harry the nazi
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,715
Likes: 1
From: Virginia (Besieged)
Originally Posted by SaviouR
George Knighton
Is it also the fact that the British royalty is connected to the Nazis back in the time when Hitler was Chancellor, but before he went insane and tried to commit geocide against the Jews? I was talking to one of my professors about this and said that this could be much bigger if the link between the two went mainstream.
Is it also the fact that the British royalty is connected to the Nazis back in the time when Hitler was Chancellor, but before he went insane and tried to commit geocide against the Jews? I was talking to one of my professors about this and said that this could be much bigger if the link between the two went mainstream.
Princess Marina's father was an officer in the German army. Marina is really German royalty, not British.
The Duke of Windsor, in his younger days, was also known to have tried to keep peace between Germany and the United Kingdom. The Duke of Windsor's connections to German royalty, German nobility, and to the Nazi Party got him the distant post of Governor of Bermuda during WWII. The official reason was to make sure he was out of harm's way, but the real reason was that the George VI needed his half-baked brother far from the limelight, where he couldn't do any damage.
People who like to point to these connections are ignoring the bigger and much more important Jewish connections that the royal family have. England, for a thousand years, has been a relatively safe place for Jews, and the dynasties through the centuries have always been well connected to the big Jewish families. This is the more important connection, and it has served the nation and Jews very well.
In fact, without the monarchy, there really wouldn't even be an Israel, you know.
The German and Nazi connections before WWII are there, but let's not run away with it.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,715
Likes: 1
From: Virginia (Besieged)
Originally Posted by MrFatbooty
Who gives a [flying wazoo] about some British royals? They're just some figureheads. The only reason they're around any more is to provide some sense of national pride because the lowest common denominator pays too much attention to freakin tabloids.
"Royalty" have little place in a modern society except for their direct connection to the monarchy.
The "monarchy" on the other hand is a vital part of the constitution and we have no intention of doing away with it at the moment.
Hmmm. Let's see here. Just a figurehead, eh?
How did the Unted States get to invade Grenada when the British government said to stay out? The invasion caused one of the very few rifts that every occurred between President Reagan and Mrs Thatcher. So how did he manage it?
The Queen is required to treat the affairs of each realm of the Commonwealth separately. When Sir Paul Scoon (native Grenadian, happened to be Governor General) contacted the Queen and said that Grenada wanted the Americans in, the Queen had to consider it and she finally decided she had to agree to it. But she wasn't allowed to tell the British government about it. Does that sound like a figurehead?
The Queen faced a serious problem with Thatcher's Tory Crime Bill. There were some features of it that would have challenged the British idea of what liberty was supposed to be, the High Court was known to think parts of it were unwise, and one provision of the bill would have even removed an accused person's right not to testify against himself. In her meeting with the Prime Minister, the Queen notified her government that she "would have to read the bill carefully" before assenting to it!
There is no way to pass legislation without Royal Assent, so this public notice caused the Tory government to hiccup, and it gave the people time to take to the streets of London over it, expressing their disapproval. Does that sound like a figurehead?
Royal Assent is normally signified before a small committee of the Privy Council, and after that, one of their number publicly signifies Assent to Parliament. During these small meetings (they are held standing up so that nobody relaxes), the Queen has been known to temporarily refer a bill back to Parliament for corrections, and has been known to stop to ask last minute questions. Does that sound like a figurehead?
With monarchy, you either get it or you don't.
The Queen is the Tribune of the People.
The Queen, that one little old woman possessed of one little person's everyday common sense, represents in one person the will of the people, their intent and purpose. She is the embodiment of common sense and democracy.
She's not at the top of the pyramid of society. Rather, she represents in one person the power that is at the base of the pillar, the embodiment of the sovereignty of the people.
As I said, you either get it or you don't.
It's not for everybody, but you should not presume to denegrate what other people hold most sacred in our democratic processes.
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 30,331
Likes: 0
From: Montréal, Canada
Originally Posted by MPerson
The swastika was origionally a symbol of peace and honor and is still used by Buddhists today. The nazi's took it, and tilted it for a different meaning.
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 30,331
Likes: 0
From: Montréal, Canada
Originally Posted by George Knighton
You clearly don't know what you're talking about, but it wouldn't be the first time, now, would it? :P
"Royalty" have little place in a modern society except for their direct connection to the monarchy.
The "monarchy" on the other hand is a vital part of the constitution and we have no intention of doing away with it at the moment.
Hmmm. Let's see here. Just a figurehead, eh?
How did the Unted States get to invade Grenada when the British government said to stay out? The invasion caused one of the very few rifts that every occurred between President Reagan and Mrs Thatcher. So how did he manage it?
The Queen is required to treat the affairs of each realm of the Commonwealth separately. When Sir Paul Scoon (native Grenadian, happened to be Governor General) contacted the Queen and said that Grenada wanted the Americans in, the Queen had to consider it and she finally decided she had to agree to it. But she wasn't allowed to tell the British government about it. Does that sound like a figurehead?
