How Many Armies does the Queen have?

Therein lies the problem… we can all take little snapshots from these documents to prove our points, though much of it is down to interpretation, for example:

As a matter of Canadian constitutional law, the situation is clear. The federal Cabinet can, without parliamentary approval or consultation, commit Canadian Forces to action abroad, whether in the form of a specific current operation or future contingencies resulting from international treaty obligations.

That states that the Federal Cabinet can do it without parliamentary approval, however, it doesn’t say anything about doing it without the Queen’s approval:

Under the Canadian Constitution (Constitution Act, 1867, sections 15 and 19), command of the armed forces – like other traditional executive powers – is vested in the Queen and exercised in her name by the federal Cabinet acting under the leadership of the Prime Minister. As far as the Constitution is concerned, Parliament has little direct role in such matters.

As all the Commonwealth realms apparently run under a Westminster System of government, (In Westminster the Prime Minister can’t authorize troops going to war without the Queen’s consent), we don’t have enough transparency in the Queens dealings to say with any certainty that her consent is not required…

smoke and mirrors aplenty

I guess the next logical step is to see what regular contact the Queen has with the various Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth realms, to ascertain how close the relationship is.

Therein lies the problem… we can all take little snapshots from these documents to prove our points, though much of it is down to interpretation, for example:

So skipping the bit where your Oz stuff was bollox…
Perhaps you should ask a constitutional expert to write you a paper on this. Perhaps do a PHd in it?

I guess the next logical step is to see what regular contact the Queen has with the various Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth realms, to ascertain how close the relationship is.

Why? Are you still under the impression that she runs the world?

junkyard/mikewsmith – do either of you think you have any chance at all of diverting jhj from his current belief system?

Probably not but it’s either that or do some work this morning. Still got tea in the pot…

What you don’t appear to be able to understand is that the Queen does not actually decide policy. There is a world of difference between a Government deciding a policy and enacting it in the Queen’s name, and the Queen taking the decision herself. Every single thing which goes through Parliament is with the Queen’s authority. This does not mean that she has played any active part in the decision making process. Otherwise you might notice that she seems to regularly change her mind about things, taking quite contradictory and conflicting decisions every few years or so. Can’t she make up her mind? Or just perhaps this happens after an election and the government has changed. 🙄
Virtually the only time when the Queen would take an active part in politics was if there was some sort of comstitutional crisis which the parliamentarians could not sort out. (The Gough Whitlam affair in Australia being an example, and even then that seems to have been the Governor-Genarl rather than Her Maj)
Parliamnent acts with her authority because we are living in a constitutional monarchy. This does not mean that she makes the decsions. It’s pretty simple. If we lived in a democratic republic, and the government voted to go to war, it would not mean that every single individual in the counrty had taken that decison: The Governmaent does. You seem to be the only one who can’t quite grasp this. I wonder why?

Can you show me the bit that proves in entirety that my conclusions about Australia were bollocks mike?

Remember, I’m not looking for anything that is open to interpretation or speculation, as apparently, that is bad…

and yourenotverygood, there is clear evidence to suggest that the Queen did have an active role in authorizing the Iraq war

EDIT: From your own link on Australia and already quotes

Since Federation in 1901, and for all conflicts since World War I, the Prime Minister and Cabinet have made all decisions about deploying troops.

do either of you think you have any chance at all of diverting jhj from his current belief system?

Its quite unlikely and its probably best to just leave him to it.
EDIT: Ok its Very unlikely

Ms Bishop says the government of the day has “ultimate responsibility” for decisions about Australia’s military.

From the website you quoted, which incidentally is the ABC website, no? So it isn’t actually an authoratitive source in the first place. This bit:

Australia’s constitution vests the power of decision making with the Queen, in conference with the Governor-General. is just plain inaccurate.

This is pretty funny, everyone is just wangling it to fit in with their beliefs…

By your logic, if the ABC site isn’t an authoritative source, it’s not really viable to pluck any info from it…

Nowhere have I said the Queen is running amok and declaring war in haste, but it’s notable how that the majority of significant military action tends to have associated bounty, be it oil, opium or strategic importance, much like Britain’s Imperial history, albeit wrapped in a modern corporate media coating of salvation of the locals.

The army do a fine job, however, once they’ve served their purpose, all too often it’s apparent that the aftercare for those injured in battle leaves much to be desired, relying on the kindness of the public with charities such as Help for Heroes, rather than provision from the governments who sent them to war in the 1st place (Under the Queens authority and in her name).

everyone is just wangling it to fit in with their beliefs…

Amusing you say this [ its not like you could have said your links said what you claimed] then you move the goalsposts to get us to discuss something else about wars.

