God Save the Queen - of Australia, Canada, and NZ?

reply to post by eMachine


G'day E,

Yeah mate,Really,The Queen,or Missus Quinn as she may be known is actually fairly well liked here,Her son Prince Chaz,not so much,bit of a Merchant Banker if you ask me,Anyway,We actually have what is called a Governor General ,They are appointed by and have a hotline to the Queen,They are her representative here.

But really,as far as i have known and can see she doesn't mess with us much at all,pops over for a cuppa with the Prime Minister, (Fuddy Dudd Rudd) once in a while but that's about it,

There are a lot worse places to live tho.


As an aside,The Queen still has subjects because the reptiles need to be fed...

Australia here.....

I don't think anyone here in Aus remembers the last time the Queen used her power here in any way. Every few years some polititian or other brings up the subject of having a national referendum to become a Republic but it usually goes nowhere.

The Queen is just a figurehead to us Aussies now, we outgrew colony status a long time ago, although the rest of the world likes to continually remind us that we started out as a prison colony. I would just like to clarify that I in fact descend from the prison guards sent over to guard the prisoners.

As to being "royal subjects" that's seriously the first time that thought has ever occured to me.

. I can understand the monarchy being part of your culture there... I was just shocked to find out the Queen still has power in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, whether it's "exercised" or not.

I see what you're saying, but the Queen is just as much a part of the culture in Aus/NZ/Canada. Afterall, you've got to remember that the only reason white people are in these places is because they were part of the British Empire.

The majority of non-aborginal Aussies and Kiwis are anglo-saxons. Their history is a shared British history, despite living on the other side of the world.

Don't get me wrong, i'm British and not a fan of the monarchy in the slightest (Oliver Cromwell had the right idea), but i suppose the reason that she is still the monarch in these countries is the same as in Britain - adherance to tradition and conservatism.

[edit on 3-9-2009 by CRB86]

reply to post by Kram09

So... you're all just humoring them, so to speak?

When I read stuff about monarchy (any monarchy), I can't help but think these people are just playing. They can't possibly think they have some kind of divine right to have power over others, can they? They're just playing like they believe it, to impress the people and get their support, to perpetuate their way of life. (Yeah, kind of like politicians do.)

It's like the world is a stage for a really bad play, like a dinner theater, and people periodically put their fork down to applaud the show they're not really paying attention to and the actors they aren't really impressed by. The actors are mostly just relieved they got through the show and they still have a job tomorrow.

I guess it's the polite thing to do, to clap and humor them, even if you don't care much for the show.

Problem is though, it's real life, not a play, and there is real power involved. Feeding their ego and supporting their feeling of superiority, whether we're talking about a monarchy or political-business 'aristocracy' in the US (take 'Dubya' or Paris Hilton for example), could be empowering them, validating them, justifying them... I just think it might be unwise.

I feel like society has been/is still evolving to not believe in the superiority of monarchs and aristocracy... so why let them continue the 'play'?

Again, I'm not advocating any sort of action, I'm just trying to look at this philosophically.

If you were born into the royal family....great schools, never really have to work, basically a free ride in life.

And at one point you could even say your a queen.


Would you really want to give up that? I wouldn't...



We all know we wouldn't give it up, so why expect them to, they arn't really interfering all that much in our lives and theres a small slither of pride in sticking with the old way of life when the British empire was huge.

This is disappointing to me, because these three countries were my top picks for places I could move to, if I decide to flee from the US.

I fear that your perceived I.Q. means you would probably fail the entrance test to these countries.

Do you really fear subordination to a figure head? Or are you troubled that Her Majesty has earings older than your country?

You have a black President now, give it a few years and you may have a Queen as head of State too.

reply to post by BlackViolet

Ohemgee, I love those nicknames you give them.

This thread has got a bit more attention than I expected. Thanks all for chiming in to offer your perspective!

I just had this thought... if (completely hypothetical) there really are plans to create a few different united regions, like the EU and the supposed 'North American Union'... could the monarch use its power over the commonwealth nations to further that agenda?

