Hey all
Working on a project but need some help;
What exactly is this relationship?
-I have heard arguments that she owns all the land, and arguments that she doesn't.
-I have heard arguments that she is connected to the banks that loan interest $ to the government, and I have heard arguments that she doesn't.
-I have heard arguments that she/Charles has the power to review and/or veto new laws, and I have heard that she doesn't.
-I have heard that she can dissolve parliament via the Governor General, and that the GG is appointed through her, and I have heard this is exaggerated.
-I have heard that her estate receives a % of tax dollars, and I have heard that this is not true.
In any case, I still see her portrait in the lobbies of public schools, on our money and coins, new citizens must swear an oath to her, many parts of our military and policing is named after her (or contains the term 'Royal')... and generally never a bad things said EVER about her in the canadian media culture...
So I ask you, informed bretheren of Truth... -Does Elizabeth have Canada by the balls, or not?
Relationship between the Queen and Canada..?
I cannot believe that the royal monarchy would have ever relinquished power over Canada willingly, yet I remember no revolution to have ousted her as was needed in so many other parts of the world.
It is my suspicion that we still basically belong to her, but they have slowly retreated obvious control into a sea of figurehead rhetoric and harmless assumptions. I am guessing she holds major shares in corporations that have become embedded into the structure of canadian economy, but again seems so hard to find any solid evidence. (modern-day connections to Rothschilds as well)
But this is only a suspicion and I've had a hard time finding more than the odd article stating either which way...
The monarchy today imo is an oddity right before our eyes; how much of their 'Empire' still exists? How wealthy are they exactly, and how many strings do they still pull in colonial lands?
We are made to think she is not that rich, and an innocent bitty old woman of a time long-past and is merely a figurehead... but I cannot wrap my head to believe that.
In her lifetime alone, the empire had existed as a mighty cornerstone of the planet. They certainly still take themselves and their role as monarchy quite seriously, no?
So weird no one ever seems to question this, especially in Canada where her image is still so prevalent.
It is my suspicion that we still basically belong to her, but they have slowly retreated obvious control into a sea of figurehead rhetoric and harmless assumptions. I am guessing she holds major shares in corporations that have become embedded into the structure of canadian economy, but again seems so hard to find any solid evidence. (modern-day connections to Rothschilds as well)
But this is only a suspicion and I've had a hard time finding more than the odd article stating either which way...
The monarchy today imo is an oddity right before our eyes; how much of their 'Empire' still exists? How wealthy are they exactly, and how many strings do they still pull in colonial lands?
We are made to think she is not that rich, and an innocent bitty old woman of a time long-past and is merely a figurehead... but I cannot wrap my head to believe that.
In her lifetime alone, the empire had existed as a mighty cornerstone of the planet. They certainly still take themselves and their role as monarchy quite seriously, no?
So weird no one ever seems to question this, especially in Canada where her image is still so prevalent.
-
Canuckster
- Posts: 6741
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:24 pm
- Reputation: 3080
Well.
You already know what I think. I'm going to spend some time digging up some stuff for you.
You already know what I think. I'm going to spend some time digging up some stuff for you.
People say they all want the truth, but when they are confronted with a truth that disagrees with them, they balk at it as if it were an unwanted zombie apocalypse come to destroy civilization.
-
Canuckster
- Posts: 6741
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:24 pm
- Reputation: 3080
Still checking on this info, and if it relates to Canada.
Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres of land, one sixth of the earth’s non ocean surface.
She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries, and who owns countries that are not her own domestic territory. This land ownership is separate from her role as head of state and is different from other monarchies where no such claim is made – Norway, Belgium, Denmark etc.
The value of her land holding. £17,600,000,000,000 (approx).
This makes her the richest individual on earth. However, there is no way easily to value her real estate. There is no current market in the land of entire countries. At a rough estimate of $5,000 an acre, and based on the sale of Alaska to the USA by the Tsar, and of Louisiana to the USA by France, the Queen’s land holding is worth a notional $33,000,000,000,000 (Thirty three trillion dollars or about £17,600,000,000,000). Her holding is based on the laws of the countries she owns and her land title is valid in all the countries she owns. Her main holdings are Canada, the 2nd largest country on earth, with 2,467 million acres, Australia, the 7th largest country on earth with 1,900 million acres, the Papua New Guinea with114 million acres, New Zealand with 66 million acres and the UK with 60 million acres.