IMHO its not really that surprising we are still fighting over resources.

By your logic, if the ABC site isn’t an authoritative source, it’s not really viable to pluck any info from it…

Yes. I’m not.

Nowhere have I said the Queen is running amok and declaring war in haste, but it’s notable how that the majority of significant military action tends to have associated bounty, be it oil, opium or strategic importance, much like Britain’s Imperial history, albeit wrapped in a modern corporate media coating of salvation of the locals.

I’m struggling to see the link between the Queen and wars fought in Britain’s strategic, economic interest. Is she the only one who benefits? Is it just possible that the government of the day could decide to protect the UK’s sources of oil, without the Queen having a say in the decision?

IMHO its not really that surprising we are still fighting over resources.

What, like Opium?

That said, there is blatant strategic importance for continued sway in Afghanistan (even if the Taliban wouldn’t have come to prominence if not for MI6/CIA covert involvement in Operation Cyclone)… especially due to frosty relations with Iran stemming all the way back to the 1953 coup covertly administered by MI6/CIA etc etc

Is she the only one who benefits?

No, though of the populace, she will be amongst those benefiting the most.

Furthermore, given the non transparency of the many tax havens under her jurisdiction, it’s hard to ascertain if the Royal Family have offshore concerns which benefit them directly, but it’s not an unreasonable assumption.

jivehoneyjive – Member
This is pretty funny, everyone JHJ is just wangling it to fit in with their his beliefs…

Never a truer word was spoke.
I think this is appropriate:

As well as this:

And this:

Bored now, I’ve got the latest episode of 12 Monkeys to watch, makes more sense than most of the garbage JHJ posts on here.

Haterz gonna hate…

I’m tired of preaching, that’s not my intention, but like it or not, over the next few years, there’s gonna to be a global shitstorm, unless we learn from the mistakes of the past.

Why drag the Queen into all this?

Because as I’ve tried to point out, when all is said and done, she’s the ultimate authority in many of the mechanisms that perpetuate the war machine, that turns our taxes into dead babies on the other side of the world and leads to the hatred and resentment that is oh so profitable for the arms trade.

Do your own research

Haterz gonna hate…

I’m tired of preaching,
Are you taking your ball home?

Because as I’ve tried to point out, when all is said and done, she’s the ultimate authority in many of the mechanisms that perpetuate the war machine,

Except she isn’t really is she, she’s the lady off of the stamps and the money.

And yes you have tried over 11 pages to convince us with half quotes, links that don’t say what you think they do, strange questions, sudden course changes and random statements and I’ll see if we can get a poll on this not managed to convince anyone. So either we are all in serious denial or maybe there isn’t actually anything sinister, illegal or dodgy going on. There are plenty of nations acting like the UK around the world with no Royal Puppet Masters.

she’s the lady off of the stamps and the money.

That tells you much of what you need to know…

At least I’ll get to be smug with my told you so’s when shit gets ugly in the next few years, but it will be a hollow victory.

There are plenty of nations acting like the UK around the world with no Royal Puppet Masters.

In many instances, being sold weapons by agents and allies of the Royal Puppet Masters is likely to be a contributory factor…

That tells you much of what you need to know…[/quote]

Yeah, and that’s just the puny pound. How much power must this chap have then?

Took a quick look at who’s been doing all the waring and invading recently
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions#1945.E2.80.931999

We are down there in the minority really

That is a good resource, though it doesn’t state who supplied weapons to the invading forces and more importantly, it doesn’t take into account the actions of the intelligence services, who have a long history of instigating tensions and destabilizing countries and regions without any official involvement or accountability…

it doesn’t take into account the actions of the intelligence services, who have a long history of instigating tensions and destabilizing countries and regions without any official involvement or accountability…

You mean like the CIA what the Queen is in charge of ?

So you are saying that if the Queen was stripped of all her “power” intelligence services would not be instigating tensions and destabilizing countries and regions ?

This 88 year old woman really has a lot to answer for !

Although she doesn’t look too bothered.

Perhaps she should be issued with an ASBO ?

Should be locked up in HMP if you ask me. Oh hang on…

The cricket team just sang a song for the Queen, does this mean she is responsible for the performances?

The cricket team just sang a song for the Queen, does this mean she is responsible for the performances?