The Queen faced a serious problem with Thatcher's Tory Crime Bill. There were some features of it that would have challenged the British idea of what liberty was supposed to be, the High Court was known to think parts of it were unwise, and one provision of the bill would have even removed an accused person's right not to testify against himself. In her meeting with the Prime Minister, the Queen notified her government that she "would have to read the bill carefully" before assenting to it!
There is no way to pass legislation without Royal Assent, so this public notice caused the Tory government to hiccup, and it gave the people time to take to the streets of London over it, expressing their disapproval. Does that sound like a figurehead?
Royal Assent is normally signified before a small committee of the Privy Council, and after that, one of their number publicly signifies Assent to Parliament. During these small meetings (they are held standing up so that nobody relaxes), the Queen has been known to temporarily refer a bill back to Parliament for corrections, and has been known to stop to ask last minute questions. Does that sound like a figurehead?
With monarchy, you either get it or you don't.
The Queen is the Tribune of the People.
The Queen, that one little old woman possessed of one little person's everyday common sense, represents in one person the will of the people, their intent and purpose. She is the embodiment of common sense and democracy.
She's not at the top of the pyramid of society. Rather, she represents in one person the power that is at the base of the pillar, the embodiment of the sovereignty of the people.
As I said, you either get it or you don't.
It's not for everybody, but you should not presume to denegrate what other people hold most sacred in our democratic processes.
"Royalty" have little place in a modern society except for their direct connection to the monarchy.
The "monarchy" on the other hand is a vital part of the constitution and we have no intention of doing away with it at the moment.
Hmmm. Let's see here. Just a figurehead, eh?
How did the Unted States get to invade Grenada when the British government said to stay out? The invasion caused one of the very few rifts that every occurred between President Reagan and Mrs Thatcher. So how did he manage it?
The Queen is required to treat the affairs of each realm of the Commonwealth separately. When Sir Paul Scoon (native Grenadian, happened to be Governor General) contacted the Queen and said that Grenada wanted the Americans in, the Queen had to consider it and she finally decided she had to agree to it. But she wasn't allowed to tell the British government about it. Does that sound like a figurehead?
The Queen faced a serious problem with Thatcher's Tory Crime Bill. There were some features of it that would have challenged the British idea of what liberty was supposed to be, the High Court was known to think parts of it were unwise, and one provision of the bill would have even removed an accused person's right not to testify against himself. In her meeting with the Prime Minister, the Queen notified her government that she "would have to read the bill carefully" before assenting to it!
There is no way to pass legislation without Royal Assent, so this public notice caused the Tory government to hiccup, and it gave the people time to take to the streets of London over it, expressing their disapproval. Does that sound like a figurehead?
Royal Assent is normally signified before a small committee of the Privy Council, and after that, one of their number publicly signifies Assent to Parliament. During these small meetings (they are held standing up so that nobody relaxes), the Queen has been known to temporarily refer a bill back to Parliament for corrections, and has been known to stop to ask last minute questions. Does that sound like a figurehead?
With monarchy, you either get it or you don't.
The Queen is the Tribune of the People.
The Queen, that one little old woman possessed of one little person's everyday common sense, represents in one person the will of the people, their intent and purpose. She is the embodiment of common sense and democracy.
She's not at the top of the pyramid of society. Rather, she represents in one person the power that is at the base of the pillar, the embodiment of the sovereignty of the people.
As I said, you either get it or you don't.
It's not for everybody, but you should not presume to denegrate what other people hold most sacred in our democratic processes.
Dude I cant talk for all other countries part of the commonwealth but here in Canada even thought her picture in on every coin we dont regard her as "most sacred in our democratic processes." Hell i think that if you were to go around in even Toronto(not French Canada) and ask the people there what is the purpose of the queen not a lot of people would know! Even if you were to ask who will be the next Monarch of England a lot of people would not even know! I dont believe that we need a queen here,she is in my opinion just a costly figure head... just as MFB said.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,715
Likes: 1
From: Virginia (Besieged)
Originally Posted by Grand Moff Tark_0
I dont believe that we need a queen here,she is in my opinion just a costly figure head...
No Canadian taxes are in support of the Queen's person or household.
A small part of Canadian taxes are in support of HE the Governor General (Mrs Clarkson). In your Canadian constitution (which the Queen signed in person), Mrs Clarkson is your head of state.
According to your constitution, all of the everyday duties of the Queen in Right of Canada are handled by HE the Governor General. HE the Governor General has the right and capability of calling on the Queen if she wants, and the Prime Minister of Canada also has the right to go to the Queen for advice and he can go to the Queen to remove the Canadian head of state if necessary.
You might want to look up a Canadian work called The Invisible Crown. Although it is generally invisible in everyday Canadian life, it is indispensable to the government and the constitution. You might want to also read up a bit about how Trudeau called on and used the Queen's authority to help solve the Quebec Crisis.
