[Closed] How Many Armies does the Queen have?

How could I for I am not the Queen nor am I even one of her minions 😥

Prove it 😀

The point is, JY could prove it. It wouldn't be difficult, but it might be time consuming and a massive faff. He doesn't need to prove it. He knows he's not the Queen. We know he's not the Queen. The problem with you is that you rely on the fact that he's not going to prove it to imply that he is the Queen. This iimplication is enough for you to suggest that he is the Queen and to read into his lack of proof as being conclusive evidence.

Dude, you is trippin'

yeah but I'm Sparticus....
Prove I'm not

No. I have just demonstrated to you how all your arguments work on this forum and you don't appear to have an answer.

Sorry Mike, but I am actually Sparticus, so I'm afraid your cover is blown...

[img] [/img]

Many of my arguments aren't arguments in themselves, they are questions that I'm genuinely curious about.

Now of course, I'm not always right by any means, but as far as I can see, no-one has provided answers that completely allay my suspicions.

If it was just relating to the armies, or the intelligence services in isolation, it might suggest that it's just a misunderstanding, however, given the many tax havens that are also under the Queen's jurisdiction, it seems entirely reasonable to ask questions.

Ok you got me I'm Prince Charles dressed up as Spartacus cause that how we roll here, just like the heads will when we round up all the dissenters.

Anyway I think there was a documentary about all of this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alias_%28TV_series%29

no-one has provided answers that completely allay my suspicions.

You probably thinks she controls the post because her face is on the stamps - you arguments are that bad.

The reason we cannot allay your fears is we are armed with only reason and logic and you are impervious to them.

Perhaps it's because there is no actual neat and tidy answer like at the end of a Scooby Doo episode.
Your suspicions are very wide reaching and link things that in many ways are not actually linked.
You want there to be a link, it is impossible to prove a negative to you as you just toss that concept out and say that the evidence hasn't been found yet.
You see the absence of any evidence as something that strengthens your suspicions not as the rest of the world does a lack of any kind of proof.
Having HM on a bit of paper does not mean the Queen runs it.

given the many tax havens that are also under the Queen's jurisdiction, it seems entirely reasonable to ask questions.

She created tax havens to dodge paying tax ? So how much has she saved/should she have paid?

By the way the Queen didn't start paying taxes until 1992, and only because she volunteered to do so, why did she want these tax havens before 1992?

What if we're still in the middle of the Scooby Doo episode?

So, I google [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy ]constitutional monarchy[/url], then I read this:

A constitutional monarchy may refer to a system in which the monarch acts as a non-party political head of state under the constitution, whether written or unwritten.

Now the next logical step is to see what a [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_state ]head of state[/url] refers to:

A head of state, in a sovereign state, is the highest-ranking constitutional position in the state.[note 1] The head of state is vested with powers to act as the chief public representative of that state.

The constitutional monarchy entry also mentions this:

The United Kingdom and fifteen of its former colonies are constitutional monarchies with a Westminster system of government.

So who is the head of state in these constitutional monarchies?

Face palm
Now google figure head 🙄
Its such a shame you ignored all the stuff in between the wiki quotes that says she has F all power

and from the other link

The role and functions of the office of head of state may range from purely ceremonial or symbolic to the real executive power in a state.
The office is usually distinct from a head of government

I am out you are being willfully a dumb ass now [play your game with someone else] as no one is this dumb and this blind. As I said you are impervious to reason and logic, as yo so keenly just demonstrated, and I can never work out how much of this you do for shits and giggles and how much you believe

Must not feed.

Something really doesn't ring true in that though...

Yes I've posted this before,

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/15/queen-veto-war-powers_n_2477422.html

The Queen also vetoed entirely a private member's Bill, the Military Actions Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill 1999, that would have transfered the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to Parliament

It is widely assumed that the royal prerogative, the authority to declare war, rests now with the prime minister rather than the Queen herself.

However, these documents raise questions about how much power the monarch still has over the elected government of the day.

