Funny enough, Queen Elizabeth II may be one of the few people in her family that I suspect WASN'T a globalist conspirator. But that is just my opinion and I'm willing to listen to evidence saying otherwise.
Either way, to my knowledge, the head monarch doesn't really have power like a Prime Minister. There some technical powers that the head monarch has, but I suspect if the head monarch used those powers to interfer with govermnet policy, the Paraliment would most likely dissolve the monarchy.
The monarchy not engaging in politics isn't just a way to endear themselves to the public, it is also a way to make sure their gravy train of tax payer money & fame doesn't come to an end.
Perhaps she herself wasn't a globalist scumbag. She presided over a nation that was taken over by said globalist scumbags however. Britain is immeasurably worse off than before her rule as sovereign. Especially with regards to defending the British culture and people. Their nation is overrun with barbarian foreigners in such numbers that they'll likely never bounce back.
So even if she isn't one, then she's a failure as a ruler instead. Either way, the results are the same. I care about the what, far more than the why.
To the contrary, she actually had significant power, but they were well defined and specific. I would recommend watch this video by the LotusEaters.
Furthermore, the royals own so much land that the rent alone actually pays for all their expenses and they actually supplement OUR taxes, not the other way around. This doesn't include the benefits of tourism and how that enriches the local area around royal properties like Buckingham palace.
This is what Americans don't know about the United Kingdom. In the US you have the Bureau of Land Management and they control like a quarter of the country. That isn't the case in the UK. Pretty much all the ranch land that's left is owned by the monarchy, meaning they extract rent from most British livestock production.
There was a comment I saw on yesterdays LotusEaters podcast that I very much agree with: "If I was starting an entirely new government today, it would be a republic. But the UK being anything other than a kingdom seems wrong."
Even as much as I joke about how I stopped carrying about the Royals in 1776, I just cant imagine anything other than them in the UK, and while I dont obsess I still keep my ear to the ground about them.
There some technical powers that the head monarch has, but I suspect if the head monarch used those powers to interfer with govermnet policy, the Paraliment would most likely dissolve the monarchy.
That's the theory, but the British government has an 18% approval rating. If they tried to dissolve the monarchy, it's not out of the question that it would get them all guillotined.
I know they can't enter Parliament and stuff but I'd find it hard to believe if someone of her wealth, stature, and adoration among the English people could not simply make almost anything happen with a few words to her servants. The "globalist conspirators" do that all day and they aren't even monarchs.
I believe a strong leader who recognized how serious the problems of today's society are and wanted to slow down "progress" would risk the monarchy being dissolved to do so.
Fuck me, but the "colonization" era was well over by the time she came to the throne, and the "decolonization" process had long since begun (hell, even the whole flap with that paki monkeypig gandee was over with by then), and every country since then that wanted to leave has been allowed to do so. Including Tonga, which had a sexist muslim king who was offended at having a woman above him, but the shitarded left won't mention THAT, because he had shit-coloured skin.
Hell, I even remember an old Spitting Image sketch about that, with the royals of the time done up like the band QUEEN, doing "We are the Champions", which lyrics now included a "fuck you" to that coconut king.
As far as globalism goes - if it's rich, it's globalist. The world is very small to these rich fuckers, in more ways than one. They just can't see the cultural differences past "munny munny munny, people with lots of munny are all teh same, so duh poors r all duh same 2."
That is the advantage of a monarchy: your head of state is not one of the vile politicians, but someone who (hopefully) stays apolitical. It seems to drive people mad when their head of state is thoroughly vile.
Queen Elizabeth II (with great help from Prince Philip) helped the monarchy reconstruct itself to remain relevant to the modern era compared to parliament that let the Empire slip away, failed to re organise after WW2 to build a better alliance and fell into obscurity (just compare approval polls between the UK government and monarchy)
I suspect rather than being active in anything, she was more smart in knowing how to play the game and keeping everyone not directly in the family at arms length but close enough they felt a connection that if she met them at an event it was a happy surprise.
Pretty much. I wouldn't want to be totally disrespectful right after her death, and I know many Brits who liked her like a dear family member, but maybe the idea of a traditional monarchy is much better than what they had in practice.
Funny enough, Queen Elizabeth II may be one of the few people in her family that I suspect WASN'T a globalist conspirator. But that is just my opinion and I'm willing to listen to evidence saying otherwise.
