Prince Charles vetoed gov't bills

I think there may be a piece missing from that British national anthem, something about beating the crap out of the Scots? anyone know?

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


Have you read what it is about? It is the power to veto laws that may change his estates (ie the duchy of cornwall). In other words, it is not the power to have constitutional veto. Or to put it another way, another Royal story that is a storm in a teacup

reply to post by Flavian


Well, just a shame we don't have these veto powers. I would just like to see what he has vetoed since 2005. It states in the article/s that he has vetoed 12 bills since this date.

Let's have transparency. Oh, sorry it's the Royals we are talking about.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


If you consult Hansard, you should be able to see the things that he has vetoed. I really do not have a problem with the Monarchy in this respect. If they try to impose direct rule again, well that is another matter entirely.

I am actually a fan of the House of Lords as well, provided it is allowed to run properly. Put simply, in the past it has often run on the lines of looking at each Bill on its merits, rather than on a party political basis as happens in the Commons. This has in practice meant that some bloody stupid ideas have been kicked into touch whilst other ideas have been improved upon before being presented back to the House of Commons.

I actually believe that we have a good system in the UK. I also genuinely believe that sadly this is currently lacking owing to the fact that our elected representatives seem to have forgotten why they are there in the first place - to serve and represent society in general

Originally posted by Aestheteka

I am proud to be British. I am proud to be an Englishman. And I am proud to be subject to the Queen.
We don't need ID cards because She owns us and in return makes us great and gives us the most civilized country on Earth. Unlike every other country, citizenship is a gift from the Monarch as opposed to a birth right. We are born subjects and must earn that right.

According to the Lisbon Treaty, the British are no longer the Queen's subjects. Even the Queen herself is now a subject of the European Union. Apparently, the Labour Party considered whether Gordon Brown should make a speech about it and then noticed that nobody had realised and decided against bringing attention to it.

It seems nobody cares about reading the EU Constitution that we've all signed up for, but believe me, the Lisbon Treaty is a real-shocker. I recommend reading it. Particularly the part about the position of High Representative which is allowed into all the European bodies and has no fixed term of office... Dictator??

Well, it looks like you'll get your "God-King" after all.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


Have you actually read the report?

I think you are being slightly misleading.

Ministers from six departments have had to "seek his approval on at least a dozen times since 2005".

Yes, it's wrong that he has this power but I think it's worth pointing out that we don't know if he's ever actually used it.

What I personally find more disturbing is that The Information Commissioner "accepted that, in order to defend the constitutional fiction of his political neutrality when he becomes king, the prince's correspondence with government should be exempt from Freedom of Information requests. There was talk of the "chilling effect" if correspondence could be published."
www.guardian.co.uk...

So it seems that Charlie Boy is quite the political lobbyist and tries to use his postion to influence govenment policies.
I would immediately disallow him from inheriting the throne and inform William that if he intended to do the same then the monarchy would be abolished.
If The Royal Family is to continue in any shape or form then they can not be allowed to interfere in the governance of this country in any way whatsoever.

Originally posted by pikestaff
I think there may be a piece missing from that British national anthem, something about beating the crap out of the Scots? anyone know?

Why don't you trade in your Braveheart DVD for a history book, if you're that concerned?

This may be the way they will remove the monarchy altogether removing in turn the last of british tradition inline with a NWO.

They have to remove the british monarchy one would imaging if they are to join countries togther.

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by Cobaltic1978

 

It's silly season again. This story is utter bull#. I would expect a non-story like this to be more the work of The Daily Sport,

It's not only Charles, go have a little look round on the net and you'll also find that the 'City' also needs to approve anything that parliament are thinking of doing.The Corporation of London carries more weight than the government, why do you think there is such a stink over the European Financial Services Tax, that Europe wants to introduce.

reply to post by TheMindWar


But allegedly the British monarchy are bastions of the NWO and allied to the Vatican / Masonic etc group.

reply to post by FFS4000

It's not only Charles, go have a little look round on the net and you'll also find that the 'City' also needs to approve anything that parliament are thinking of doing.

