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 Elizabeth II Is Not The Rightful Heir To The Throne

page: 7
34
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by DrunkYogi
 


I have no idea, just copying off the start of an anom. essay on the talk page of the Wikipedia article on the tv program which was produced by Channel 4 and posted by a drunken yogi on a thread on a website started in America and she swallowed a fly. So if it is a real law or just someone babbling on a wiki talk page, I give no quarter while defending no position. As a pre-knight of the realm I must protest these constant questions and interruptions of my journey to my ordained knighthood (and thanks for a clip of the film, it's been so long since I've seen it that I forgot that part, and now must watch the movie again).


edit on 13-2-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-2-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


LOL, enjoy the film mate!



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by DrunkYogi
 


Sure she's the rightful heir.... to her family stash and the loyalty of anyone who gives it that easily.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 07:14 AM
link   

eccentriclady
Anglo Saxons are not the original English people, they were the angles and the Saxons, if I recall my basic history correctly, the English were celts and picts.

Due to the tradition of royalty marrying royalty for centuries, I would be shocked if there is or has been a royal house who's members were actually true blood of their country.


Oh dear lord... I honestly wonder if people do this deliberately or are in fact genuinely this stupid...

The word "English" is a contraction of "Anglish", meaning Anglo-Saxon, so the "original English" were the Anglo-Saxons...

Prior to that, the inhabitants of this island were primarily Roman-British, who were Brythyonic (like the Welsh). When the Anglo-Saxons came over, they originally came as soldiers for hire to protect the soft and squishy Romano's as they had been used to the protection of the Legions. It soon dawned on the Anglo-Saxons that they didn't have to take orders, as they had the swords so they took over. Pretty much the same as the Romans did before them and the Normans did after - they replaced the ruling classes but the general populace remained pretty much the same. If you look at an average Joe's genetic make up in the UK, you'll see DNA from all the major invasion groups.

My point being, we're a mongrel race made up of all who came before us. The "English", however, didn't come about until the Anglo-Saxons had taken hold. I think you'll be hard pressed to find anybody in any European country that was a "true blood" for the main reason that there is no such thing and believing in it only highlights a woeful understanding of European history.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


So your entire post actually is meaningless, on one hand you claim to know what it is, then you call it a mongrel race that appeared when ?

Looks like the Masons themselves are being led around by the nose.

Just try going to England and find family records, I did and some very interesting things came up, total deletions of records even from as little as 100 years ago.

Looks like some people have a lot to hide, or errrrr, they ARE hiding.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   

DrunkYogi

silveringking
This is nuts, I don't know if they are good leaders or something but they are english indeed, just because they have other ancestry that doesn't make them non-english.



It doesn't really matter where they came from, the problem is they Lord it over us. No one has a right to do that to anyone else never mind a nation full of people. It's just insane in 2014 that we are speaking about Royal families lapping it up. I think we are all being Royaly Fkd. Some poor folk are starving and cant heat their homes and the Queen get's a pay rise, the world surely is completely insane. Of course it suit's the rich snobs in society to keep the jelly Bean as head of their class system (what a complete joke, i meet classier poor people than this lot every day of the week) keep us riff raff down, ya know!


Actually most of the monarchies nowadays are constitutional monarchies, to them a king or a queen is nothing more than a president, he or she doesn't even make the laws, that is the job of the prime minister and that one is elected, the question of stealing money, I mean come on even democratically elected leaders do that, I mean have you ever heard of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, Propaganda Due (P2), the Vatican? In some cases a king is better than everything also, take the example of Spain, they were under the leadership of Franco, Franco sucked big time, then came Juan Carlos which who restored the monarchy however bang democracy again!



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   

silveringking

DrunkYogi

silveringking
This is nuts, I don't know if they are good leaders or something but they are english indeed, just because they have other ancestry that doesn't make them non-english.



It doesn't really matter where they came from, the problem is they Lord it over us. No one has a right to do that to anyone else never mind a nation full of people. It's just insane in 2014 that we are speaking about Royal families lapping it up. I think we are all being Royaly Fkd. Some poor folk are starving and cant heat their homes and the Queen get's a pay rise, the world surely is completely insane. Of course it suit's the rich snobs in society to keep the jelly Bean as head of their class system (what a complete joke, i meet classier poor people than this lot every day of the week) keep us riff raff down, ya know!


Actually most of the monarchies nowadays are constitutional monarchies, to them a king or a queen is nothing more than a president, he or she doesn't even make the laws, that is the job of the prime minister and that one is elected, the question of stealing money, I mean come on even democratically elected leaders do that, I mean have you ever heard of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, Propaganda Due (P2), the Vatican? In some cases a king is better than everything also, take the example of Spain, they were under the leadership of Franco, Franco sucked big time, then came Juan Carlos which who restored the monarchy however bang democracy again!


