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…

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.

TBh its madness to think the queen controls the armies, the intelligence services or the tax havens.
I think you need to google figure head and /or constitutional monarchy.

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 constitutional monarchy, 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 head of state 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

Its so hard to work out which type we have here isn’t it.

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 :

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 Wikipedia Articles and YouTube videos, but not (say) by reading books by acknowledged experts on the subject.

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 the Queen has tried to have Harrison Ford killed. 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.

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 this link 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?

Ask this guy

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;

no she cannot- it is long established that parliament is sovereign over the monarch [ it does not end well for any monarch who ignores this] and as for claiming she can theoretically get a foreign power to invade nations thats prima facie nonsense.

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.

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.