Lib Dem MP Julian Huppert said the fact there had been a "fight to to keep this quiet" showed the significance of the Whitehall document.

"It's quite concerning there is wider influence, and secretive influence, of the monarchy in these things than had previously been revealed," he told The Huffington Post UK.

And he said he was particularly concerned about the revelation the Queen had fought to keep parliament from gaining the power to authorise, or block, military action.

"The power to go to war is an incredibly important thing," he said. "It's important to bring the country on side and to do things in a clear way and leave the choice up to parliament.

but to be fair, the responses received are themselves laden with speculation; even this:

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: "It is a long established convention that the Queen is asked by parliament to provide consent to those bills which parliament has decided would affect crown interests. The sovereign has not refused to consent to any bill affecting crown interests unless advised to do so by ministers.

Suggests that rather than the nation, the crown takes precedent.

In whose interests does the crown operate?

In whose interests does the crown operate?

Well we haven't mentioned pedophile rings for a while, so how about that?

Here is a pedophile who was knighted by the Queen :

[img] [/img]

I'm sure you'll agree that's pretty cast iron evidence.

You can't really knock someone for “speculating” what the role of the Royal Family is these days, when the correspondence from the Monarch and future Monarch to those in government and military is kept secret. Speculate is all you can do!

It still amazes me that the riddle of who governs the world by pulling strings from the shadows can be solved by piecing together random fragments of [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)#Illuminati ]Wikipedia Articles[/url] and [url=

videos[/url], but not (say) by reading [url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/Monarchy-Constitution-Vernon-Bogdanor/dp/0198293348/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425606889&sr=1-6&keywords=vernon+bogdanor ]books by acknowledged experts on the subject[/url].

Next time I'm plotting something on behalf of my lizard overlords, I'm definitely going to keep it off YouTube.

Incidentally, I see that [url= http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/harrison-ford-injured-plane-crash-n318301 ]the Queen has tried to have Harrison Ford killed[/url]. The old "plane crash" ruse. It's funny that the "accident" happened on a golf course where there were no CCTV cameras.

And I think we all know why Her Majesty needed Ford silenced. He had seen too much.

[img] [/img]

I'm more of an observer, rather than a participant. But can you, JHJ, write down what you actually think please rather than post links to articles elsewhere. Do you actually think the Queen could get us to invade France or Australia to invade NZ?

In theory she could; because state power resides in the monarch, who vests their authority to the government of the day. Many people believe we live in a democracy; but we don't. Instead the UK (the clue is in the 'Kingdom' part of the name) is a constitutional monarchy, with the rights we think of as inalienable only granted to us by the monarch's good will; the product of an unwritten, informal series of 'understandings' developed over time as to how we should be governed.

With a stroke of a royal pen the monarch could abrogate the whole process; and what's to stop them?

Exactly, Charles the 2nd was just doing us a favour to keep us quiet.

Quite a big favour, admittedly.

I'd have stopped at costing an arm and a leg, tops.

I know for a FACT that the Queen plays Jill Archer in the long running radio soap.

She uses it to pass messages to Government. The recent story line about her son David leaving Ambridge to set up a new farm in Northumberland and the consequent breakdown of his relationship with his family is a warning about allowing UKIP to take Britain out of Europe leading to a breakdown of the Nation.

It's all true because it's at [u]this link[/u] Please allow me about half an hour to write the Wikipedia article that I can attach to the link.

Well, if it's on the Internet. It must be true.

The real test is whether you can knock up a meme and post it on Facebook.

"With a stroke of a royal pen the monarch could abrogate the whole process; and what's to stop them?"
Precedent last King to try that had his head chopped off . Before that they have been made to say sorry at sword point.

The beauty of our democracy is that we don't have a constitution so we don't really have to kill off our nice tourist atracting paper selling funny conspiracy generating ceremonial royal fammilly .We just leave them in a nice vague limbo .

Jive your question about the "Royal Prerogative" to declair war has been answered and explained repeatedly . By ways of illustration why not look up the similar modern function of the "Royal Perogative of Mercy".