Fine, but if you look at these threads..........

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If Queen Elizabeth is related to Roman Caesars (Emperors) and the Vatican is just a continuation of the Roman Empire, Pope (Roman Emperor) Then we are dealing with the same people. The Protestant, Catholic divide is another scam to divide the people.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by DrunkYogi
 


Daenerys Targaryen: Daenerys Stormborn: Khalessi: Mother of Dragons: Blood of old Valarie: .. Is the rightful Queen!
Not Usurper: Queen Lizard



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by gortex
 


indeed ?
Second Line.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 11:09 PM
link   

NotSoAnonymous
reply to post by DrunkYogi
 


Daenerys Targaryen: Daenerys Stormborn: Khalessi: Mother of Dragons: Blood of old Valarie: .. Is the rightful Queen!
Not Usurper: Queen Lizard


Maybe, but there is only one Lizard King...........



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


A Mountainbatten out of a Molehillbatten!!!

Sorry I couldn't resist.

As you've said nothing is covered up and a quick search tells us exactly why the name change occurred.
Windsor was chosen after the construction if the Castle(I think) from William The Conquerer.

Gotha was dropped after/during WW1 when the Kings, German distant relatives decided to bombarde England with The Gotha Bomber fighter planes.
Not wanting any allegiance with such "family" the change was decided upon.

Mountbatten (Prince Phillips Surname) is actually just a translation of Battenberg!!!



As for "rightful heirs" that's a ludicrous statement.
Yet I also have no problem with the current Monarchy.

They seem like good people, very down to Earth, despite not being "common" like most of us... & to be fair, finding somebody humble and down to Earth among us who are as common as muck is difficult in this at an age as it is, so fair play to them...

Also they have pretty much no freedom to enjoy the majority of the Land they rule.
That's a big price to pay for such a "privileged" existence if you ask me.
Quite a testament to their willingness for the rest of us to enjoy a democracy... unlike certain MPs & Lords who seem hellbent on destroying such.

To be honest I'd actually be in favour of more Monarchical involvement within politics.
Yet they continue to remain as neutral as possible.
Another huge sacrifice in the long term that seems to go unnoticed.
I wish them all the best.

Peace.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   

DISRAELI
reply to post by DrunkYogi
 



Elizabeth II is the rightful monarch because Act of Parliament says so (Act of Settlement 1701).
That's the only definition that is worth anything.





edit on 11-2-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)


No, she is the rightfull monarch, only because the English people chose to be dictacted by a queen. If they wanted ANY freedoms what so ever, they would have chosen to dictate their own lifes, but they dont.

Doesnt matter what somebody wrote on a piece of paper long time ago... Sigh...



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by NoFearsEqualsFreeMan
 




No, she is the rightfull monarch, only because the English people chose to be dictacted by a queen. If they wanted ANY freedoms what so ever, they would have chosen to dictate their own lifes, but they dont.


Yet again....its BRITISH not just English.
How many times does that point have to be made?

And please explain and give me an instance of how or why the Queen dictates to me or any other British citizen?

And please give me an example of how 'we' have any less freedoms now whilst having a Constitutional Monarchy than we would if we had a President or how we have less freedoms than anyone else in Europe or the US?
Please give clear examples and not just empty rhetoric and hyperbole.



Doesnt matter what somebody wrote on a piece of paper long time ago... Sigh...


As is proven every day in the USA by the blatant and wilful disregard shown to the sacred Constitution.

People in glass houses.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Freeborn
reply to post by NoFearsEqualsFreeMan
 




No, she is the rightfull monarch, only because the English people chose to be dictacted by a queen. If they wanted ANY freedoms what so ever, they would have chosen to dictate their own lifes, but they dont.


Yet again....its BRITISH not just English.
How many times does that point have to be made?

And please explain and give me an instance of how or why the Queen dictates to me or any other British citizen?

And please give me an example of how 'we' have any less freedoms now whilst having a Constitutional Monarchy than we would if we had a President or how we have less freedoms than anyone else in Europe or the US?
Please give clear examples and not just empty rhetoric and hyperbole.



Doesnt matter what somebody wrote on a piece of paper long time ago... Sigh...


As is proven every day in the USA by the blatant and wilful disregard shown to the sacred Constitution.

People in glass houses.


Sorry ment british

Lets say they discover a piece of paper, declaring a law, that all people should be killed at the age of 21.
This piece of paper is found to be legit, and it determined by law, that this is infact law. This piece of paper is 300 years old.
Would you follow that law?? It is a choise YOU make, and if you choose to follow that piece of paper, go ahead, but it is YOUR choise to do so.