Are you sure?
Have you got any sources or supportive evidence to back this claim up?

read your history books. the monarch is head of state. the parliament administers the day to day affairs of the country and represents the people, much like a union.

it's not a ceremonial title. they are the head of state of great britain, canada, australia and the rest of the commonwealth.

what really dropped out of the limelight is the nobility. but they are the ones who manipulate the government in the back ground. that control the banks and the money.

reply to post by Aestheteka


Yes the royals do own the land according to their rules. But seeing as how the land was taken through force, coercion, intimidation and bloodshed, technically they are occupying it. The earth belongs to nobody. You can't own the earth.

Time to throw these rotten bastards out.

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by FFS4000

 

It's not only Charles, go have a little look round on the net and you'll also find that the 'City' also needs to approve anything that parliament are thinking of doing.

Are you sure?
Have you got any sources or supportive evidence to back this claim up?

Great article in todays guardian about The london City Corporation.

Its not the evidence that the City approves things in parliament, but the 'City' has a huge influence on the politics in Britain.

If you've ever dithered over the question of whether the UK needs a written constitution, dither no longer. Imagine the clauses required to preserve the status of the Corporation. "The City of London will remain outside the authority of parliament. Domestic and foreign banks will be permitted to vote as if they were human beings, and their votes will outnumber those cast by real people. Its elected officials will be chosen from people deemed acceptable by a group of medieval guilds …".

The Corporation's privileges could not withstand such public scrutiny. This, perhaps, is one of the reasons why a written constitution in the United Kingdom remains a distant dream. Its power also helps to explain why regulation of the banks is scarcely better than it was before the crash, why there are no effective curbs on executive pay and bonuses and why successive governments fail to act against the UK's dependent tax havens.

www.guardian.co.uk...

I made a thread on it before. www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Thanks for the post mate.

I have absolutely no doubt that an elite, probably ancestors of the old nobility etc, have more than just a minor say and influence on government policy etc and also have controlling influence within The City.

I was just wondering if FFS4000 had any supportive evidence that 'The City' had to officially approve Parliamentary Bills or if he was relying on rumour, innuendo or just good old pre-conceived ideas?

"I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God." The oath required of Members of Parliament.

It's clear right there who are the macdaddies of Britain.

The monarch has the power to:

Choose the Prime Minister. Dismiss ministers and governments. Dissolve Parliament. Refuse to agree to legislation passed by Parliament. Dismiss the governments of other countries of which she is monarch. Pardon convicted criminals. Declare a state of emergency. Issue proclamations. Command the army and raise a personal militia.

www.centreforcitizenship.org...

Not surprising at all OP.

They rule by divine right, nothing more, nothing less.

reply to post by Freeborn


The Remembrancer, whose position dates from the reign of Elizabeth I, is the City's official lobbyist in parliament, sitting opposite the Speaker, and is "charged with maintaining and enhancing the City's status and ensuring that its established rights are safeguarded". His office watches out for political dissent against the City and lobbies on financial matters. Then there is the City's Cash, "a private fund built up over the last eight centuries", which, among many other things, helps buy off dissent. Only part of it is visible: the Freedom of Information Act applies solely to its mundane functions as a local authority or police authority. Its assets are beyond proper democratic scrutiny.

Here is a little sample from here www.newstatesman.com...

I'm at work at the minute and cant find the exact page i'm looking for, different computer, but also start looking into the Freeman on the land stuff, it's bloody amazing what there is hidden from us

There is also this to have a read of, this also starts shedding more light (from the same place as above)

For much of the 20th century, the Labour Party had a pledge in its manifesto to abolish the corporation. In 1917, Peter Mandelson's grandfather Herbert Morrison, a rising star in Labour ranks, put the party's antipathy plainly. "Is it not time London faced up to the pretentious buffoonery of the City of London Cor­poration and wipe it off the municipal map?" he asked. "The City is now a square mile of entrenched reaction, the home of the devilry of modern finance."