Is there even any concern in Aus. and NZ about a potential Asia-Pacific Union like the concern in America about the 'NAU'? Just wondering...

reply to post by eMachine


Hahah well that's an interesting and amusing analogy.

Sometimes the royal family does get on my nerves.

Prince Harry infamously went to a fancy dress party a few years ago dressed as a Nazi stormtrooper. While Prince Wiliam used an RAF chinook helicopter to attend a stag party with friends.

[edit on 3/9/09 by Kram09]

Originally posted by Kryties
Australia here.....

I don't think anyone here in Aus remembers the last time the Queen used her power here in any way.

1975. The sacking of the Whitlam Government. The Queen was consulted prior to her representative, the Governor-General, John Kerr, sacking the then Labor Government after what appeared to be a nice little piece of political meddling by the CIA.

Australia held a referendum a few years back to establish whether we should go the republic route, however it failed. There was an attitude of "If it isn't broken, why fix it?" I suspect however, that the fact that no one definitive model of an Australian republic got presented to the people, was what really caused it to fail.

I personally find it abhorrent that the Australian head of state, is not an Australian.

reply to post by exile1981


Correction, she and the entire royal family have absolutely NO pull/say/grip over the way Canada governs herself.

Originally posted by eMachine

Originally posted by Kram09
Why are you so averse to living in a country with a queen?

I just can't fathom the idea of being a royal subject. I don't think I could ever believe that one family is inherently superior to all the rest.

Don't get me wrong, the US is certainly no better. We have a sort of unofficial aristocracy of the rich and famous. Many people think others who were fortunate enough to be born in the right families are superior to everyone else. I don't support that line of thinking either.

I can understand how England might benefit from keeping the monarchy around as a "figurehead" or a sort of tourist attraction. I can understand the monarchy being part of your culture there... I was just shocked to find out the Queen still has power in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, whether it's "exercised" or not.

And yeah, I know there are many other countries still part of the commonwealth as well, I just didn't expect to find these ones on the list.

I'm certainly not saying people need to revolt against the monarchy. I was just astonished that I didn't know about this, and I've never heard anything about Canadians, Australians, or New Zealanders(?) making an issue of it, like (correct me if I'm wrong) some in Ireland have.

I think you will find that you are a royal subject to the behest of the saudi royal family , being as they now own most of the usa but then thats another subject.

Originally posted by Retikx
reply to post by exile1981

 

Correction, she and the entire royal family have absolutely NO pull/say/grip over the way Canada governs herself.

Again, that's technically not true. The Governor General is the Queens representative and holds the most power in Canada. But as mentioned, the power is never exercised, but that does not mean it does not exist.

When I read stuff about monarchy (any monarchy), I can't help but think these people are just playing. They can't possibly think they have some kind of divine right to have power over others, can they? They're just playing like they believe it, to impress the people and get their support, to perpetuate their way of life. (Yeah, kind of like politicians do.)

You weren't lying in the OP claiming ignorance.

The Royals are the Royals because they have maintained power for hundreds of years and the blood line has been the same for that entire time.

Now, as usual what I am about to say is going to offend people, but it's the truth. It's a fairly tale that were all created "equal", to believe that is intentional ignorance. It's just a fact of life that some people will never be productive members of societies. Most people do not have the capacity to manage a group of people, or their funds and assets, and proven through history the "masses" are completely controllable, ignorant heaps. "Gods and Clods if you will." Some people are just born to be clods, have no aspirations or dreams, and serve no purpose to humanity.

So if we go back hundreds of years and we see that a set of royals was able to seize power, and keep it for hundreds of years, whether you agree with their policies or not - they must be smarter than a hell of a lot of people.


It really annoys me when I see people on this forum, pretending that they are some how equal to the powers. The PTB are the cleverest people on earth apparently, since they control it, and have controlled it for centuries.

Don't confuse my statements for condoning their policies, cause I don't. But when you look at how they have manipulated the world into building them empires, and at the same time ponzi'ing all of our money out of us - they're brilliant. A lot smarter than the masses, whether you agree with them or not.