She is the world’s largest landowner by a significant margin. The next largest landowner is the Russian state, with an overall ownership of 4,219 million acres, and a direct ownership comparable with the Queen’s land holding of 2,447 million acres. The 3rd largest landowner is the Chinese state, which claims all of Chinese land, about 2,365 million acres. The 4th largest landowner on earth is the Federal Government of the United States, which owns about one third of the land of the USA, 760 million acres. The fifth largest landowner on earth is the King of Saudi Arabia with 553 million acres
Largest five personal landowners on Earh Queen Elizabeth II 6,600 million acres
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia 553 million acres
King Bhumibol of Thailand 126 million acres
King Mohammed IV of Morocco 113 million acres
Sultan Quaboos of Oman 76 million acres
Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres of land, one sixth of the earth’s non ocean surface.
She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries, and who owns countries that are not her own domestic territory. This land ownership is separate from her role as head of state and is different from other monarchies where no such claim is made – Norway, Belgium, Denmark etc.
The value of her land holding. £17,600,000,000,000 (approx).
This makes her the richest individual on earth. However, there is no way easily to value her real estate. There is no current market in the land of entire countries. At a rough estimate of $5,000 an acre, and based on the sale of Alaska to the USA by the Tsar, and of Louisiana to the USA by France, the Queen’s land holding is worth a notional $33,000,000,000,000 (Thirty three trillion dollars or about £17,600,000,000,000). Her holding is based on the laws of the countries she owns and her land title is valid in all the countries she owns. Her main holdings are Canada, the 2nd largest country on earth, with 2,467 million acres, Australia, the 7th largest country on earth with 1,900 million acres, the Papua New Guinea with114 million acres, New Zealand with 66 million acres and the UK with 60 million acres.
She is the world’s largest landowner by a significant margin. The next largest landowner is the Russian state, with an overall ownership of 4,219 million acres, and a direct ownership comparable with the Queen’s land holding of 2,447 million acres. The 3rd largest landowner is the Chinese state, which claims all of Chinese land, about 2,365 million acres. The 4th largest landowner on earth is the Federal Government of the United States, which owns about one third of the land of the USA, 760 million acres. The fifth largest landowner on earth is the King of Saudi Arabia with 553 million acres
Largest five personal landowners on Earh Queen Elizabeth II 6,600 million acres
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia 553 million acres
King Bhumibol of Thailand 126 million acres
King Mohammed IV of Morocco 113 million acres
Sultan Quaboos of Oman 76 million acres
People say they all want the truth, but when they are confronted with a truth that disagrees with them, they balk at it as if it were an unwanted zombie apocalypse come to destroy civilization.
-
Canuckster
- Posts: 6741
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:24 pm
- Reputation: 3080
http://www.angusreidglobal.com/polls/43 ... l-wedding/
The share of Canadians who want the country to remain a monarchy in the future has dropped significantly, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.
In the online survey of a representative national sample of 1,016 Canadians, one-in-five respondents (21%) want Canada to remain a monarchy, down 15 points since an Angus Reid Public Opinion survey conducted in July, following the Queen’s visit to Canada.
Significantly larger proportions of respondents would prefer for Canada to have an elected head of state (32%, +2) or are simply uninterested in the matter (29%, +8).
Three-in-five respondents (64%) would like to see a Canadian serve as the nation’s head of state, although only half of respondents (49%) are in favour of reopening Canada’s constitutional debate to discuss the possibility of replacing the monarch with an elected head of state.
The Royals
Prince William has surpassed his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, in popularity with the Canadian public. This month, 60 per cent of respondents hold a favourable opinion of Prince William, while 56 per cent feel the same way about the current monarch. Her husband, Prince Philip, is liked by only two-in-five respondents (40%). Half of Canadians (51%) have a positive opinion of Prince Harry. Kate Middleton, Prince William’s fiancée, is viewed favourably by 43 per cent of Canadians. Prince Charles (30%) and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall (18%), are the least liked members of the Royal Family.
After Queen Elizabeth II
When asked who they would like to have as monarch in the event Queen Elizabeth II dies or abdicates, Canadians select Prince William over Prince Charles by more than a 2-to-1 margin (33% to 14%). However, a more than a third of Canadians (35%) think there should be no monarch after Queen Elizabeth II.