Now take a look at the laws, do you know what a monarchy is? And what that implies?? Who is in charge??

Lets make a deal, if you cant point out to me, where, i make the statements, that this is any different from the rest of the world, i will answer those questions about that

Peace



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Freeborn
reply to post by NoFearsEqualsFreeMan
 




Doesnt matter what somebody wrote on a piece of paper long time ago... Sigh...


As is proven every day in the USA by the blatant and wilful disregard shown to the sacred Constitution.

People in glass houses.


Oh BTW iam unfortunately not american, and have access to those lovely rights, iam in fact myself dictated by a queen

No one can blame the british people for their choises, we all got our own choises to make, we can only blame ourself for our own choices. But we do have a choise, and that is the importen thing


Peace



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   

DrunkYogi

silveringking

DrunkYogi

silveringking
This is nuts, I don't know if they are good leaders or something but they are english indeed, just because they have other ancestry that doesn't make them non-english.



It doesn't really matter where they came from, the problem is they Lord it over us. No one has a right to do that to anyone else never mind a nation full of people. It's just insane in 2014 that we are speaking about Royal families lapping it up. I think we are all being Royaly Fkd. Some poor folk are starving and cant heat their homes and the Queen get's a pay rise, the world surely is completely insane. Of course it suit's the rich snobs in society to keep the jelly Bean as head of their class system (what a complete joke, i meet classier poor people than this lot every day of the week) keep us riff raff down, ya know!


Actually most of the monarchies nowadays are constitutional monarchies, to them a king or a queen is nothing more than a president, he or she doesn't even make the laws, that is the job of the prime minister and that one is elected, the question of stealing money, I mean come on even democratically elected leaders do that, I mean have you ever heard of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, Propaganda Due (P2), the Vatican? In some cases a king is better than everything also, take the example of Spain, they were under the leadership of Franco, Franco sucked big time, then came Juan Carlos which who restored the monarchy however bang democracy again!


Fine, but if you look at these threads..........

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If Queen Elizabeth is related to Roman Caesars (Emperors) and the Vatican is just a continuation of the Roman Empire, Pope (Roman Emperor) Then we are dealing with the same people. The Protestant, Catholic divide is another scam to divide the people.


Italy is a republic nowadays and it hasn't been unified since the 19th century, I think the king who unified Italy was called Victor Emmanuel but I don't swear, before that it was a really big mess of republics all of which independent of each other, the only thing they had in common was the language, oh and about the vatican it isn't a monarchy either, each pope is elected and they are mostly of different origins this one is argentine, before that it was a german and before that a polish, most of them is of poor origin so I don't believe they all descend from the roman emperor so you're missing the pointing it is not the same, about the queen of england being descendant of the roman emperor, I don't understand how that can provoke a despotic nature, are you sure 100% she is descendant of them? Did you know that even kings and queens cheat on each other right?



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by NoFearsEqualsFreeMan
 




Sorry ment british




To be honest your point about discovering a law was irrelevant to this discussion really and if I'm being entirely honest was a bit silly.



Now take a look at the laws, do you know what a monarchy is? And what that implies?? Who is in charge??


Of course I know what a monarchy is, more to the point - do you?
Do you know what a Constitutional Monarchy is?
Do you know what an Absolute Monarchy is?
Do you know anything about British History and The English Civil War?
Do you know anything about British Constitutional Law and Procedure?



Lets make a deal, if you cant point out to me, where, i make the statements, that this is any different from the rest of the world, i will answer those questions about that


Sorry, doesn't work like that.

You said;


No, she is the rightfull monarch, only because the English people chose to be dictacted by a queen.


Pretty straight forward there, you believe The Queen dictates to the British people so I asked you to give some supportive evidence to your claim.
Exactly how does she dictate to me and my fellow countrymen? One example.



If they wanted ANY freedoms what so ever, they would have chosen to dictate their own lifes, but they dont.


Again, pretty clear. You believe the British choose not to be in control of their own lives and you believe we have no freedoms.
Your words not mine.
So I'll repeat the question - how don't we have any freedoms?
And bearing in mind the context of your whole post please explain and show how we would have any more freedoms if we didn't have 'our' monarchy?

And my previous question is also still relevant given your assertions;
How have we got any less freedoms because we have a Constitutional Monarchy rather than a President as our Head Of State?



Doesnt matter what somebody wrote on a piece of paper long time ago... Sigh...


True.
But if it wasn't for little matters like The Magna Carta, The Bill Of Rights etc there would be little legal precedent for The American Constitution.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by NoFearsEqualsFreeMan
 


Got to say, I made the assumption that you were American.