With a stroke of a royal pen the monarch could abrogate the whole process; and what's to stop them?

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Alphonse,_Duke_of_Anjou ]Ask this guy[/url]

Both he and Charles the 1st lacked the force of arms to enforce their will or claim to the throne.

The observation that political power rests on some combination of legitimacy and force is hardly a novel one.

Absolute monarchy in Europe lost both centuries ago.

"Both he and Charles the 1st lacked the force of arms to enforce their will or claim to the throne."
As does Liz as will Charles III.

Interested to hear what JHJ has to say about some of the legislation passed over the years to limit the moarchs power...Magna Carta (stretching my history memory now) Bill of rights 1680-something, and the Acts of settlement in 1701?

Can't be arsed to google (do your own research...etc etc)

In theory she could;

Hmm. Constitutional theory is a bit dodgy. Ask yerself who the Soverign is in the UK.

And then there's the Queen's Speech when the Queen dictates to Parliament what "her" government's policies will be.

[img] [/img]

I feel subjugated !

The problem seems to be that people are failing to distinguish between absolute power and overall authority.

A fine example of your problem. You have to get used to the fact that there is no "absolute power". Power is diffracted across many interest blocks, all competing with each other in the public arena.

You are confusing the actual situation with symbolic titles, such as "Her Majesty's Government". This does not mean that the government belongs to the Queen, surprising though this may be to you.

it is long established that parliament is sovereign over the monarch

JY - this is the opposite of what you argued with me! Only a few weeks ago! Wish I could remember the thread title! 🙂

Assuming we mean

A sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority within its jurisdiction.

Then parliament.

Like JHJ you need to google figure head
FWIW the crown has[ minor] real powers, symbolic powers and powers exercised ONLY on the advice of ministers . Personally I would remove them all but to think the monarch is in charge is to completely ignore reality.

Anyone know the last law passed that was not done by parliament but was just the will of the monarch? ie the last time they really did reign supreme?

Genuine q as my history of royals is weak

EDIT: FWIW I was thinking the same thing whilst typing.
IIRC I was arguing the Crown had real powers and it was not JUST symbolic. I have never arguedas JHJ has that she runs the show. IMHO they are not incompatible views but I can see why you would [ legitimately] raise that point.

I'm also wondering why it is that when someone posts a response to your skewed view of the way civil society runs, pointing out why you are wrong, you go on to ignore it and reiterate your previous misunderstanding?

I'm wondering if there is a clinical term for this affliction.

Both he and Charles the 1st lacked the force of arms to enforce their will or claim to the throne.

Charlie certainly had those arms to start with.

And 😡 at being too slow to edit the number on my post. Hey Ho.

I'm wondering if there is a clinical term for this affliction.

This could literally be aimed at anyone posting on this thread 😀

😆

"Literally", eh?

The way our system is set up as a pseudo democracy with a supervising monarch, where the real power lies is a bit fuzzy.

However as a person who saw the govt I democratically voted for in Oz overturned in an establishment coup, I have no doubt that that power exists and can and will be exercised.

It also made me aware of the the power of the small number people who control the media. They serve their interests first, and what we hear and see is what benefits them.

It is not a good system, and it certainly isn't democratic.

IMHO they are not incompatible views but I can see why you would [ legitimately] raise that point.

JY- You are priceless! 😀

As far as I'm aware, the vote went against a Republic because the format offered was not a popular one.

How is this a "coup", exactly?

It also made me aware of the the power of the small number people who control the media.

So - no absolute power anywhere, then...

Mr Woppit - Member
As far as I'm aware, the vote went against a Republic ...

What are you taking about? I'm talking about 11 November 1975 in Australia.

Ah, sorry. Link, please.

EDIT: Just "Done my own research". I wonder what would happen today if the same set of circumstances existed. I suspect the "Governor General" (is there still such an office?) would find his/her powers somewhat waned.

The "constitution" having evolved.

Your passive aggression is cheap rather than priceless 😛

Hello Junkyard. I've no idea what you're talking about.