Canadians are not unique in their preference for the second-in-line to ascend the throne. A survey conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion in November showed that almost half of Britons (48%) would prefer to have Prince William as King, while a third (33%) favor Prince Charles.
Interest in the Royal Family and Upcoming Royal Wedding
Seven-in-ten Canadians (70%) report being “not too interested” or “not interested at all” in both the British Royal Family (70%) and the upcoming wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton (69%). Their wedding day—April 29, 2011—has been declared a national holiday in the United Kingdom. More than half of Canadians (58%) oppose taking the same course of action in Canada.
Analysis
The drop in support for Canada remaining a monarchy is not directly related to a rise in “republicanism.” The true cause of the severe fluctuation is the lack of interest in this issue, particularly among respondents aged 18 to 34. However, a gender gap is developing on this question. While women are divided, men favour having an elected head of state over a monarch by a 2-to-1 margin.
The survey also shows that fewer Canadians hold favourable views on several Royal Family members. However, despite the perceived lack of enthusiasm in the upcoming wedding, the proportion of respondents who express a favourable opinion of Kate Middleton increased by 16 points since July—placing her above Prince Philip, Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall.
The share of Canadians who want the country to remain a monarchy in the future has dropped significantly, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.
In the online survey of a representative national sample of 1,016 Canadians, one-in-five respondents (21%) want Canada to remain a monarchy, down 15 points since an Angus Reid Public Opinion survey conducted in July, following the Queen’s visit to Canada.
Significantly larger proportions of respondents would prefer for Canada to have an elected head of state (32%, +2) or are simply uninterested in the matter (29%, +8).
Three-in-five respondents (64%) would like to see a Canadian serve as the nation’s head of state, although only half of respondents (49%) are in favour of reopening Canada’s constitutional debate to discuss the possibility of replacing the monarch with an elected head of state.
The Royals
Prince William has surpassed his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, in popularity with the Canadian public. This month, 60 per cent of respondents hold a favourable opinion of Prince William, while 56 per cent feel the same way about the current monarch. Her husband, Prince Philip, is liked by only two-in-five respondents (40%). Half of Canadians (51%) have a positive opinion of Prince Harry. Kate Middleton, Prince William’s fiancée, is viewed favourably by 43 per cent of Canadians. Prince Charles (30%) and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall (18%), are the least liked members of the Royal Family.
After Queen Elizabeth II
When asked who they would like to have as monarch in the event Queen Elizabeth II dies or abdicates, Canadians select Prince William over Prince Charles by more than a 2-to-1 margin (33% to 14%). However, a more than a third of Canadians (35%) think there should be no monarch after Queen Elizabeth II.
Canadians are not unique in their preference for the second-in-line to ascend the throne. A survey conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion in November showed that almost half of Britons (48%) would prefer to have Prince William as King, while a third (33%) favor Prince Charles.
Interest in the Royal Family and Upcoming Royal Wedding
Seven-in-ten Canadians (70%) report being “not too interested” or “not interested at all” in both the British Royal Family (70%) and the upcoming wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton (69%). Their wedding day—April 29, 2011—has been declared a national holiday in the United Kingdom. More than half of Canadians (58%) oppose taking the same course of action in Canada.
Analysis
The drop in support for Canada remaining a monarchy is not directly related to a rise in “republicanism.” The true cause of the severe fluctuation is the lack of interest in this issue, particularly among respondents aged 18 to 34. However, a gender gap is developing on this question. While women are divided, men favour having an elected head of state over a monarch by a 2-to-1 margin.
The survey also shows that fewer Canadians hold favourable views on several Royal Family members. However, despite the perceived lack of enthusiasm in the upcoming wedding, the proportion of respondents who express a favourable opinion of Kate Middleton increased by 16 points since July—placing her above Prince Philip, Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall.
People say they all want the truth, but when they are confronted with a truth that disagrees with them, they balk at it as if it were an unwanted zombie apocalypse come to destroy civilization.
-
Canuckster
- Posts: 6741
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:24 pm
- Reputation: 3080
please note, I am merely posting what im finding at the moment and have yet to verify its accuracy.
Details of secret powers held by senior members of the Royal Family granting veto over Government legislation could be made public after a decision by the Information Commissioner.
The Cabinet Office has been told to hand over papers which guide ministers on when and how to consult the Queen and Prince Charles over new laws.
