Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Dear British people, wake up!

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
edit on 26-1-2013 by Rikku because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by commencalrider
 


I have and in previous posts you've admitted that small portions of your own military would support such a cause. I don't understand how this has been answered when not a single reply has addressed the question. Do you think it impossible for politicians to be bribed? Mercenary to be hired? Military personnel to be swayed?

I want to know what happens 20, 30, 50 years down the road when the King decides he wants his crown back and has the money and power to do so.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heisenberg59
reply to post by commencalrider
 


I have and in previous posts you've admitted that small portions of your own military would support such a cause. I don't understand how this has been answered when not a single reply has addressed the question. Do you think it impossible for politicians to be bribed? Mercenary to be hired? Military personnel to be swayed?

I want to know what happens 20, 30, 50 years down the road when the King decides he wants his crown back and has the money and power to do so.


Same answer as before. He/she gets blocked by the PM, Parliament, the Law Lords, the public, etc...



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


Blocked. As in how? That's not legal? How does parliament stop a hostile takeover especially one with which politicians are bribed? How does a largely disarmed population prevent such a thing? I know it's not legal. I know there are laws in place. How would they be enforced through a hostile takeover by your own crown especially if the crown has support?



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heisenberg59
I want to know what happens 20, 30, 50 years down the road when the King decides he wants his crown back and has the money and power to do so.


It just would not happen. It seems more likely the President of the US could take power and install himself as a Lord Protector as he seems has more direct power. His body guard count seems to number a small army for starters.

Regards



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 


It honestly wouldn't surprise me.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heisenberg59
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


Blocked. As in how? That's not legal? How does parliament stop a hostile takeover especially one with which politicians are bribed? How does a largely disarmed population prevent such a thing? I know it's not legal. I know there are laws in place. How would they be enforced through a hostile takeover by your own crown especially if the crown has support?


Support from who? There is no mechanism in place for the Crown to take command. Parliament has power.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Heisenberg59
 

The majority of the wealth is in property managed by an independent state corporation called the 'Crown Estate'. Its books are accountable to parliament. Profits from the fund go straight to the treasury. The royals get a stipend to live on. They don't have billions of dirty cash sitting around for secret recruitment of mercenary forces.

They are pretty much the must monitored and tracked people on the planet. They cant fart without it being on the front pages of the tabloids.

Its illegal for a serving MP to be in employ of the royal family. (To prevent the influence peddling that you are worried about). Any payments for influence from the royal family to individual MPs would be the end of the monarchy.

We are struggling with the absurdity of your scenario. The queen uses wealth (she cant access) to hire a mercenary force (in secret) to subvert an independent parliament (upper and lower house) and judiciary in order to produce legislation to turn the nation back into an absolute monarchy like hasn't existed since the late 1600s? Its just silly.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   
I want to hear what big ears has to say in regards his mentor SIR jim so VILE and the things he did for the country. A 40 years friendship and a close family friend of the royal family. If they dont know any thing, then I want the top cops and MI5 ect all lined up and shot. For allowing that nonce to get away with raping children in hospitals care homes for decades.
I would also like to know about paedos in the govt and elm tree house. Not forgetting Jersery and ed heath, taking boys out on sailing trips. ( Raping them by all accounts )
Id also like all those people in the BBC who knew about him, to be arrested and questioned. Why did they cover up for him.? Why have none of those BBC people been sacked?



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heisenberg59
reply to post by commencalrider
 


I have and in previous posts you've admitted that small portions of your own military would support such a cause. I don't understand how this has been answered when not a single reply has addressed the question. Do you think it impossible for politicians to be bribed? Mercenary to be hired? Military personnel to be swayed?

I want to know what happens 20, 30, 50 years down the road when the King decides he wants his crown back and has the money and power to do so.


Okay, our Army currently stands at 102,000 fulltime serving soldiers and is being cut to 82,000. The Army Reserve (TA) stands at approx. 35,000 soldiers. Many of these forces are currently deployed overseas fighting and would therefore not be available for any said take back. Personally I believe less that 20% of those numbers left in the U.K. would support any Monarchic take back attempt.

If any reservists were called up to mobilise for the queen it would not stay secret for very long as we work alongside these people in our day to day lives. We are a very small country by area and all of our military bases are located within a few miles of urban areas and are staffed by many civilian personnel so any build up of military personnel on our shores would also not stay secret for very long.

Moving on to mercenary forces, to put foreign troops into the U.K. for a take back attempt I believe short of airstrikes and parachute dropped armed forces, I cannot see an attempt like this going unnoticed. As I said earlier, we are a small country by area and any military build up would have to travel on our small (in comparison to the U.S.) road and rail network.

The Police service stands at approx. 134,000 and is to be cut approx 5000 over the next 3 years. Recent riots on our cities streets found that the police could not handle even a few thousand trouble makers in several cities at the same time and the street remained in the hands of the trouble makers for several days. I also believe that maybe less than 50% of these police member would support any take back plan and this number would diminish when the true nature of the job they are being asked to do came to light. These Army and Police personnel have to live next door to the rest of the population on a day to day basis.

You must also remember that the British people believe in the democratic process and whilst many are disheartened with the politicians they are not with the process so would not stand by and allow a plan to take power to the crown to happen. I do believe certain politicians are influenced by lobbyists but if it came to a take back of the crown by the monarchy they would not be onboard in enough numbers to let it happen.

