Queen to step down in five years - says Royal source

Originally posted by Perseus Apex
We don't live in a Feudalistic society anymore therefor there is no need for a King, Queen or any other 'Titled' position of 'authority' though then again the people of England have the right carry on the lengthy tradition of the Royal family if the choose to do so in my opinion.

Just don't expect myself or other Americans to bow down to 'any' human being. According to history, that never seems to work out very well. No human should have 'absolute' authority over another and they intuitively know so, therefor if one does subjugate themselves to another, it is their choice and so are the consequences.



[edit on 20-11-2008 by Perseus Apex]

in USA the president is the head of state and has political power

in UK the Queen has ceremonial duties and formality but the real power is the elected Prime Minister

in Australia we have a Governor-general who represents the Queen and has the same ceremonial duties but the real power is with the elected Prime Minister

perhaps ou should read a book called 'to play the king' or watch the mini series, to get a better idea about what the Queen really does and how UK and Australa are in fact democracies

www.amazon.co.uk...

cheers!

Originally posted by infinite




Recent news has suggested Charles wishes to be called King George VII (the name Charles is associated with times of revolution in British history) and will become a political monarch - just like Spain and the Netherlands. However, in a recent opinion poll, 50% of the United Kingdom oppose a political monarch. Some monarchists fear a rise in republicanism if the new King obstructs Parliament.

www.express.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

From where do you get the above information?

It doesn't seem to say that in the link, unless I missed something.

If the Queen, or whoever is monarch, cannot or will not use these powers that they do have (the power is there, there is no debate there) why do they still have them?.

is it that the Queen as some people believe is at the centre of a NWO takeover and will invoke these powers when the time comes.

reply to post by megabyte

in USA the president is the head of state and has political power in UK the Queen has ceremonial duties and formality but the real power is the elected Prime Minister in Australia we have a Governor-general who represents the Queen and has the same ceremonial duties but the real power is with the elected Prime Minister perhaps ou should read a book called 'to play the king' or watch the mini series, to get a better idea about what the Queen really does and how UK and Australa are in fact democracies

I know this well. What would make you assume otherwise?
I also know that the Queen picks the Governor General of many countries and it is for 'financial' reasons. Did you know the Queen has to bow to Rothschild upon entering the 'City of London', a sovereign city within Greater London? Perhaps you should ask yourself why? This is what concerns me past and present.

These same international bankster folks (Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg etc.) own and operate the IRS, Federal Reserve, IMF, The World Bank, Bank for International Settlements, Central Banks of the world, primary shareholdership of the largest banks, real estate, oil, gold, natural gas, and most other important commodites of the world. They conceal their ownership of these vested entities via shell accounts, Trusts, other 'Funds' and offshore accounts with non-disclosure accounts.

You don't know myself so I'll have to pardon your assumption in knowing that which you know not of.

Originally posted by Perseus Apex
I also know that the Queen picks the Governor General of many countries and it is for 'financial' reasons.

She most certainly does not pick Canada's Governor General. Our PM 'recommends' (tells her) who to appoint and she does it. It is the same for all the Commonwealth countries.

reply to post by Duzey


The Governor General is 'recommended' by the Prime Minister though how are you to assume that he/she 'Tells' the Queen/King of the day who to put in office? From what I understand, Rothschild tells the Queen whom he advises and the Queen usually follows suite since Rothschild runs the Bank of England and owns it's gold in the Central Bank. Most are unaware of his influence, though that is by design.

Remember, there is good reason that Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg and a few others never show up on Forbes 100 richest even though they are by far the wealthiest individuals in the world. They operate on a whole other level altogether. They rule in secrecy as they have since the House of Rothschild (google if you like) began in 1743.
If you read the following link, you may count yourselves as one of the few 'informed' of the true history of the modern world and that which in large part influenced it all. It's a long read though extremely important. You will discover how the Rothschild achieved their dynasty and how they 'financed' the other 'illuminati' over time for the End of an NWO. The problem was, Rhodes initial inception of an NWO was hijacked by the International bankster cartel. Off topic, though I was challenged; what else am to do than 'explain' myself?

