Antichrist 2012: Will Prince William be King of the World?

When the 2 were paraded around, i felt such a energy i had never felt before. There are forces we cannot fathom. We will see what happens.

Originally posted by danielhanson420
reply to post by superman2012

 

the monarchy can overide parliment at anytime.

Not in the UK nor in any of the Commonwealth relams they can't. the "Royal prerogative" is constrained by eth laws passed by Parliament, and customs of convention and precedent.

the monarch is REQUIRED to follow the advice of her (or his) ministers - which means doing as the Government says.

Even in the case of dissolving Parliament.

the only time the Monarch could possibly act "independantly" is if a PM loses confidence and resigns, the monarch hten sees if anyone else has confidence of parliament, and if not dissolves the parliament and calls for new elections - but even then the path is set - they cannot just do what they want to, and they have no power to not call for new elections.

they are also the head of all armed forces.

but she is not in the command structure - the military swears allegiance to her (or him), but are not actually commanded by her - she has no actual authority.....the most het Monarch could do is refuse to approve the appointment of a new chief of Defence Staff if one had not carried out the PM's wishes in some respect.

And that would create a constitutional crisis which would topple either the monarchy as an institutution (or place even more stringent limits on it) orr the Govt of the time.

And the colonel of regiments is a strictly ceremonial post - again it carries no actual authority to command.

just because there not seen to hold the great power they once did dont belive there just a tourist attraction for americans to come visit. our country cant go to war with out the queens permission.

Careless use of "permission" there - the monarch is required to sign a declaration of war if the PM tells her (him) to do so.

as for king of the world. over mine and millions of dead bodys

I'm sure many would be happy to arrange that for you, but if not him, then who would you prefer?

You seem to know very little of your own country's constitutinal arrangements - happy to help out from the colonies!

I wonder if this happenned, would we get the same medical benefits as they do over there? This may be something to consider. So, do you think anyone in the world would get medical benifits like they do?

William will be the next King of England, but he is not the antichrist by any means. Yes he shares some traits with the "Arthurian" Archetype that will see him be the people's King and do well at it.

Correct me if I'm wrong,
but isn't "Prince" William a "Duke" William now?

Yes i agree it does sound unbelievable for a possible future, but a quick look into our past reveals so many unthinkables.
I have done a little research into the Brittish royals and they certainly pose more questions than answers, quite a checkered recent history, with more than enough material for a dozen separate conspiracies.

The royals believe they are preparing a prince who will be seen in the future as a king Aurthur returned. The queen has made several official statements with regards to prince Charles not becoming king, such as in the event of her untimely death the throne will go to prince William.

Shortly before her death in France princess Diana is quoted "i believe Wills (her name for William) can rebuild camelot and i will be his merlin, together we will return to the chivalry, pagentry and glory that was king Aurthurs court."

In Daniel 9:26, he is called a prince.
In Revelation 17:8, he is the king who was, is not, yet will be again.

On king Aurthurs grave is written " Our Past and Future King"

Prince Williams middle name is Aurthur, Will i am Aurthur.

reply to post by alfa1


Also, he was born on June 22nd, whereas the Solstice was on the 21st.

So, taking both of those actual facts into account, this article is trash. If it cannot even get basic things right, then why should we take anythign else it says seriously.

I suspect they were hoping no one would fact check their claims and believe them.. Looks like it might have worked too..

reply to post by stupid girl


He is both, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge.

Originally posted by stupid girl
Correct me if I'm wrong,
but isn't "Prince" William a "Duke" William now?

He is now known as Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. He was also made Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus on the same day.

His full title, however, is His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn, Baron Carrickfergus, Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Master of Arts.

Originally posted by danielhanson420
reply to post by superman2012

 

the monarchy can overide parliment at anytime. they are also the head of all armed forces. just because there not seen to hold the great power they once did dont belive there just a tourist attraction for americans to come visit. our country cant go to war with out the queens permission.

as for king of the world. over mine and millions of dead bodys

Has the Queen ever said no?
2nd.

reply to post by superman2012


I think she got fedup with Phil climbing on top of her, so yeah...I'm sure she's said no a few tiems now, that's why he's such an idiot - got blue-balls!!

