Hmm my topic has been merged.
One more thing.How many of you know that after the australian double dissolution which was ordered by the queen Both the Pm's of australia were the original force behind the republic referendum of 1999 and the monarch says that she has no authority to remove.The governor generals are the agents of the queen.
The queen is visiting Australia as to see if her puppet gillard can push the carbon tax.It is the queen who is pushing for carbon tax.If gillard failed then she would have been removed.
The house of hanover learned from thier mistakes of george the III.Now its done via stealth and all blame is taken by the governor general.
Another Article by D.M
Sayonara #6 - Royal Incubators
Presently, Elizabeth II remains the Queen of 16 countries. She is still involved with all 54 Commonwealth nations. It is claimed that she is only a figurehead, but is that true? If she were only a figurehead, then all the extravagance, pomp and ceremony surrounding the British monarchy would only be fanciful play acting, similar to that involved in Medieval reality games. The monarchy is supposed to be symbolic. If that be the case, the world has been drawn into a mass delusion that the royals are the mascots of many nations. Further, the whole world is facilitating the monarch's fantasy in a grand hallucination. All those who participate and support such a royal fantasy are giving licence and approval to the idea that class distinction and aristocracy are important and necessary to uphold. If the monarchy is just an arrogant, costly, pompous lark being acted out as an enormous fantasy game, it is nothing short of mass insanity. But, it would only be insanity if the Queen were just a figurehead.
The royal presence creates an artificial atmosphere of awe amongst the commoners, who will push and shove just to get a glimpse of a member of the royal family. The award ceremonies, gala events and seasonal garden parties for selected public guests result in more accolades for the Queen, and more support for the royals, because those involved have developed vested interests in expanding the prestige of their constitutional monarchy. How can Britain criticise and condemn other nations for not being democratic when they themselves support and maintain a monarchy that rules by succession, and has power to dictate to other countries, regardless of what the latter's people want or decide?
In reality, the Queen is no figurehead, and the monarchy is not symbolic. It wields power. All British soldiers swear allegiance to the Queen. Trooping the Colours shows the close bond between the Sovereign and the armed forces. There is a Royal Army, a Royal Navy, a Royal Air Force, Royal Guards, a Royal Train and what not. The Queen has governor-generals to represent her directly in all realms where she is Queen. She can negate legislation and effect the removal of prime ministers and dissolve parliaments. She also has the power to lead certain Commonwealth armies and navies. Contrary to the claim that she avoids politics, she is intently involved in world affairs, and has a strong agenda to pursue and implement emissions trading schemes and towards placing a price on carbon, amongst other global matters she addresses.
Every year the Queen gives out numerous awards and titles. If she were only a symbolic figure, every one of these awards and titles would be laughable and worthless, yet, the recipients of such awards and titles are not only respected, but admired. The sundry titles reinforce commoners' inferiority to the royals and aristocrats. If America had not banned titles within its government, one can just imagine newly-appointed lords and ladies parading around the White House and appearing in the media. Certainly, many of the Presidents would have been knighted, as would many Members of Congress and Supreme Court Justices. Before long, people would believe that America is actually led by the Queen.
Many in Britain claim that the monarchy is a way of holding onto 500-year-old traditions, and is therefore important to keep in place. If the five-centuries-old traditions are so vital, then they must be proud of their last 500 years. Public floggings, slavery and placing people in stocks were also part of that tradition. Does that mean that these things should also be preserved? The last five centuries are full of bloodshed, savagery, conquests, betrayals and plunder. The British monarchy was striving for world conquest and established a huge empire, which they are still earnestly pursing, although far more subtly than they did in the nineteenth century.
In the eighteenth century, Thomas Paine was a severe critic of the British monarchy. If the 500-year-old traditions are so important to observe and keep, then Paine's comments warning the world against monarchies in general, and the British monarchy in particular, are still pertinent. Paine observed that royals have a propensity to engage in wars that engulf the world. In
The Crisis, he said: “Britain, for centuries past, has been nearly fifty years out of every hundred at war with some power or other.” He stated in
Common Sense that: “In short, monarchy and succession have laid (not this or that kingdom only) but the world in blood and ashes.” Also in the same pamphlet was a severe warning against arrogant aristocrats: “For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever.” If the royals maintained a semblance of decency, they would be too embarrassed to allow other human beings to bow down to them or to be addressed as, “Your Royal Highness” or “Your Majesty.”
The monarchs have long held contempt for Americans. As Paine said in
The Crisis: “It was the determination of the British court to have nothing to do with America but to conquer her fully and absolutely.” When King George III failed to conquer by force, he set many plans in motion that were followed by his successors. Paine also warned about George III, stating: “He may accomplish by craft and subtilty in the long run, what he cannot do by force and violence in the short one.” The situation today is reminiscent of Paine's time. Through cunningness and subtleties, the Queen and her ancestors have persuaded the United States to fight many wars for them.
Presently, there are many wars; many soldiers have fallen. Their families are told the soldiers have not died in vain, that they have died for their country, for freedom, and for democracy. They are told that the price of freedom is dear. Are these just cheap words? How many rulers really care? These days, most soldiers do not die for freedom; they die for conquest, and they leave a void in their families. Many of the surviving soldiers of the wars are maimed or otherwise permanently scarred. Who takes care of them and their families?
Those who promote and love wars should be on the front lines and also send their own children to the front lines. Since the monarchy has a long and bloody history of engaging and promoting wars, the world's princes should be on the front lines, not for show, but for the duration of the battles, to be real leaders and soldiers on the battlefield. If all the world's monarchs' children were on the front lines for the duration of the wars, including Prince William and Prince Harry, you can be assured that wars would be shorter and less frequent.
Since the ruling elite have invested so much into the monarchies, they are assisting them in carrying out their agendas. Regardless of their appearances, the royals are not innocuous. In this day and age, to have such an anachronism as monarchies indicates that humankind is still sadly enslaved to the master-slave mentality. All monarchies, especially those with a succession of heirs, whether East, West, North or South, are plain wrong, and indecent affronts to humanity.
thomaspaine, SMART and XeniaCasaraghi, you all really do seem to have your knickers in a knot about Monarchies. So much so that you managed to write a lot and say nothing of depth or importance. If fact you make no sense whatsoever. You lost me in the rambling rhetoric (none of it original).
