When I tell the people in Britain that they´re ruled by dictator Queen Elizabeth, they think I’m insane. Arguably England is the only real colonial power left in the world.
LETTERS PRINCE CHARLES
It is well-known that Queen Elizabeth has a weekly talk with the puppet she selected for Prime Minister. That the Royals talk with politicians to give them “advice” becomes clear when you read the letters Prince Charles sent to several members of cabinet.
It is clear that when Charles advises ministers on politics, his mother does the same but with more authority. Here’s the story on these letters (including a link “You can read them in full here” where you can search with “prince of Wales”): http://uk.businessinsider.com/prince...ll-text-2015-5
I think the most interesting of these letters are to the (then) Prime Minister Tony Blair of September 8, 2004 and February 24, 2005 (and the replies from Blair) that address the topics British agriculture, investments in the military and the global warming problem (that´s depopulation Agenda21): https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ed_Letters.pdf
QUEEN ELIZABETH – DICTATORIAL POWERS
Britain doesn’t even have a constitution, but a number of “Acts” that together can be considered the constitution. The Bill of Rights of 1689 has never been repealed, so you already know that Britain doesn’t respect human rights any better than was the standard in the 17th century. I did read Wikipedia (and some other websites) to get an idea on the “constitution” of Great Britain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consti...United_Kingdom
According to Wikipedia these are some of the powers of Queen Elizabeth, she can: 1) dismiss and appoint the Prime Minister, 2) dismiss and appoint other ministers, 3) summon and prorogue Parliament, 4) grant or refuse Royal Assent to bills (making them valid and law), 5) commission officers in the army, 6) command the army, 7) appoint members to the Privy Council, 8) issue and withdraw passports, 9) grant prerogative of mercy, 10) grant honours, 11) create corporations by Royal Charter, 12) appoint bishops and archbishops of the Church of England, 13) ratify and make treaties, 14) declare war and peace, 15) recognise states, 16) accredit and receive diplomats, 17) fill vacancies in the Supreme Court.Only since 2011 the Queen doesn´t have the power to dissolve parliament anymore (in the Netherlands the King does have this power).
The conclusion can only be that British Queen is nothing but a dictator. Please note that it’s Elizabeth that appointed Prime Minister Theresa May and dismissed the other ministers and secretaries over Brexit.
The Queen can make new laws by “Orders in Council” that either come in effect immediately as sort of a decree (Royal Prerogatives), but can be repealed by the Parliament, or with an act of Parliament. There is only one other institute in Britain that can propose laws, this is not the democratically elected House of Commons, but the Queen’s Privy Council that can propose Orders of Council without the Queen´s approval. Although I doubt if this is possible for all types of laws (and still the Royal assent is required).
To make things even less democratic than in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, there’s the House of Lords (peers) most of which get appointed by the Queen. There used to be more “hereditary peers” in the House of Lords, but this has been restricted to 92 (of a grand total of 798), to give the Queen even more freedom to choose whomever she wants. Formally the House of Lords since 1911 cannot prevent Bills from coming into effect (a veto), but in reality has done so regularly.
According to the following story Elizabeth has a number of cartoonish powers (but I don’t think it’s funny). The Queen has her personal cash printing machine. She doesn’t have to pay taxes but does so voluntarily (does anybody believe this?). Elizabeth is immune from prosecution. In 1975 Queen Elizabeth ordered the Governor-General to fire the Prime Minister of Australia: http://uk.businessinsider.com/weirde...olphins-2015-5
In 2013 it was made public that Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles in 39 occasions used their power to block bills (while we are made to believe that the last time the Royal assent was used to block a law was in 1708). In one occasion Elizabeth torpedoed the transfer of powers to authorise military intervention in Iraq from the Queen to the parliament: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/...als-veto-bills
THE COLONIES / CANADA
All the countries of the Commonwealth with a Governor-General are in effect colonies under the reign of Queen Elizabeth II (see the dismissal of the Australian Prime Minister in 1975). The following colonies have a Governor-General (in between brackets the year they were established with Governor-General): Antigua and Barbuda (since 1981), Australia (1901), Bahamas (1973), Barbados (1966), Belize (1981), Canada (1867), Grenada (1974), Jamaica (1962), New Zealand (1917), Papua New Guinea (1975), Saint Kitts and Nevis (1983), Saint Lucia (1979), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (1979), Solomon Islands (1978), Tuvalu (1978).
