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.
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.
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.
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.