Timeline of the Rothschild



[edit on 21-11-2008 by Perseus Apex]

Originally posted by whoswatchinwho
If the Queen, or whoever is monarch, cannot or will not use these powers that they do have (the power is there, there is no debate there) why do they still have them?.

is it that the Queen as some people believe is at the centre of a NWO takeover and will invoke these powers when the time comes.

the moarchy was restored after 4 years without monarchy but without any powers

Britannia: Monarchs of BritainThe monarchy was restored in all but name; Cromwell went from the title of Lord General of the Army to that of Lord Protector of the Realm (the title of ...
www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon48.html - 25k - Cached - Similar pages


see that? the monarchy is monarchy in name only since Cromwell and they do NOT have anything more than ceremonial power

Originally posted by Perseus Apex
reply to post by megabyte

 

in USA the president is the head of state and has political power in UK the Queen has ceremonial duties and formality but the real power is the elected Prime Minister in Australia we have a Governor-general who represents the Queen and has the same ceremonial duties but the real power is with the elected Prime Minister perhaps ou should read a book called 'to play the king' or watch the mini series, to get a better idea about what the Queen really does and how UK and Australa are in fact democracies

I know this well. What would make you assume otherwise?
I also know that the Queen picks the Governor General of many countries and it is for 'financial' reasons. Did you know the Queen has to bow to Rothschild upon entering the 'City of London', a sovereign city within Greater London? Perhaps you should ask yourself why? This is what concerns me past and present.

These same international bankster folks (Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg etc.) own and operate the IRS, Federal Reserve, IMF, The World Bank, Bank for International Settlements, Central Banks of the world, primary shareholdership of the largest banks, real estate, oil, gold, natural gas, and most other important commodites of the world. They conceal their ownership of these vested entities via shell accounts, Trusts, other 'Funds' and offshore accounts with non-disclosure accounts.

You don't know myself so I'll have to pardon your assumption in knowing that which you know not of.

apologies - your post did not indicate that you knew all of this

Originally posted by megabyte
the moarchy was restored after 4 years without monarchy but without any powers

The period of the Protectorate was actually 11 years, not 4.

Originally posted by megabyte
see that? the monarchy is monarchy in name only since Cromwell and they do NOT have anything more than ceremonial power

That's not true either. The powers of the monrachy deminished since the civil war, but the Royals have much more than mere "ceremonial" power. I can cite many examples of Monarchs after the Civil war who exercised quite a bit of power.

You just think the monarchy is ceremonial because HM QE2 hasn't been a political monarch, bnut I can assure you everyone one of her ancestors up to and including her father were politically active.

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by megabyte
the moarchy was restored after 4 years without monarchy but without any powers

The period of the Protectorate was actually 11 years, not 4.

Originally posted by megabyte
see that? the monarchy is monarchy in name only since Cromwell and they do NOT have anything more than ceremonial power

That's not true either. The powers of the monrachy deminished since the civil war, but the Royals have much more than mere "ceremonial" power. I can cite many examples of Monarchs after the Civil war who exercised quite a bit of power.

You just think the monarchy is ceremonial because HM QE2 hasn't been a political monarch, bnut I can assure you everyone one of her ancestors up to and including her father were politically active.

ok then - perhaps she feels that is the best way to stay a monarch ?

I'm surprised she hasn't already, she looks bored stiff at the official functions it's her duty to attend.

ok. First, idc about her stepping down as long as someone in the royal family is in the king-queen chair. And We Anglo-Saxons are not (That Much) Imperialists!

Originally posted by johnsky
Before those who live outside of the loyalist countries get in here...

I find there's allot of misunderstanding of what the monarchy is, especially in those who do not live in Great Britain, or it's loyalist counterparts.