Either way, to my knowledge, the head monarch doesn't really have power like a Prime Minister. There some technical powers that the head monarch has, but I suspect if the head monarch used those powers to interfer with govermnet policy, the Paraliment would most likely dissolve the monarchy.
The monarchy not engaging in politics isn't just a way to endear themselves to the public, it is also a way to make sure their gravy train of tax payer money & fame doesn't come to an end.
Perhaps she herself wasn't a globalist scumbag. She presided over a nation that was taken over by said globalist scumbags however. Britain is immeasurably worse off than before her rule as sovereign. Especially with regards to defending the British culture and people. Their nation is overrun with barbarian foreigners in such numbers that they'll likely never bounce back.
So even if she isn't one, then she's a failure as a ruler instead. Either way, the results are the same. I care about the what, far more than the why.
She literally had a Rothschild as a financial adviser. It would be hard to see her as not being a globalist scumbag .
To the contrary, she actually had significant power, but they were well defined and specific. I would recommend watch this video by the LotusEaters.
Furthermore, the royals own so much land that the rent alone actually pays for all their expenses and they actually supplement OUR taxes, not the other way around. This doesn't include the benefits of tourism and how that enriches the local area around royal properties like Buckingham palace.
This is what Americans don't know about the United Kingdom. In the US you have the Bureau of Land Management and they control like a quarter of the country. That isn't the case in the UK. Pretty much all the ranch land that's left is owned by the monarchy, meaning they extract rent from most British livestock production.
It's disgusting how much of the southwest is owned by the feds.
There was a comment I saw on yesterdays LotusEaters podcast that I very much agree with: "If I was starting an entirely new government today, it would be a republic. But the UK being anything other than a kingdom seems wrong."
Even as much as I joke about how I stopped carrying about the Royals in 1776, I just cant imagine anything other than them in the UK, and while I dont obsess I still keep my ear to the ground about them.
That's the theory, but the British government has an 18% approval rating. If they tried to dissolve the monarchy, it's not out of the question that it would get them all guillotined.
I know they can't enter Parliament and stuff but I'd find it hard to believe if someone of her wealth, stature, and adoration among the English people could not simply make almost anything happen with a few words to her servants. The "globalist conspirators" do that all day and they aren't even monarchs.
I believe a strong leader who recognized how serious the problems of today's society are and wanted to slow down "progress" would risk the monarchy being dissolved to do so.
Fuck me, but the "colonization" era was well over by the time she came to the throne, and the "decolonization" process had long since begun (hell, even the whole flap with that paki monkeypig gandee was over with by then), and every country since then that wanted to leave has been allowed to do so. Including Tonga, which had a sexist muslim king who was offended at having a woman above him, but the shitarded left won't mention THAT, because he had shit-coloured skin.
Hell, I even remember an old Spitting Image sketch about that, with the royals of the time done up like the band QUEEN, doing "We are the Champions", which lyrics now included a "fuck you" to that coconut king.
As far as globalism goes - if it's rich, it's globalist. The world is very small to these rich fuckers, in more ways than one. They just can't see the cultural differences past "munny munny munny, people with lots of munny are all teh same, so duh poors r all duh same 2."
Queen Elizabeth II was just the nice old communal grandma to the british people.
That is the advantage of a monarchy: your head of state is not one of the vile politicians, but someone who (hopefully) stays apolitical. It seems to drive people mad when their head of state is thoroughly vile.
That helps the image of the monarch, and makes the people "feel better". I don't know that that makes it an actual advantage to anyone else.
Alls I know is she worked together with the BFG to keep England safe from giants.
Queen Elizabeth II (with great help from Prince Philip) helped the monarchy reconstruct itself to remain relevant to the modern era compared to parliament that let the Empire slip away, failed to re organise after WW2 to build a better alliance and fell into obscurity (just compare approval polls between the UK government and monarchy)
I suspect rather than being active in anything, she was more smart in knowing how to play the game and keeping everyone not directly in the family at arms length but close enough they felt a connection that if she met them at an event it was a happy surprise.
Colonization was a net good for all involved.
Pretty much. I wouldn't want to be totally disrespectful right after her death, and I know many Brits who liked her like a dear family member, but maybe the idea of a traditional monarchy is much better than what they had in practice.
Also colonization was a good thing.