[Closed] How Many Armies does the Queen have?

Then why didn't she just sack Wilson if she wanted rid of him?

Easy... if she did that, it would shatter the illusion of democracy~

So the reality either way, is that she has no real power.

She still has the power, but she uses it wisely, not exposing it too openly so as to avoid challenge

🙂

I love the way some people think they can "win" an argument with conspiracy theorist.

The number one fallback for conspiracy theorists when confronted with facts that don't fit with their theories is [i]"Ah yes, that's because that's what they want you to think!".[/i]

It covers a whole multitude of awkward questions.

By contrast though, I did answer, yet for some reason, neal was a touch more reticent...

So in the case of a coup to remove the elected government, on who's behalf were the security services acting?

Go on then, I'll answer.

But I need to know which "coup to remove the elected government" you are talking about so I can be specific in my answer.

Which one are you referring to ?

Let's keep it local...

Brilliant.

You picked a coup that didn't happen.

Bravo sir.

How am I supposed to say who was in charge of something that didn't even happen.

Pick another, one that did happen, and we can see if the queen was in charge ?

Let's make it simpler...

On who's behalf do the security services work and to whom do the Armed Forces of Commonwealth Realms pledge allegiance?

Let's make it simpler...

I don't honestly think you could be any more Simple than you make yourself look on here.

I mean ffs, you asked me who was in charge of a coup that didn't happen. An "event" that even Wikipedia has under the main heading of "Conspiracy Theory"

On who's behalf do the security services work and to whom do the Armed Forces of Commonwealth Realms pledge allegiance?

What about the Scouts??? Are they at it too? I knew that bloody Bear Grylls was up to no good!!!

I love the way some people think they can "win" an argument with conspiracy theorist.

The number one fallback for conspiracy theorists when confronted with facts that don't fit with their theories is "Ah yes, that's because that's what they want you to think!".

It covers a whole multitude of awkward questions.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

And the Scouts are ****s

Makes you think, doesn't it?

That's what [b]they[/b] want you to think.

jambalaya - Member
@eipc glad to hear it. Being at an Ashes test match and drinking too much beer before singing "God Save your Queen" to the Aussies is an excellent way to pass an afternoon.

They'd probably think you're referring to Priscilla...

JHJ, I suspect you have a form of depression. I'm not saying this to be negative,quite the opposite. You are well read, you are eloquent and obviously intelligent.However the way you produce 'evidence' to back up your idea of reality has very little substance. When challenged you just propose more questions, post more videos or links you have nothing to do with that you think will back up your idea of reality.

There is a difference between being genuinely aware and being delusional and sucked into every conspiracy theory going. Lets face it, you are pretty well versed on them all!

If you find yourself thinking you know more than everybody else. That your more enlightened to conspiracies. That all the conspiracies are connected, possibly mathematically. And you are NOT Edward Snowden or in a position of equal insight into secretive organizations, you could possibly have issues best addressed by a mental health professional.

Do you mean a [b]Her Majesty's GovernMENTAL[/b] health professional?

But seriously though, I'm fine and dandy... quite happy for the most part~ perhaps my analysis of the world we live in doesn't fit in with what you (or I) was taught in school, but that is not to say that I'm wrong.

So thanks all the same for your concern, but I think it would be better placed focused on the current plight of our planet, it is after all the only one we've got right now...

Makes you think, doesn't it?

Makes me think I've not drunk enough to comment on this thread.......

perhaps my analysis of the world we live in doesn't fit in with what you (or I) was taught in school, but that is not to say that I'm wrong.

When I went with an ex to renew her Dutch passport they had a painting of their Queen on the wall, guess that's another fake democracy.

There would be a point where people like Murdoch wielded more power than the Queen (and his press make a very political tool for whoever he decides to help) with the ability to influence voters. I guess in your world he is wasting his money as ultimately the Queen controls everything including whats shows at [url= http://www.hmt.com.au/ ]Her Majesty's Theatre[/url]

The world is after all a stage...

You have a point there Mike~

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

I don't for a moment claim that the Queen seeks to influence every last detail of the dominions she rules, however, someone has to have authorized the extensive surveillance network exposed by Edward Snowden... given that the Queen presides over most of the nations involved, it would be a bit naive to imagine that she was ignorant of its creation.

Whether or not it was at her direct command or under the advice of Privy Councillors, we are unlikely to know in the near future...

Similarly, the Chilcot report (John Chilcot is a Privy Councillor) will only be focusing on government officials, though links I've already provided in this thread suggest that the Queen was certainly involved in decisions relating to the invasion of Iraq... going by the legal battles necessary to reveal such documentation, we are once again unlikely to know the full extent of her involvement; either in terms of the UK government, or any of the other commonwealth realms over which she presides...

even these 2 are sceptical
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

She must have, can't not have, would have etc. is just speculation

Amazing how nothing came out of Edward Snowdon or Bradley/Chelsea Mannings leaks on that considering the detail they went to.

Sometimes speculation is necessary~ if we had full transparency, things would be different.

Snowden's revelations are generally regarding the operational side of the system, not the structure by which it came into being

I am right along-side JHJ with most this stuff. But "really" the Queen !!!

I reckon the Illuminai, Freemasons, Rothch---s Bin-Ladens and Bush clan are running the world quite happily without her say so.

Speculation or making stuff up and shouting about it hoping that it becomes a myth/fact?

As I've said in other places the danger of a conspiracy is once declared it never goes away, no matter how much evidence against there is always the "Thats what they want you to think" "What if they are all lying" "Well they would keep that hidden" which in the end is just clutching at straws.

Your evidence doesn't prove anything, your extrapolating from single events to grand conspiracies. While it's nice to think that everything that is bad in the world is down to a global group of very powerful (possibly lizard) people sometimes you have to also consider that there are just some bad people everywhere.

Speculation or no, it is reasoned:

you can dismiss it because it poses inconvenient questions that make you uncomfortable, but that is not really a satisfactory response.

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

I don't for a moment claim that the Queen seeks to influence every last detail of the dominions she rules, however, someone has to have authorized the extensive surveillance network exposed by Edward Snowden... given that the Queen presides over most of the nations involved, it would be a bit naive to imagine that she was ignorant of its creation.

Funniest thing I have read in ages...that feeder line to that punchline paragraph.

Speculative its not even that good.

you can dismiss it because it poses inconvenient questions that make you uncomfortable, but that is not really a satisfactory response.

that is exactly what you do when folk point out you have no evidence you dont go ...oh yes good point you go on a about speculation being good [ but only if is supports your view obviously] , change the subject, ask something else or then accuse others of being unable to to deal with inconvenient questions.
your lack of what you do and they way you think everyone else does it makes me thing the poster above was correct re your health which is why i have largely given up engaging on these threads

http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2013/sep/05/conspiracy-theories-science-belief-secret-plots

You must have all the answers then Junky?

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]