People sit here and claim that these people are no better, but then the same people are busy gobbling up the mainstream propaganda and falling for the same tricks these guys have been using for hundreds of years to manipulate the masses. How are they not supposed to think your stupid? When you continually illustrate your ignorance?

And to really get the flame train rolling on king, if you take a moment to put yourself in their shoes and see how they have have raped the people for hundreds of years. It's plain to see how they have come to have the attitude that they have of humanity. A bunch of ignorant, lazy, stupid people is all the masses are to them. And I can see why, every single time I turn on the news.


EDIT TO ADD: And anyone who believes that the Royal Family doesn't have power is out of their mind. The queen is the top of the pyramid, at worst shes surrounded by a few others at the very top. But ultimately, she's still the top. She very well could be technically the most powerful person on earth.

[edit on 3-9-2009 by king9072]

reply to post by eMachine

Hi eMachine and all.

If you read that:

The Atlantean Conspiracy.
By Eric Dubay.
www.atlanteanconspiracy.com

you will see that there are much more "royal" controlers of
many-things-on-earth than we think.

They control much more countries than those you listed. . .

[ I am in page 80, now, and up to date,
"Atlantean" is not about the ancient continent,
but is about the sea. ] B-)

Blue skies.

Originally posted by eMachine
reply to post by BlackViolet

 

I just had this thought... if (completely hypothetical) there really are plans to create a few different united regions, like the EU and the supposed 'North American Union'... could the monarch use its power over the commonwealth nations to further that agenda?

I think you are kind of stuck in 1500 AD and medieval legends. No one in the modern Commonwealth thinks of themselves as "royal subjects" like back in they days of Henry the Eighth and his wives. That's ridiculous.

Other European countries also have monarchies: Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden. None of these other royal families have any political power whatsoever. They, like the British royal family, are more like the country's designated-at-birth ambassadors to the world. It's all about history, tradition and ceremony. Nothing to do with modern life or modern politics.

Yes, they get paid well for what they do but having to going to stuffy state affairs and ceremonies every day. Yuck. No wonder Diana wanted out.

America is the father (washington monument - male) England is the mother (london eye - female) and Aus, Canada and NZ are the kids.
What a lovley family we are!

For those that think the Monarchy holds no real power over the commonwealths you might want to check with the good people of Antigua that just had their Prime Minister removed and assembly disbanded after a two year investigation conducted by the Crown unearthed ‘serious improprieties’.

For the present and for a period as possibly as long as two years by estimates the people of Antigua have lost self rule and the crown is appointing a Governor and a Board of Regents to run the nation until the corruption can be rooted and ferreted out.

If you think the people of Canada would laugh if the Queen removed its Prime Minister and dissolved its assembly guess again…it’s in the Contract.

For you conspiracy theorist who wonder why the U.S. Federal Reserve is foreign owned take the time to read the Treaty of Paris that established the United States and understand that as you research the titles involved that the English Monarch actually appointed himself as Treasurer of the United States of America in the opening paragraph!

The Treaty of Paris negotiated at the famous Palace of Versailles will also reveal to you that the King of England wasn’t just the King of England but also the King of France under the Holy Roman Empire with the actual Holy Roman Empire’s King of France having enough pull to negotiate American peace at his Palace and Court of Versailles in France despite there being a competing Frankish King (soon there after deposed of by the French Revolution).

Yet the real power of the King as evidenced by those who like to understand some things are really meant to be taken literally and not figuratively which is why they have the “After all parties have fully communicated their respective powers clause” was not King of England but prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire and treasurer of the Holy Roman Empire being his first and last title of many titles respectively.

In reality all that occurred is the United States was named and made a state of the Roman Empire and Holy Roman Empire by the prince elector who was the only person on said planet that could create a new Roman State on behalf of Rome.