So I believe the numbers would not add up. Further to this, when TSHTF the British people will stand up and fight to protect what has been built over many centuries. We have fought for our freedoms, we have fought for our jobs and we have fought for injustices, we may be slapped around a little by our politicians but if pushed to far the British people always fight back against the establishment and history has shown this to be true.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heisenberg59
I, as an American, feel it my duty to warn my brothers and sisters across the pond of what should really be a bigger concern than it is as we speak. Now, we can go through a historical lesson here, but I'll save you the speech. The fact is, all this "the queen has no power" crap needs to stop. I wont even argue that point even though I honestly believe the woman has immensely more power than she lets on.

The problem that I see is that, even if the Queen doesn't have any significant power, how many generations will it take? Do you honestly believe that, given the history of royalty, someone won't take the throne and want that power back? The UK is already talking about leaving the EU. Who is going to stop the next tyrant King from bringing his throne back to where it's been historically? The disarmed people of the UK? Where is the resistance to such a move especially with the UK moving away from the EU?

That's really the only point I want to make here. I've spoken to a good amount of Brits and I haven't heard one actually welcome the idea of royalty regaining their true power. The point I make is that the wheels are in motion. The UK is not immune to history and the world really does not need another King George.

Fire is a powerful ally but a dangerous foe and Brits, you're playing with fire.


Does Obama have any power? He is a pawn and nothing else. What good has he done since he came to power?
Give me 10 reasons he has made America great and 10 reasons he has made it worse?



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by commencalrider
 


Monorachic take back event? Explain that to me. It's been used in a much abstract, understanding in another thread, used to de-rail it. What is the term monorachic? What does it mean?

Cirque



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by CirqueDeTruth
reply to post by commencalrider
 


Monorachic take back event? Explain that to me. It's been used in a much abstract, understanding in another thread, used to de-rail it. What is the term monorachic? What does it mean?

Cirque





ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms Adj. 1. monarchic - ruled by or having the supreme power resting with a monarch; "monarchal government"; "monarchical systems" monarchal, monarchical undemocratic - not in agreement with or according to democratic doctrine or practice or ideals; "the union broke with its past undemocratic procedures"



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heisenberg59
reply to post by commencalrider
 


I have and in previous posts you've admitted that small portions of your own military would support such a cause. I don't understand how this has been answered when not a single reply has addressed the question. Do you think it impossible for politicians to be bribed? Mercenary to be hired? Military personnel to be swayed?

I want to know what happens 20, 30, 50 years down the road when the King decides he wants his crown back and has the money and power to do so.

Oh come on. any person with enough money in any country could use that wealth to "buy" an army or even "the" army if those being paid wish to follow. However, they would only succeed if the people of the country did not put up a fight.

That situation has nothing to do with UK, guns, Crown,Kings, Queens etc it is simply down to money and power.

The monarchy over here is nothing more than a figurehead. The "powers" you perceive are for show/tradition with one small exception. The ritual around blackrod acts as a warning that the people of the UK (well actually England+wales at that moment in history) chopped of the head of the monarchy and so the houses of parliament is the only place in the UK where the monarchy is NOT allowed to enter.

Why this nonsensical theorising? Let me have a stab here : The US is reeling from the conflict caused by its mistaken interpretation of its 2nd constitution (it must be read in context to when it was written and the perceived threat that existed then) and the consequence of having an armed population (and thus easily armed criminals and the mentally deranged). We don't have that problem. We live in far less fear of gun crime than you do. Our police are not armed. Our police are not going to shoot us. And please don't start quoting the very few odd accidental shootings because they are very very rare.

So now you are on the defensive trying to find an excuse for having an armed population by attacking folks over here, the original rulers of you lot over there.

I find it quite ironic that at the time of the US independence the UK the US was a far freer country much more in the hands of "the people". Over 250 years you have managed to screw it up and you have lost your country to the very type of people we used to have in power 250 years ago (the wealthy minority). We are now far freer than you and all done without guns......



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 


I highly doubt the queen would do this.. but if you honestly think that family is just going to sit there for generations with not a single one of them lusting for power that once was, I'd call you naive. There's going to come a time when someone asks "what if" and the reply may just sway enough people.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by yorkshirelad
 


Not everything is about guns with Americans you know? But I do love the high horse you put yourself on living in a conquered nation. Right, just like the Queen has no power, Scotland has no King and guns kill people by themselves. You're FREE ...as long as you're not racist or attempt to defend yourself.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:54 AM
link   
With all due respect if the queen had any power she would have deported Abu Hamsa rather than asking the gov't why it hasn't been done.
Speeking of which .... why hasn't it been done



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by HelenConway
We are not passive mugs you know

Of course not
While the monarchs cavorted with the likes of
pedo jimmy vile, the naive-subjects had everything under control

Ya right. Jimmy vile would have been strung up long ago except for the
fact that the Brits are pro at keeping mum instead of
standing up to the crown elites. . . . after all Brits are own by the
government run BBC.
And I thought Americans were the brain washed sheeples lol.
________________

edit on 27/1/13 by ToneDeaf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ToneDeaf
 


if we're gonna compare sheeple-ism, oppression and injustices between the US and UK it's gonna be a long and futile thread - it would be like getting our willies out to compare warts.

i'm off to play skylanders with my boy and eat toast, laters



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heisenberg59

Originally posted by Soloprotocol

Originally posted by Heisenberg59
reply to post by ObservingYou
 
what happens if Charles takes the crown? The man everyone thinks to be a loon? What happens if decrees himself supreme ruler?


He'll get a good kick in the China Dolls and told to behave himself.....


From who? The UK is disarmed. Who is going to tell him to behave himself?


They may take our lives, but they'll never take our Feet...






top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join