Canada was created by an act of the Parliament of Great Britain called the British North America Act, 1867 (the Constitution Act, 1867). This has never been repealed, so – by law – Canada is a colony of England. If you understand that words like “constitutional convention”, don´t mean that the Queen doesn´t use these powers you already know she is the ruling dictator of the British Empire; in the following is all the evidence you need to know that Canada is part of the dictatorship of Queen Elizabeth II: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/05.html
In Canada (and also in the other countries with a Governor-General) it’s the Governor-General (selected by the Queen) that proposes laws (bills); laws only come into effect if they are approved by the democratically elected House of Commons of Canada (1 for each of the 4 provinces), the senate and “assented” by the Queen. The Governor-General summons qualified Senators to the Senate (like the House of Lords). Also interesting to note is that only since 1949 Canada has its own Supreme Court (before that the English Courts ruled supreme over Canada).
The following is from the Canada CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867 (pay close attention to art. 54).
If you want an example of a Royal family with only ceremonial powers, you could read the Japanese constitution, where the Emperor doesn’t have real (executive) power...24. The Governor General shall from Time to Time, in the Queen’s Name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, summon qualified Persons to the Senate; and, subject to the Provisions of this Act, every Person so summoned shall become and be a Member of the Senate and a Senator.
54. It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General in the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill is proposed.
55. Where a Bill passed by the Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor General for the Queen’s Assent, he shall declare, according to his Discretion, but subject to the Provisions of this Act and to Her Majesty’s Instructions, either that he assents thereto in the Queen’s Name, or that he withholds the Queen’s Assent, or that he reserves the Bill for the Signification of the Queen’s Pleasure.
DIEGO GARCIA
Another interesting story about the abuse of powers is that in 1966 the Queen’s Privy Council evicted the 2,000 inhabitants of the 65 islands of the Chagos Archipelago, so that the USA could station a military base on Diego Garcia. In 2000 in a judicial review claim by Olivier Bancoult the Court of Appeal ruled the 1971 Immigration Ordinance preventing resettlement unlawful.
In 2004 the Privy Council simply changed the procedure under which the eviction was ordered, by Order in Council to overturn the ruling. In 2006 the High Court of Justice decided the 2004 order was unlawful. On October 22, 2008 the House of Lords decided to uphold the order of 2004 (let’s call it democracy):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Se...ancoult_(No_2)
MURDER OF LADY DI
When a subject needs to be silenced the Royals have their legal or illegal ways.
The murder of Lady Diana in 1997 got a lot of attention, how could anybody believe that the chauffeur of a multimillionaire would cause a fatal traffic accident? This was not some cheap car, that wouldn’t keep the people in the car safe. Diana and Dodi Al Fayed where clearly happy with all of the attention in the media, so why would they run from the paparazzi?
I’ve seen a lot of rumours that the “accident” was caused by first blinding the driver with a bright flash of light and blocking the breaks of the car (see the book by former British agent Richard Tomlinson). The photos of the car after the crash indicate that the bodyguard that survived on the front seat would have been more injured than Diana and Al Fayed in the back seat.
The following story seems too good to be true. In the documentary "Diana: The Witnesses In The Tunnel" Doctor Frederic Mailliez (that was coincidentally in the tunnel) testified that Diana was only slightly injured directly after the crash: http://princess-diana-murder.blogspot.nl/
The photographs on this site were removed from internet. When I put the following photograph, that shows Lady Di alive and well after the crash (with a photo of the crashed car), on https://forum.davidicke.com, it was removed immediately from https://forum.davidicke.com, it later mysteriously reappeared:
This photograph was shown on the blogspot.nl site above the text: “Dr. Mailliez supplies with oxygen Princess Diana, slightly injured, while CNN & Co. "seriously" set the stage for the murder, while allowing a glimpse at the horrible truth”.
The story on the photograph is in the section “Why one of the photos of Diana in the car was published 2006 in Italy”.
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us