I know nothing about British politics, does the queen do anything?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence
youtube.com/watch?v=htbr8PCwmEo
uk.businessinsider.com/weirdest-powers-queen-elizabeth-ii-british-sovereign-prerogative-swans-dolphins-2015-5
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Probably less these days, you can view her calendar.

Constitutional Monarchy. she can overthrow any law that goes through. but those types of ceremonies are generally used for tradition rather than actual law. she has power, but does not use it.

Sells fridge magnets from her house.
Gives a speech once a year.

she rules our hearts

If she tried using her power and the acting government disagreed would she be allowed to? What would happen?

She owns a lot of land
And sells her people it to kikes and niggers

...

...

Queen Elizabeth: Guilty In Missing Children Case, Media Blackout

According to ITCCS website “Queen Elizabeth had direct involvement in the kidnapping and death of aboriginal children … Royal Family members also appeared to regularly participate in Ninth Circle Satanic Cult rituals at the Mohawk Indian School in Brantford, Ontario, Canada.”

The ITCCS has allegedly prosecuted Queen Elizabeth, although she still walks free while the whistleblowers are incarcerated.

don't forget that also applied to the colonies, like canada

>What would happen?
it would either continue to be or stop being a constitutional monarchy

I don't understand, why do this satanic shit? Is it because they have nothing else to do that feels powerful so they partake in these horrific affairs of power to feel some sort of excitement? Is it like the teenager that cuts in order to numb the pain?

No, the monarchy is symbolic, it exercises little actual power, if Charles starts trying to meddle with Government when he becomes King (like he has been as Prince of Wales) then the monarchy is in trouble.

>If she tried using her power and the acting government disagreed would she be allowed to? What would happen?

As Queen she's well within her rights to do so.

not really no, every bill or law parliament passes NEEDS to be signed by the queen to be passed. She can refuse to sign it but it would lead to parliament creating a law that bypasses her or disposal of the reigning monarch altogether

No idea why, but the DC/Hollywood type seem to be doing the same thing.

shes a reptilian who drinks the blood of children

(((heart attack)))

go to a jail and ask the criminals who admit guilt why they did the crime.
those are the answers that apply.

>the monarchy is symbolic

this is how civilizations destroy themselves:
when no one understands how the system works and then you do some stupid shit like "Lets have a constitutional monarchy where the monarch has no official power"

nevermind that the entire form of government is straight out of the medieval period and likely can't manage itself properly to begin with due to internal changes of social classes.

Because Satan doesn't lend his power for free.

>bypasses her or disposal of the reigning monarch altogether
Then the Queen orders the army to storm parliament.

That would require every captain, general and major to support the queen , depending on the issue they might nto.

They Should but bureaucracy is king

Not really. She is officially the head of the government and appoints cabinet officials (though this is just symbolic and names are given to her by the ruling party if I recall correctly) and she also approves the PM when appointed by the ruling party if I recall correctly. Basically she's a figurehead who could have a lot of party if she were to actually exercise it, but it would look bad as her power is really just supposed to be due to tradition. I imagine if a monarch were to start doing this, then things would possibly change in the UK. That said, the monarch as head of government is actually unable to be indicted/convicted of a criminal offense (like how the president cannot by convicted of an offense without first being impeached/removed from office then tried).

>What would happen if the Queen went Charles I?
This guy would invade and be crowned king.

>That would require every captain, general and major to support the queen , depending on the issue they might nto.
I'm sure the SAS would just light up the PM for Queen and Country.

Maybe there is an inner cult of cults.....an entertainment cult that provides a form of entertainment of power through the "knowledge" of power through assigning power with...

They get their commissions from her or some shit.

Oliver Cromwell, that philosemitic, protestant, jew-larping faggot did a lot of things wrong.

But regicide was not one of them.

wtf is Willem-Alexander gonna do? nice guy and all but cmon

Simply put, the Queen is England and that's all there is to it. God save her.

She lives like a King.

pretends to be alive

The monarch has the power to disband Parliament so technically she can just wave them off, but common sense just means that the people would rebel and alter the laws of the monarchy to minize its power, but that's only if the people are compelled to rebel in the first place.

>I know nothing about British politics, does the queen do anything?

puts clones of herself in other nations governments?

The Queen rules the world with Lord Rothschild. She must be deposed and the British monarchy must be ended forever. The British Commonwealth is the true Evil Empire, not the Russians.

Remeber when Jacob Rothschild called himself a Jew?
I found it odd because I know he's not a Semite, also he's related to the house of Saxe-Gotha-Coburg which happens to be Lizardbreath's real surname, so that means she's a Jew too, but what kind?

>American Education
Look up the glorious revolution.

Outside of ceremonial stuff, not really no.

Europeans are professional cucks. 99% of their (((ancestors))) were serfs for millennia. Half of their political elites decided to still keep around their royal family for no reason other than it feels right to them. Yah, nah. They will grin and bear any political upheaval, as long as they just dont get bullied by chads at the end of the day (chads are illegal in yurop)

No European monarch exercises their power in any meaningful sense of the word. None of them actually do anything, they're more or less figureheads.