It follows a Freedom of Information request by campaigners amid mounting concern over the Prince of Wales’s intervention in public life on issues ranging from architecture to nanotechnology.
The Cabinet Office said it was considering whether to appeal the decision.
The Prince has been asked to consent to at least 12 draft bills during the past two Parliaments. Among the issues are those relating to his role as head of the Duchy of Cornwall, which provides his £17m annual private income.
Under the arcane system, the Duchy, one of the UK’s biggest landowners, is concerned with legislation affecting issues such as marine and coastal access, planning and energy schemes. The Prince’s views have also been sought on matters referring to coroners courts.
The Duchy and the Cabinet Office have fought to keep documents advising ministers on protocol secret, insisting the role of senior royals is procedural rather than substantive.
A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: “The case in question involves material held by the Cabinet Office and is a matter for the Government.”
Details of secret powers held by senior members of the Royal Family granting veto over Government legislation could be made public after a decision by the Information Commissioner.
The Cabinet Office has been told to hand over papers which guide ministers on when and how to consult the Queen and Prince Charles over new laws.
It follows a Freedom of Information request by campaigners amid mounting concern over the Prince of Wales’s intervention in public life on issues ranging from architecture to nanotechnology.
The Cabinet Office said it was considering whether to appeal the decision.
The Prince has been asked to consent to at least 12 draft bills during the past two Parliaments. Among the issues are those relating to his role as head of the Duchy of Cornwall, which provides his £17m annual private income.
Under the arcane system, the Duchy, one of the UK’s biggest landowners, is concerned with legislation affecting issues such as marine and coastal access, planning and energy schemes. The Prince’s views have also been sought on matters referring to coroners courts.
The Duchy and the Cabinet Office have fought to keep documents advising ministers on protocol secret, insisting the role of senior royals is procedural rather than substantive.
A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: “The case in question involves material held by the Cabinet Office and is a matter for the Government.”
People say they all want the truth, but when they are confronted with a truth that disagrees with them, they balk at it as if it were an unwanted zombie apocalypse come to destroy civilization.
-
Canuckster
- Posts: 6741
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:24 pm
- Reputation: 3080
and lets not orget about the royals german ancestry that almost no one seems to know about, unrelated to the original question, but still a noteworthy piece of information imo.
The house of Windsor springs from the marriage of Queen Victoria to Prince Albert in 1840. He was the son of the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha in Germany and his name became that used by the British royal family.
A bit of a mouthful, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha turned out not to be Albert’s real surname, which was Wettin, the name of another aristocratic German dynasty.
It was only in 1917 that George V, worried by the anti-German feeling caused by the first world war, ordered the royal family to scrap Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Wettin for Windsor.
Matters are still not that simple. The name of the royal house is Windsor, but the surname of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh [Prince Philip] is Mountbatten-Windsor. The duke is also from the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg and so, arguably, are his heirs.
However, more embarrassing than names the length of a bus are the family’s links to Nazi Germany. The duke is Greek and some of his relatives sympathised with the Nazis; others joined them.
One brother-in-law, Prince Christoph of Hesse, was a member of the SS and flew fighters that attacked allied troops in Italy. In fact, so many of Philip’s relatives had Nazi links that when he married Princess Elizabeth he was severely limited on the guests he could invite.
Like most of the British aristocracy in the 1930s, George VI and his wife, the late Queen Mother, hoped to avoid war with Germany. The king sent birthday greetings to Hitler weeks before Germany invaded Poland.
More notoriously, his brother, the former King Edward VIII, who became the Duke of Windsor after abdicating in 1936, was sympathetic towards Hitler. Even in 1970 he told one interviewer: “I never thought Hitler was such a bad chap.”
The duke and his wife, Wallis Simpson, had visited Germany in 1937 and were taken to meet the Führer. When they left, Hitler said of Simpson: “She would have made a good Queen.”
Suspicions lingered that if Hitler had successfully invaded Britain, he might have tried to make the duke king again. Confidential files released in 2003 revealed that Nazi officials thought the duke was “no enemy to Germany” and would be the “logical director of England’s destiny after the war”.
Last year files released from the national archives revealed how a former head of British naval intelligence thought the duke’s return was a real possibility. The British admiral, who had attended Hitler’s 1937 Nuremberg rally, featured in an MI5 report as having said that Hitler “would soon be in this country, but that there was no reason to worry about it because he would bring the Duke of Windsor over as king”.