Time for a revolution, then!

It’s about the only explanation of what Ali was thinking about.

You mean like the CIA what the Queen is in charge of ?

So you are saying that if the Queen was stripped of all her “power” intelligence services would not be instigating tensions and destabilizing countries and regions ?

Like GCHQ and the NSA, MI6 and the CIA have a long history of close collaboration.

Would removing the Monarchy automatically halt the secret services in their tracks?

Probably not, but on whose behalf do the secret services work and to whom are they accountable?

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/how-many-armies-does-the-queen-have
Try starting back on page 1 and having a read.

Like GCHQ and the NSA, MI6 and the CIA have a long history of close collaboration.

Allies? Working together?

When will this madness stop?

Yes, jhj. That’s what you’re doing. Well spotted.

Ah Woppit, have you shaken any of your delusions yet?

I was getting a bit worried for your well being…

“Probably”? Exactly how likely do you think it is that the secret services would change a single thing about what they do if we became a republic tomorrow? Put it like this, if I made a bet with you where I give you £1000 if it all changes and you give me £10 if nothing changes would you take me up on it?

Oh, and do your own research.

but on whose behalf do …..

You’ve decide that this is your standard catch-all answer every time someone points out to you that the Queen doesn’t have the power you suggest she has, haven’t you ?

I find it bit bizarre that among all the pisstaking some people still make attempts to engage in rational debate with you, when the futility of doing so is so clear.

Your new variation of “in the next few years the shit is going to hit the fan and then you’ll all be sorry and see that I was right” is interesting. As has already been mentioned, there is a correlation between the impulse to believe in hidden conspiracies being responsible for everything and a belief that everything is the result of a hidden god of some sort.

Now you are starting to display a “George Jones” complex – the world is coming to an end and only those who believe in YOU will survive, so to speak.

Do you, by any chance, think that there’s a “god” “behind” everything, or just a secret human cabal of some sort?

“on whose behalf do the secret services work and to whom are they accountable”
1- they work on behalf of the nation state and for what they perceive to be it’s common good.
2- they answer to the executive are accountable to parliament and before the law .

The ultimate authority is often referred to as the crown but that in reality custom and practice is the legislature and executive not the human figure head or even the particular family the state drafted in to replace the last family.

It may be a bit murky subtle and ill-defined but that is because there is no grand scheme or plan to it, rather than that the grand lizard plan is hidden behind mirrors. We have arrived where we are constitutionally after centuries of organic growth revolutionary change and political fudge.

Exactly how likely do you think it is that the secret services would change a single thing about what they do if we became a republic tomorrow?

That would depend who the new leader was~ if it was someone who wanted more transparency and a genuine democracy, rather than the corporate pantomime we currently have where bankers go unpunished and the pillaging of the planet continues unabated, then there is a strong likelihood they’d give the secret services a hefty shake-up.

You have to remember, the entire system as it stands it built around the Monarchy, in the UK and across the Commonwealth Realms.

Put it like this, if I made a bet with you where I give you £1000 if it all changes and you give me £10 if nothing changes would you take me up on it?

Hells yeah, thems good odds 😀

You have to remember, the entire system as it stands it built around the Monarchy, in the UK and across the Commonwealth Realms.

Sorry but you will have to prove that. Having a crown on the letter head is not the same thing.

Do you, by any chance, think that there’s a “god” “behind” everything, or just a secret human cabal of some sort?

You’ve given me but two options when there is an entire universe to consider… I struggle to accept that a secret human cabal is in control of the entire universe. By that same merit, I struggle to accept a God as portrayed by any of the mainstream religions, which often seem to be more of a control structure than anything… as an example, look at the wealth of the Vatican, yet there are still so many people starving in the world.

In terms of religion, Star Wars is every bit as valid as the bible as far as I’m concerned…

Sorry but you will have to prove that. Having a crown on the letter head is not the same thing.

Easy peasy… how did the Commonwealth come into being?

Then have a quick perusal at the constitutions of the UK and the Commonwealth realms…

As opposed to your well-worn avoidance tactic like the one above, which does your case no good at all. If you avoid dealing with the counter argument by offering what you call “evidence” which is actually just hearsay or more flimflam from another conspiracy nut or simply ignore any point that you can’t deal with, nobody is going to give you the slightest benefit of the doubt, let alone be swayed by your “argument”.

EDIT: I see that you did respond whilst I was typing. This is a welcome new departure.