It is perhaps a shame that we do not talk about it more in the Canadian public schools, but the information is there if you want to read it.
In the severest form of emergency, like the Quebec crisis in the 60's, or in the case of a runaway government, the power of the monarch is there to serve the people when you need it.You should count yourself lucky that there is an ultimate authority in your country that could move to veto the actions of a tyrannical government.
...i think that if you were to go around in even Toronto...and ask....
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 30,331
Likes: 0
From: Montréal, Canada
Originally Posted by George Knighton
You can say whatever you want as long as it isn't a lie.
No Canadian taxes are in support of the Queen's person or household.
A small part of Canadian taxes are in support of HE the Governor General (Mrs Clarkson). In your Canadian constitution (which the Queen signed in person), Mrs Clarkson is your head of state.
No Canadian taxes are in support of the Queen's person or household.
A small part of Canadian taxes are in support of HE the Governor General (Mrs Clarkson). In your Canadian constitution (which the Queen signed in person), Mrs Clarkson is your head of state.
hmmmm... that still means that without the queen in our country that money would be spent somewhere else no?
Originally Posted by George Knighton
According to your constitution, all of the everyday duties of the Queen in Right of Canada are handled by HE the Governor General. HE the Governor General has the right and capability of calling on the Queen if she wants, and the Prime Minister of Canada also has the right to go to the Queen for advice and he can go to the Queen to remove the Canadian head of state if necessary.
You might want to look up a Canadian work called The Invisible Crown. Although it is generally invisible in everyday Canadian life, it is indispensable to the government and the constitution. You might want to also read up a bit about how Trudeau called on and used the Queen's authority to help solve the Quebec Crisis.
It is perhaps a shame that we do not talk about it more in the Canadian public schools, but the information is there if you want to read it. In the severest form of emergency, like the Quebec crisis in the 60's, or in the case of a runaway government, the power of the monarch is there to serve the people when you need it.
You should count yourself lucky that there is an ultimate authority in your country that could move to veto the actions of a tyrannical government.
You might want to look up a Canadian work called The Invisible Crown. Although it is generally invisible in everyday Canadian life, it is indispensable to the government and the constitution. You might want to also read up a bit about how Trudeau called on and used the Queen's authority to help solve the Quebec Crisis.
It is perhaps a shame that we do not talk about it more in the Canadian public schools, but the information is there if you want to read it.
In the severest form of emergency, like the Quebec crisis in the 60's, or in the case of a runaway government, the power of the monarch is there to serve the people when you need it.You should count yourself lucky that there is an ultimate authority in your country that could move to veto the actions of a tyrannical government.
BTW Mrs Clarkson annual buget is now at $19 million
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,715
Likes: 1
From: Virginia (Besieged)
I don't think you're an idiot at all...just slightly misguided.
Read a little more. Read The Invisible Crown.
If you didn't have a Governor General, you would need an executive President instead of a Prime Minister.
Add the cost of your Governor General to the cost of your Prime Minister. I'll even let you add the cost of the royal servant, the Prime Minister's permanent secretary. Consider the budget and GNP of Canada.
Look at the cost of the Presidency of the United States, then consider the GNP and budget of the United States.
The cost of presidencies is much higher than the cost of the Parliamentary/Monarchical executive system. 19 million wouldn't be a drop in the bucket for even the security concerns for an executive president.
I don't want to fight about whether or not Canadians might be republicans. I know Canada's full of republicans.
It doesn't mean you're taking the other side, though, if you just have a look at what the Crown of Canada does do in your constiutional democratic monarchy.
If you want to change it, fine. It's your choice. Remember that other realms have tried it, though, and come back. The Australian government took it to the people just a few years ago, remember? There's just no replacement that would work better.
Originally Posted by Grand Moff Tark_0
Wow are you serious i would think that you could come up with something a bit better then that! your right... no Canadian tax money goes directly to the queen instead it goes to the person that represents the queen in our country.
If you didn't have a Governor General, you would need an executive President instead of a Prime Minister.
Add the cost of your Governor General to the cost of your Prime Minister. I'll even let you add the cost of the royal servant, the Prime Minister's permanent secretary. Consider the budget and GNP of Canada.
Look at the cost of the Presidency of the United States, then consider the GNP and budget of the United States.
The cost of presidencies is much higher than the cost of the Parliamentary/Monarchical executive system. 19 million wouldn't be a drop in the bucket for even the security concerns for an executive president.
I don't want to fight about whether or not Canadians might be republicans. I know Canada's full of republicans.
It doesn't mean you're taking the other side, though, if you just have a look at what the Crown of Canada does do in your constiutional democratic monarchy.
If you want to change it, fine. It's your choice. Remember that other realms have tried it, though, and come back. The Australian government took it to the people just a few years ago, remember? There's just no replacement that would work better.