Other royals also had links to the Nazis. Baron Gunther von Reibnitz, the father of Princess Michael of Kent, was a party member and an honorary member of the SS. And the brother of Princess Alice, a great-aunt to the Queen, was a Nazi who said that Hitler had done a “wonderful job”.
The house of Windsor springs from the marriage of Queen Victoria to Prince Albert in 1840. He was the son of the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha in Germany and his name became that used by the British royal family.
A bit of a mouthful, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha turned out not to be Albert’s real surname, which was Wettin, the name of another aristocratic German dynasty.
It was only in 1917 that George V, worried by the anti-German feeling caused by the first world war, ordered the royal family to scrap Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Wettin for Windsor.
Matters are still not that simple. The name of the royal house is Windsor, but the surname of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh [Prince Philip] is Mountbatten-Windsor. The duke is also from the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg and so, arguably, are his heirs.
However, more embarrassing than names the length of a bus are the family’s links to Nazi Germany. The duke is Greek and some of his relatives sympathised with the Nazis; others joined them.
One brother-in-law, Prince Christoph of Hesse, was a member of the SS and flew fighters that attacked allied troops in Italy. In fact, so many of Philip’s relatives had Nazi links that when he married Princess Elizabeth he was severely limited on the guests he could invite.
Like most of the British aristocracy in the 1930s, George VI and his wife, the late Queen Mother, hoped to avoid war with Germany. The king sent birthday greetings to Hitler weeks before Germany invaded Poland.
More notoriously, his brother, the former King Edward VIII, who became the Duke of Windsor after abdicating in 1936, was sympathetic towards Hitler. Even in 1970 he told one interviewer: “I never thought Hitler was such a bad chap.”
The duke and his wife, Wallis Simpson, had visited Germany in 1937 and were taken to meet the Führer. When they left, Hitler said of Simpson: “She would have made a good Queen.”
Suspicions lingered that if Hitler had successfully invaded Britain, he might have tried to make the duke king again. Confidential files released in 2003 revealed that Nazi officials thought the duke was “no enemy to Germany” and would be the “logical director of England’s destiny after the war”.
Last year files released from the national archives revealed how a former head of British naval intelligence thought the duke’s return was a real possibility. The British admiral, who had attended Hitler’s 1937 Nuremberg rally, featured in an MI5 report as having said that Hitler “would soon be in this country, but that there was no reason to worry about it because he would bring the Duke of Windsor over as king”.
Other royals also had links to the Nazis. Baron Gunther von Reibnitz, the father of Princess Michael of Kent, was a party member and an honorary member of the SS. And the brother of Princess Alice, a great-aunt to the Queen, was a Nazi who said that Hitler had done a “wonderful job”.
People say they all want the truth, but when they are confronted with a truth that disagrees with them, they balk at it as if it were an unwanted zombie apocalypse come to destroy civilization.
Canuckster on a rampage!!
thanks man, will sort through this when I have time to digest...
Another tip has given me the term; 'British-Israelism' and it has opened up a whole new vault of research...
I am listening to Bill Cooper's take on it to start, we'll see where it leads
We all know the british monarchy are tied strongly to freemasonry, but this seems to bind the zionist agenda with them. So intense, lol this should be some interesting digging
thanks man, will sort through this when I have time to digest...
Another tip has given me the term; 'British-Israelism' and it has opened up a whole new vault of research...
I am listening to Bill Cooper's take on it to start, we'll see where it leads
We all know the british monarchy are tied strongly to freemasonry, but this seems to bind the zionist agenda with them. So intense, lol this should be some interesting digging
Part 2 is a straight right/left cross combo:
Have not read yet, comes recommended:
http://my.tbaytel.net/culpeper/WhatsThe ... Queen.html
Another by Cooper
(nothing here is specific to Canada, but imo if you want to understand something like the monarchy, the more history and other global partnerships/enemies one can research the clearer other part will become...)
http://my.tbaytel.net/culpeper/WhatsThe ... Queen.html
Another by Cooper
(nothing here is specific to Canada, but imo if you want to understand something like the monarchy, the more history and other global partnerships/enemies one can research the clearer other part will become...)
Return to “The Grand Chessboard”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 70 guests