in the country has those titles and gets paid that much?

Well most of them right?

Well some of them right?

None of them?

Really?



I like this one I think it's cute!



Hey I hear the Queen just invited the Pope to visit too!




new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join