Originally posted by stumason
His full title, however, is His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn, Baron Carrickfergus, Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Master of Arts.

The Dark Arts?!

This thread is hilarious.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by alfa1

 

Also, he was born on June 22nd, whereas the Solstice was on the 21st.

So, taking both of those actual facts into account, this article is trash. If it cannot even get basic things right, then why should we take anythign else it says seriously.

I suspect they were hoping no one would fact check their claims and believe them.. Looks like it might have worked too..

...that "one" being the TC. He did no fact checking whatsoever.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Whilst you are largely correct in saying that their "power" is constrained, it isn't by any Law or other Act of Parliament and isn't set in stone. The Queen has the power to act as she see's fit, but it would trigger a constitutional crisis if she did, as you correctly allude to. The behaviour of the Monarch is entirely governed by precedent and process, not by any legal framework. The Queen can, if she so desired, dissolve Parliament at her discression. There was alot of talk in 2007 and 2008 she may actually do that to unseat the (unelected) Gordon Brown who was deeply unpopular and was seen as one of the persons responsible for the economic trouble.

The Military swear allegiance and for the most part, are a damned site more loyal to the Queen than they are the Politicians. In 1976, the UK came very close to a Military coup because of the actions of PM Howard Wilson. The Queens Uncle, Lord Louis Mountbatten, was touted a possible leader of this plot.

A link....

That said, the Queen did dissolve the Australian Parliament in the 1975 (good decade for constitutional crisis) due to a crisis within the Government where budgets couldn't be passed and they faced votes of no confidence. The Governor General dissolved the Parliament and forced elections, which the Australian PM had no power to stop and did not request. However, I believe this was seen in Australia as a necessary act to perform as their Government was going belly up.

So, the power is still there and in the "colonies" too, just not widely used as the Monarch is acutely aware of the impact of being seen to use these powers.

reply to post by Heartisblack


interesting, you know the origin of Amen do you? look to the pharohs, Amentohep.

The Arthurian archetype is far removed from the notion of an anti-Christ.

As for Prince William, he does not fit the criteria. The anti-Christ should come out of the middle east, scripturally speaking, most likely modern day Iraq or Syria.

I wonder if the antichrist will be Wills son. I bet they have a son soon and they will name him arthur. And his crest will be that of what the antichrist would bear on his chest. I bet he will stay away from women and hate them..maybe he will follow in his grand dads foot steps and become Muslim as well. And he will regard the women as dogs just as they do.

Something to ponder.

William will probably do some things that arent right, but I really do think it will be his future son that would be most like the candidate.

Or it can be someone else entirely. LOL

reply to post by aussiespeeder


I know! LOL! It's one of the many great things I learned this year. It was actually disturbing to hear what they said. But, maybe there is a reason it is associated that we don't know about.

Originally posted by Soshh

Originally posted by stumason
His full title, however, is His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn, Baron Carrickfergus, Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Master of Arts.

The Dark Arts?!

This thread is hilarious.

That, I believe, is the title he has got for his degree. Nothing esoteric about it at all.

A Master of Arts in Scotland can refer to an undergraduate academic degree in humanities and social sciences awarded by the ancient universities of Scotland – the University of St Andrews, the University of Glasgow, the University of Aberdeen and the University of Edinburgh, while the University of Dundee and Heriot-Watt University also award this degree as a consequence of their history, with the University of Dundee having a history of being a constituent college of the University of St Andrews. Undergraduate MAs are also awarded, with several material differences, by the other ancient universities in the British Isles: Oxford, Cambridge and Dublin

Originally posted by superman2012
Has the Queen ever said no?
2nd.

Royal assent has not been refused since 1708.

However, the Monarch holds what are called "reserve powers" which, in a crisis, can be used without Parliament getting it's knickers in a twist.

The Government of the UK has always been, for at least 500 years, a merry dance between Parliament and the Monarchy. At times, this erupted into conflict. If you go back even further, the Monarch always had to dance with either Parliament or the Barons, so they have rarely had "absolute" power.