The parliament wields power, it's a democratic system.

It's the same in Britain, as it is here in Canada. The queen is a figurehead, nothing more.

I'm from Britain and I have to disagree with that, the Monarch wields alot of power IMO, they just choose not to use it atm, point is, they can, whenever they please.

The Queen can seize any land under her control, that includes Canada and Australia. Even though these 'laws' are outdated and she wouldn't dream of using them (officially ofc), they are still there for a reason IMO, just because she doesn't use them, doesn't mean she can't.

Basically, the old monarchy is kept around as a tribute to older times. They aren't in charge of the countries any more.

IMO, this is for a reason, what was that quote;

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn't exist."

I said this in another similar thread, but I though it fit here aswell.

And again, I'm not saying the queen is the devil, just that it is a myth, perpetuated on purpose, as a guise for true power.

In Canada, we keep the queen on our currency etc. simply because we are grateful for our independence. She holds no power over us, but we feel inclined to owe the monarchy thanks for giving us our independence without having to fight for it.

Again, she does hold power, she just chooses not to wield it.

In Britain, it's a similar deal. Many old customs are kept around for nostalgic reference. Such as the queen meeting with the new prime minister to ratify his seat in power... if she were to say no... it wouldn't matter.
The queen is allot like a celebrity... we look up to her... but she's not in charge of us.

Lol, my friend pointed out to me a while ago (he's not really into all the CT stuff, but hey) that when most Head of States meet with the Queen, they all seem incredibly nervous. He used Bush as an example, he showed me the vid on youtube, Bush looked terrified, lol.

The pyramids are on US currency... but you don't bow down to the old Egyptian kings.
The founding fathers are on US currency as well... but clearly they don't hold power either... they're dead.

60% of the world say "Amen" when praying to their God, maybe a coincidence, but IMO, a very big one.

Why I have to explain this to Americans every time the topic is brought up, I'll never know. I would expect by now this is common knowledge worldwide... but the yanks just don't seem to get it.

Difference of opinion, gotta love it on a site like this.

Oh well.
It doesn't matter in the end. Prince Charles (king Charles) won't wield any governing power, so all this is is another celebrity.

IMO, not a chance Charles is getting the throne, 'Do not Pass go, do not collect £200 or the throne of the Kingdom', going straight to William, as a previous poster said, he has been groomed all his life for the role.

Ofc, this is all just my opinion, subject to change as new information comes to light.

EMM

Edit to add: As soemone posted a page earlier, the queen can also abolish parliament if she wished.

And also

"Undemocratic? The UK undemocratic, that`s just plain daft!

The UK is the most Democratic country on this planet. And believe it or not my friend, the Royal Family are held in a higher regard than you think by the people of the UK - I, and thousands like me, swore "Allegiance" to the "Queen" and our country when serving in "Her Majesty`s Armed Forces". And I still hold that Allegiance to this day."

OK, how can you still think we live in a democracy?!? Did YOU vote on Gordon Brown being our Prime minister? Which way did you vote for the bail out?

Even the Americans, supposedly the most corrupt nation on Earth, had a vote, although I believe it was rigged, at least they bothered to disguise that they don't listen to the people, or care what they think.

Our government pledged £700bn to private business', on our heads, with a promise of a 'stake in the deal', without even asking the people. Apparently £2000 on every man, woman and child's head in Britain, and we didn't even get the chance to oppose it.

Lol, I'm waiting for my cheque, but I'm guessing I'll be waiting a while.

[edit on 22-11-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 22-11-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

reply to post by Perseus Apex


Sorry, the timeline in no way convinces me that anyone other than our PM is choosing our Governor General. The position is given based on a recommendation by our Prime Minister, and nothing more.

at the time Prince William was born the predictions from astrologers and othrs was that he will be the next monarch and that Prince Charles will never make it to the throne

time will tlel if those predictions unfold