However as a person who saw the govt I democratically voted for in Oz overturned in an establishment coup, I have no doubt that that power exists and can and will be exercised.

Hmm, not quite that simple was it, in fact you had managed to vote in two opposing branches of government, with each dominating one House of Parliament, yet both having been democratically elected, and neither having supremacy.

Funnily enough it remains one of the strongest arguments against an elected upper house in the UK, since here supremacy rightly remains with the only democratically elected branch of government.

I have struggled to understand conspiracy theorists, but I read a piece which analysed them in terms of a religion. Whatever you think of religion, they are a way of placing a structure onto the world around us. I think it is much harder to accept that the world is chaotic and there is no overarching order. so people look for structures, even if they cal them evil, so that the world isn't so scary, things are happening for a reason (eg the illuminati etc are controlling it all).

I think it is also why arguing with conspiracy theorists proves to be quite fruitless, people who have a deeply held religious belief cannot simply stop believing, even when presented with clear evidence. They will wriggle, look for exceptions, suggest that there is more going on but that you aren't enlightened enough to see it.

I do feel a little sorry for them, as is just seems a little desperate, and they would most likely criticise organised religions for being part of the overarching conspiracy, when they themselves are displaying all of the same traits.

I do think there have been cover ups, by the government and other organisations, most of the time they are discovered, and it is due to petty reasons like protecting their mates/ the name of the organisation. However it would be a fallacy to suggest that because cover ups have occurred, all of the world is ruled by an organisation, it is like saying all of the universe is ruled by a god. Neither the God or the world dominating organisation exist, they are merely there to provide a structure when in reality there is only chaos!

@phil Id quite like to read that article if it's online. It's my main interest in these threads to be honest.

I have a conspiracy theory:

Jhj has realised that if he starts a batshit mental thread rather than derailing an existing one, he won't be banned for it.

Strangely, he has suckered quite a lot of us into going along with him.

@ phil - yes, well put.

It is not a good system, and it certainly isn't democratic.

So some people have identified the self-evident shortcomings of bourgeois democracy, and have come to the conclusion that this stems from the fact that we have a constitutional monarchy ?

Presumably therefore we can separate the countries in Europe which are democratic from those that aren't by simply establishing whether they operate a constitutional monarchy or not ?

IE, Italy is democratic but Sweden is not.

[b][i] "Parliamentary democracy is, in truth, little more than a means of securing a periodical change in the management team, which is then allowed to preside over a system that remains in essence intact". [/i][/b]
Tony Benn

I get the feeling that Saint Tony might have felt there was something wrong with this?

Sweden is ruled by Jim Broadbent

[img] [/img]

....Jhj has realised that if he starts a batshit mental thread rather than derailing an existing one, he won't be banned for it.

Strangely, he has suckered quite a lot of us into going along with him.

Well I'd much rather read through one of JHJs "batshit" threads than some middleclasswhinycockbag rambling on about their latest coffee maker, watch, wood burning stove, dietary fad, or niche shaving device.

More JHJ, less MCWCB 😀

I find that not clicking on the MCWCB threads renders them harmless.

But I like that acronym and think it should become accepted STW speak.

*waits for some MCWCB to tell me that is not the correct use of the word "acronym"*

Sweden is ruled by Jim Broadbent

Interestingly, the next in line to the throne has expressed his determination to be more "influential" when he ascends to High Crankdom.

I guess we'll see how far his absolute power progresses him down that road, eh?

I find I get a better shave with a closed-guard safety razor. Mach 3's are pants.

Well said @Phil40 - I watched the recent Bitter Lake Documentary Film and it tried to suggest some sinister world order was in place but by the end all I could define from it was that after WWII Roosevelt tried to a deal with the Saudis. It was only partially successful as they (the Saudis) have more in common with ****stan than USA and sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't. Problem was it took the guy 2hrs 15 mins to tell the story. I was on a plane and had nothing else to watch.

EDIT +1 for the Jim Broadbent idea.

Seriously though, I use a cafetiere to make my coffee. Seems OK. Is there any REAL advantage in buying a Gaggia or is it just a plot to remove more buying credits from my bank account?

