This is a quote from an article by Jeffrey Steinberg:
"The real sovereign power inside the United Kingdom itself rests exclusively with the monarchy. The power of the Queen includes the following.
She has the absolute power to declare war.
She has the absolute power to appoint all of the military commanders of all of the British military and intelligence services.
She has the authority to dissolve parliament at any time she wishes, without explanation.
She has the authority to dismiss and replace a prime minister at her whim.
All judges are appointed by the Crown.
All of the archbishops of the Church of England are appointed by the Crown.
The Crown has the absolute authority to conclude all treaties; and finally,
Only the Queen has the authority to issue pardons."
Is this accurate? Does the British Monarchy have all of these powers?
Originally posted by Metal Brain This is a quote from an article by Jeffrey Steinberg:
"The real sovereign power inside the United Kingdom itself rests exclusively with the monarchy. The power of the Queen includes the following.
She has the absolute power to declare war.
She has the absolute power to appoint all of the military commanders of all of the British military and intel ...[text shortened]... rity to issue pardons."
Is this accurate? Does the British Monarchy have all of these powers?
Originally posted by Metal Brain This is a quote from an article by Jeffrey Steinberg:
"The real sovereign power inside the United Kingdom itself rests exclusively with the monarchy. The power of the Queen includes the following.
She has the absolute power to declare war.
She has the absolute power to appoint all of the military commanders of all of the British military and intel ...[text shortened]... rity to issue pardons."
Is this accurate? Does the British Monarchy have all of these powers?
These are Royal Perogative powers. So for example in order to go to war the Primeminister has to go to the Queen and ask permission. She cannot unilaterally use them.
When I typed Jeffrey Steinberg into Wikipedia it came up with a page "Executive Intelligence Review" which is a magazine containing, frankly ludicrous, conspiracy theories. Here's what the page says:
The magazine has published a number of conspiracy theories, including that Queen Elizabeth II is head of an international drug-smuggling cartel, that another member of the British royal family killed Roberto Calvi, the Italian banker who died in London in 1982, and that the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 was the first strike in a British attempt to take over the United States. In 1997 it published review of the book "La face cachee de Greenpeace" (The hidden face of Greenpeace), which claimed that Greenpeace "is an irregular warfare apparatus in the service of the British oligarchy".
Originally posted by DeepThought These are Royal Perogative powers. So for example in order to go to war the Primeminister has to go to the Queen and ask permission. She cannot unilaterally use them.
When I typed Jeffrey Steinberg into Wikipedia it came up with a page "Executive Intelligence Review" which is a magazine containing, frankly ludicrous, conspiracy theories. Here's wha ...[text shortened]... fare apparatus in the service of the British oligarchy".[/quote]Ignore this stuff it's nonsense.
Steinberg promotes LaRouche so I am aware of his extreme views. I did not create this thread to judge Steinberg's history though. This thread is for determining how much of his claims of British Monarchy Power are true and false.
Let me make this easier. Which (if any) of his statements I listed in my OP are true? The Queen seems to have veto power when it comes to waging war. This is still a lot of power even if Steinberg's statement is not entirely accurate. Wouldn't you agree?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra The Queen has little de facto power even if she has significant de jure powers.
Please be more specific. Which of Steinberg's statements are true and which are false?
To be honest you seem evasive. Steinberg has also made statements condemning your Nazi leader. You two seem to both dislike your Nazi leader. Surely you do not disagree with everything he says.
Originally posted by Metal Brain This is a quote from an article by Jeffrey Steinberg:
"The real sovereign power inside the United Kingdom itself rests exclusively with the monarchy. The power of the Queen includes the following.
She has the absolute power to declare war.
She has the absolute power to appoint all of the military commanders of all of the British military and intel ...[text shortened]... rity to issue pardons."
Is this accurate? Does the British Monarchy have all of these powers?
The power stems from corporations.
For example, the Boston Tea Party was not over increased taxation. In fact, a British corporation who was cornering the market on tea was going to reduce the taxation on tea. The issue was control. The East Indes company was notorious for conquering entire nations and even had their own standing army.
The colonist would rather have their freedom than pay lower taxes. Conversely, Scotts would rather have the safety of corporations than have to stand on their own two feet.
Originally posted by Metal Brain Please be more specific. Which of Steinberg's statements are true and which are false?
To be honest you seem evasive. Steinberg has also made statements condemning your Nazi leader. You two seem to both dislike your Nazi leader. Surely you do not disagree with everything he says.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOROJD8TVYI
They are all misleading. For a start "the Crown" is an alternative name for the British State. So when he says "All judges are appointed by the Crown", what that means is that all judges are appointed by the state, which is true everywhere. Additionally misleading is the adjective "absolute". The Monarchy in Britain never had absolute power, as to change the law or raise new taxes one needs the consent of Parliament. So war is waged under Royal Perogative, this does not mean the Queen has "absolute power to declare war".
Steinberg's agenda is to get you believing ludicrous conspiracy theories so you will believe him when he says: "Obama's healthcare plans are aimed at introducing Nazi experiments." He is the threat, not the Queen.
Originally posted by DeepThought They are all misleading. For a start "the Crown" is an alternative name for the British State. So when he says "All judges are appointed by the Crown", what that means is that all judges are appointed by the state, which is true everywhere. Additionally misleading is the adjective "absolute". The Monarchy in Britain never had absolute power, as to ch ...[text shortened]... s healthcare plans are aimed at introducing Nazi experiments." He is the threat, not the Queen.
I suspected he was an agent of misinformation, just like Alex Jones is.
I do believe the British Monarchy has more control than you are led to believe though. It is just covert control like owning the mainstream news media and feeding people propaganda that manufactures consent. That is where the real control is. Not much more is needed than that. People have a tendency to vote for who they hear about the most. That is real power!
Originally posted by whodey The power stems from corporations.
For example, the Boston Tea Party was not over increased taxation. In fact, a British corporation who was cornering the market on tea was going to reduce the taxation on tea. The issue was control. The East Indes company was notorious for conquering entire nations and even had their own standing army.
The colonist w ...[text shortened]... y, Scotts would rather have the safety of corporations than have to stand on their own two feet.
Oh, come on, the East Indies company only conquered one country, it's not like they did it every day.
British Monarchy Power
21 Sep '14 14:04
YouTube
Back to Top