Sincerest apologies.

I hate making assumptions, alas I am human and have my failings just like everyone else.

And I've got to say you appear to have a very good command of the English language.

You come from somewhere with a Queen...I'll take a stab in the dark and guess you are Danish?



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   

silveringking

DrunkYogi

silveringking

DrunkYogi

silveringking
This is nuts, I don't know if they are good leaders or something but they are english indeed, just because they have other ancestry that doesn't make them non-english.



It doesn't really matter where they came from, the problem is they Lord it over us. No one has a right to do that to anyone else never mind a nation full of people. It's just insane in 2014 that we are speaking about Royal families lapping it up. I think we are all being Royaly Fkd. Some poor folk are starving and cant heat their homes and the Queen get's a pay rise, the world surely is completely insane. Of course it suit's the rich snobs in society to keep the jelly Bean as head of their class system (what a complete joke, i meet classier poor people than this lot every day of the week) keep us riff raff down, ya know!


Actually most of the monarchies nowadays are constitutional monarchies, to them a king or a queen is nothing more than a president, he or she doesn't even make the laws, that is the job of the prime minister and that one is elected, the question of stealing money, I mean come on even democratically elected leaders do that, I mean have you ever heard of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, Propaganda Due (P2), the Vatican? In some cases a king is better than everything also, take the example of Spain, they were under the leadership of Franco, Franco sucked big time, then came Juan Carlos which who restored the monarchy however bang democracy again!


Fine, but if you look at these threads..........

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If Queen Elizabeth is related to Roman Caesars (Emperors) and the Vatican is just a continuation of the Roman Empire, Pope (Roman Emperor) Then we are dealing with the same people. The Protestant, Catholic divide is another scam to divide the people.


Italy is a republic nowadays and it hasn't been unified since the 19th century, I think the king who unified Italy was called Victor Emmanuel but I don't swear, before that it was a really big mess of republics all of which independent of each other, the only thing they had in common was the language, oh and about the vatican it isn't a monarchy either, each pope is elected and they are mostly of different origins this one is argentine, before that it was a german and before that a polish, most of them is of poor origin so I don't believe they all descend from the roman emperor so you're missing the pointing it is not the same, about the queen of england being descendant of the roman emperor, I don't understand how that can provoke a despotic nature, are you sure 100% she is descendant of them? Did you know that even kings and queens cheat on each other right?


I said IF the Queen is related. It doesn't matter what country the Pope comes from it is a continuation of the title and everything that comes with that! Not all Caesars where related. And the Vatican is separate from Italy.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Freeborn
reply to post by NoFearsEqualsFreeMan
 


Got to say, I made the assumption that you were American.

Sincerest apologies.

I hate making assumptions, alas I am human and have my failings just like everyone else.

And I've got to say you appear to have a very good command of the English language.

You come from somewhere with a Queen...I'll take a stab in the dark and guess you are Danish?


Got me, iam danish


And yes, iam pretty good with the english language, it is a much better language to express yourself than danish. But that doesnt guarantee that iam able to explain my points, especially since i can use "hard" language to get those points across

It seems like my point got lost somewhere, so i will like to go back to the start if you dont mind, and try to cover all the questions you asked.

My point, was that the law in question, is 300 years old. And is something other people agreed on, if the people dont like it, they can change it. If the people like the queen, they will keep her, if they dont they might listen to someone elses claim, or move away from monachy. The famous "piece of paper" is just a tool, and really not that importen.

That was my point, unfortunately i made the comment about her "dictating" the british people. I used some bad wording and here we are.

My point was that a monarchy, no matter how nice they seems to be, in reality 1 person ruling a country. I only know the danish law, but my understanding is, they are pretty much the same, so i count on you to correct me when/if iam wrong.

The danish law states that the King (queen) are not allowed to express their political orientation
That a danish goverment are allowed to make laws etc. BUT ALL LAWS need the signature of the King (queen) to take affect.
The King (queen) has to accept the goverment voted by the danish people, before they can make goverment.
That If Denmark is invaded, I, as a soldier have to follow the king words, not goverment.

I will have to fact check this, and iam my phone right know, so help me out fellow danes if your out there


King Christian IV of Denmark came up with a very very clever plan, why waste time collecting taxes, when the people can do it for you. You just have to make sure you have the last word in everything, that you never say anything people can get offended by, and all you have to do is sit back and watch the money flow, still well protected and way above any law.

I made it sound like the british people dont have anything to say in your own country, ofcourse you do, and you have lots of freedom
i apoligies if i offended people, i was only trying to point out, that it is only because they allow it, you got those freedoms. According to danish laws, i know.


Hope I got everything covered



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join