Jhj has realised that if he starts a batshit mental thread rather than derailing an existing one, he won't be banned for it.

IIRC it was one particularly sensitive bat shit mental topic. Most are fine.

What a brilliant idea, all countries to be ruled by Jim Broadbent lookalikes

The tragic thing is that no-one has yet made a film about King Karl Gustav in which Jim can be cast.

Mr Woppit - Member

Interestingly, the next in line to the throne has expressed his determination to be more "influential" when he ascends to High Crankdom.

Since he'll by default be Supreme Ruler of Earth And All Her Domains I can only assume he intends to invade the sun

Phil40, the "conspiracy religion" comparison is spot on.

You only have to look at the likes of Alex Jones (the other one) preaching his sermons to his flock to see the similarities.

Shouting rubbish at his eager disciples like a TV Evangelist. And they lap it all up without question, all the time lining his pockets with online advertising revenue and book deals.

It's in incredible thing to watch, but just like any cult, the reality of it is very hard to see from the inside. So those people who have fallen for Jones etc, are brainwashed further and further into the "cult of conspiracy" and become incapable of looking at any evidence objectively.

Only giving any time to things that agree with what they have been preached by their leaders.

In terms of the "uncomfortable questions" that JHJ mentioned earlier.

This situation is a question that's too uncomfortable for them to deal with, so just like many with blind faith, they ignore difficult to deal with stuff like Evidence and Logical Reasoning, and just stick with Conjecture, and have "faith" in what the preachers feed them.

I am trying to remember where I read the article, it was about 10yrs ago when all of the theories about 9/11 were out and about.

Not sure if that makes my post invalid, as I don't have the original source I can quote 🙂

I just like to put it on record that I'm not involved.

More to the point, how many sleevies?

Bindun? I wouldn't know...

In the first reply 😆

I have a couple of friends who are into conspiracies ..one about govts one about medicine

The problem is they use things that are true but they dont prove their view. For example all governments [ or pharma companies] lie to you therefore only a sheple would believe them. Its true but this does not prove your current view is correct you still need to prove your claim.

They then cherry pick massively the information - say the [very rare]side effects of vaccines whilst ignoring the eradication of say polio. Its pretty clear to see JHJ doing this ie Constitutional monarchy then figure head and ignoring three paragraphs that said she was a figure head and quoting the bits he agreed with.

The 9/11 one argues its suspicious bin laddens relatives [ I dont even know if this true tbh] left america before hand...he would have found it suspicious had they been there when it happened. Basically the evidence always fits the views.

The medical one is far worse as she thinks all sorts of shit can cure cancer and all sorts of shit are dangerous as she read it on the internet.

Much of the individual points taken in isolation are true ish but the conclusion are crazy.

I'm going with phil - it's an attempt to overlay a sense of order on to something that's essentially random and chaotic to keep panic at bay.

Where IS jhj, by the way?

[img] [/img]

Just beaten to it by MrW!
JHJ hasn't been on this thread for 14hrs, just how long does it take a lizard to regrow it's skin?

these two points may or may not been connected.

The skin change is pretty quick tbh.

But the manicures take forever...
[img] [/img]

Evidence of the Lizard people I think you'll agree.

Sorry guys, been a bit preoccupied...

[img] [/img]

Interested to hear what JHJ has to say about some of the legislation passed over the years to limit the moarchs power...Magna Carta (stretching my history memory now) Bill of rights 1680-something, and the Acts of settlement in 1701?

Though those documents certainly seem to be noble in their intentions, you have to judge the crown on their actions...

Looking at all the murderous colonialism that has occurred since those documents were penned, combined with the current surveillance state, it seems at odds with the sugary sentiments that are bestowed upon well meaning pieces of paper when we operate under a non written constitution.

It's fair to imagine that many of those decisions to plunder over the years were made within the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_Council_of_the_United_Kingdom ]privy council[/url], a body that to this day retains an oath of secrecy and minimal democratic accountability.