The District of Columbia is an independent City State not subject to the laws of the United States as London is an Independent City State not subject to the laws of England, as is Vatican City an Independent City State not subject to the laws of Italy. I like to think of these three cities as the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost and I wouldn’t mess with the Queen or her family or the other surviving monarchs of the Holy Roman Empire as Rome just really doesn’t like it!

Hail Caesar, long live the queen!


[edit on 3/9/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Q E II, even though she has restricted power here in the UK, she is still commander in chief of the Armed forces, which means she has to give her permission for the Government to use the Army, Air force, or Navy, which has to be a just cause, the Commonwealth, is a kind of protectorate, the way I believe it works is, if any Country in the Commonwealth becomes distressed, then the Commonwealth is obliged to act to help, it could be Invasion, Threats, or just trade agreements.

This is one of the reason when you see people say, the British Government has plans to put troops onto the streets it is taken with a pinch of salt, because there are safe guards to prevent it from happening, there would have to be a coup de tat.

Funny I was talking about this just this morning in another thread about the supposed forced vaccinations and detention of those who refuse, I very much doubt it could happen, the Army wont do it because of their families, and the Police, they just don't have the man power or the nerve.

I don't agree with everything Lizzie does or says, I think she should mingle with us more, I wouldn't say I was a royalist in any way, but I do like the thought of her being there, she has screwed up a few times, her hubby a lot more, but on the whole, it's Lizzie, our Queen, it feels good.

List of 53 Commonwealth Independent States

And why it exists, not a bad thing really IMO.

[edit on 3/9/2009 by azzllin]

I know what you are saying...she totally dominates those people and they happily do her bidding. She's playing the little white haired old lady like an Oscar award winning actress and deserves a star on the Hollywood walk of fame. Look at her coronation photo, she's a total gangbanger and played a crucial part in starting this whole war.

Gangbanger Queen

Fortunately for us all, her son is a sissy and probably won't be able to hold the commonwealth together after she dies. He fancies himself a King...but I don't know in what freaky world a Queen can bestow Kingship...being that it is God's domain.

I got sick of the US to about five years ago and broke out a map to see where I'd like to go...Canada sounded nice with all the wilderness and such but I can't go there because of their Queen, so I ended up in New Mexico.

What's so amazing is that people who worship her apparently believe she is not one of the most ambitious women on the planet and will stop at nothing to be not just called Queen, but God. I just hope whe doesn't last as long as her mother did.



[edit on 3-9-2009 by IDK88]

[edit on 3-9-2009 by IDK88]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
The Treaty of Paris negotiated at the famous Palace of Versailles will also reveal to you that the King of England wasn’t just the King of England but also the King of France under the Holy Roman Empire with the actual Holy Roman Empire’s King of France having enough pull to negotiate American peace at his Palace and Court of Versailles in France despite there being a competing Frankish King (soon there after deposed of by the French Revolution).

Sorry, but that is absolute nonsense. Ever heard of Henry VIII?

Well, Henry was a lustfull man and wanted to trade his wife in for a new model. Old pope, he said 'NO'. So Henry, being a fine Tudor hothead in the tradition of his dear old Daddy, stuck two fingers up at the pope.

"Bollocks to you then" said Henry, and made his own church. Catholicism was banned in England. The monasteries were looted. Catholics were burnt at the stake. To this day, it is illegal for the monarch to marry a Catholic. The English Bill of Rights permits Protestants to bear arms. Catholics? No chance.

To this day, the monarch is known as the 'defender of the faith' in his/her official capacity. That faith, of course, being Church of England.

And you're telling us that the King of England was actually made the King of the Holy Roman Empire? Pull the other one, sunshine.

Which king was this supposed to be, anyway?

The District of Columbia is an independent City State not subject to the laws of the United States as London is an Independent City State not subject to the laws of England, as is Vatican City an Independent City State not subject to the laws of Italy. I like to think of these three cities as the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost and I wouldn’t mess with the Queen or her family or the other surviving monarchs of the Holy Roman Empire as Rome just really doesn’t like it!

Where did you get this little nugget from? Absolutely not true, by the way.