Clement Attlee took up the baton in 1937. "Over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at Westminster," he said. "Those who control money can pursue a policy at home and abroad contrary to that which has been decided by the people." Freedom for money can lead to bondage for ordinary people. Labour never did abolish the corporation; instead, the Greater London Council was abolished in 1986 under Margaret Thatcher. In 1996, Tony Blair got Labour to replace its pledge to abolish the corporation with a promise merely to "reform" it. This was the suggestion before the law lords in 2002 - and it was an astonishing gift to the corporation.

reply to post by FFS4000


I understand all of what you have stated and agree that this corporation has an undemocratic and immoral amount of power and influence.

I also understand that their power and influence, whilst considerable, is both subtle and discreet but I wonder if there are any known examples of it openly enforcing it's will upon Parliament?

Given that the very people who control The Organisation also control the major political parties I don't imagine there is much conflict between the two nowadays.

For those of you Brits who know Chaucer, one line should always be kept in mind (and also keep in mind that this is quite an old book - 14th C):

"The fields have eyes and every wood has ears"....

There are multiple layers to life. Even on ATS many of us live in different perecpetive layers. It would take too long to explain in detail what I mean, but he who has wisdom listen and understand....
It is not enough to merely dig through each layer and expose the truth as that truth is relevant only to those inhabiting that layer, even though as each layer is interconnected there are repurcussions in other layers.
The more you dig, the more you think you understand and, like Cassandra, try to explain to others the truth you have discovered but no one will listen because they are still in different layers.
At some point you will realize that you need to choose a layer in which to inhabit - you can percieve multiple but only inhabit the one.

Confounding their knavish tricks and politics is something that a monarch must be born to do. Unless you have an army - each of whom has sworn an oath to serve you unto death if and when required - then take up gardening or watch Time Team.
The greatest fault of the 20th Century was confusing people as to their station in life. They were sold an illusory dream of big houses, fast cars and luxury holidays and they lost the essnece of self-pride and the feeling of not only belonging to but also supporting their community and their country.
Show me one revolution which has replaced the incumbent government with a better form. Whether in the short or long term, they all go bad.

On another note, want to know who owns the City of London? Most of it is owned by an 18 year old boy:

At the top of the pile is Hugh Grosvenor, the only son of Gerald Grosvenor, the Duke of Westminster and the richest man in Britain. The 12-year-old is the principal heir to the Duke's vast estate, which includes 100 acres of Mayfair and 200 acres of Belgravia. This land is so expensive that, in 2002, the Grosvenor Group sold a 65sq ft parking space in Mayfair for £65,000, and when Estates Gazette Group published its first rich list last year, it valued the Duke's London estate at a staggering £5.5 billion.

Next,

After the Duke of Westminster's spread, the next largest London estate belongs to the 8th Earl Cadogan, who can walk from Peter Jones to Harrods on his own land.

Who'll inherit London?

But at least they're open about owning the centre of the world's finance.
Try looking into who owns the Vatican (a city within a city yet which has the rights of a nation even though it isn't recognized as one by the UN) and the Districtt of Columbia (Washington) - the seats of world religion and politics.
All privately owned. By families who rose to power through bloodshed and piracy. However, I'm not critizing them. Well done, I say. They had the balls to do it rather than just sit around winging like the rest oif us.

All of us, whether we've deluded ourselves otherwise or not, are owned by someone....

Originally posted by pikestaff
I think there may be a piece missing from that British national anthem, something about beating the crap out of the Scots? anyone know?

Tehre are several old verses added & removed at various times according to wiki - eg this one in 1745 during hte last Jacobite rebellion -

Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save the King.

The powers of the city of London Remembrancer have been greatly exagerated in some posts above - he (or she) is one of several Parliamentary Agents who can draft, promote or oppose Private Bills - but there are few private bills these days -

A private bill is a proposal for a law that would apply to a particular individual or group of individuals, or corporate entity.