The most powerful monarch in Europe is in Liechtenstein and all he does is decide who can and cannot become a citizen of Liechtenstein and even then, it's not him who makes the final decision.

European monarchs are fun to look at, but no, none of them actually do anything.

Ah I was wondering when the noise would get here, always happens after Saxe-Gotha-Coburg and Rothschild are used in the same post

Learn about the 17th century.
The quick answer: not since 1669.
Done.

89*

>glorious revolution

I think you mean the Dutch invasion

>Retards fell for the powerless queen meme.
She has the loyalty of 2.5 billion people around the globe. The only thing holding her back is the JEW.S.A. nuking the world in case of a bigger power emerging.

Why do Dutch mongoloids always try to fashion it like this?

If it were an invasion, why is 1669 the point in which we acknowledge the English (now British) monarchy as practically ending?

William and Mary signed the Bill of Rights 1689 and Act of Settlement 1701 handing over all of their power to parliament. Not out of choice either, but because they would've just been deposed off like James had they not done it.

Strange invasion that is.

She can't even sign Royal Assent you more. No one cares about your autistic fucking symbolism.

If you asked people whether they like Elizabeth II the ceremonial head of state, 70% of people may say yes. If you asked whether people like Elizabeth II, the absolute ruler, around 2% would ever be on board with that.

The Treaty of Paris, IRS, 16th Amendment, and the IMF say otherwise

Other than being ornamental her only actual use is that, as head of state, she personally appoints her prime minister, the leader of our nation. In a two party system like ours that is usually quite easy, each party has elected one of its own MPs as its party leader and the leader of the party with the most MPs becomes Prime Minister.

If we had European style governments with a dozen to twenty different little parties all negotiating and forming power blocs her one single actual meaningful job would become impossible. I think this may be why we have stuck with the antiquated First Past The Post voting system, it pretty much guarantees no third party will ever get a proper foothold.

Pretty spoopy desu.

Sorry, I don't know what the actual fuck any of these are except the Treaty of Paris. What's it's relevance to ""Queen"" Victoria stopping the signing of Royal Assent a century or so after the fact?

>16th Amendment
The U.S. 16th Amendment or are you talking about the British Bill of Rights or something?

The fuck are you saying?

>MAYBE THEY HAVE A LIFE
my fucking sides

I'm actually British, and since I've lived here I've realised just how little we're taught in school if it doesn't fit the narrative.

If not an invasion, why did the clog wogs have 20,000 trips instead of the token force the English traitors wanted? Why did the brush envoy to the Hague write "an absolute conquest is intended under the specious and ordinary pretences of religion, liberty, property and a free Parliament ..."?

Why is it generally considered by historians to be "the last successful invasion of Britain"?

A modicum of research would give you a wider understanding here m8. They never teach us fuck all about the Anglo-Dutch history in the 17th century.

In reality, no. She's there for the plebs to admire.

No.

The military would take the side of the Queen over the government.
t. Ex-army.

Every MP, member of the armed forces and every public servant swear an oath of loyalty to the Queen.
That goes for Australia, New Zealand, Canada and probably other countries as well as the UK.

>invade a country
>occupy a monarchy with incredible power
>sign 2 acts in the space of a decade which forever crushes the power of said monarchy you just occupied
>get to remain monarch

How the fuck is that an invasion? SORRY. I should rephrase all of this.

If THAT is what an invasion looks like to the Dutch, what is the absolute state of the Dutch empire? I bet it was the biggest heap of shite in history if you that is what counts as an invasion.

>Why is it generally considered by historians to be "the last successful invasion of Britain"?
Scratch out the word "successful" and "invasion"
1. It wasn't an invasion.
2. The only people who were successful was parliament.
3. The Battle of Fishguard and the Battle of Britain, although failed, are some actual invasions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
>On 13 February the clerk of the House of Lords read the Declaration of Right, and the Marquess of Halifax, in the name of all the estates of the realm, asked William and Mary to accept the throne. William replied for his wife and himself: "We thankfully accept what you have offered us". They then went in procession to the great gate at Whitehall

>The Act declared James' flight from England following the Glorious Revolution to be an abdication of the throne. It listed twelve of James's policies by which James designed to "endeavour to subvert and extirpate the protestant religion, and the laws and liberties of this kingdom".

she was jack the ripper

lil

Just go to Brit/pol/ general, they usually have good discussions in there.

Fair enough. Carry on believing what you want. You're wrong though.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

>Brit/pol/
>good discussions

GOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL

I'm not at all. The fact that you would try to claim such an important event in English history, one of the msot significant events in modern English history, and the reason why the English(British) monarchy is entirely ceremonially and try to claim it for yourself for the sake of your own shitty national pride.

Learn something about the English Civil Wars, Cromwell, the overthrow of King James or parliament in the 17th century .

William and Mary couldn't have been monarchs without a formal invite from parliament. One of the requirements for taking the monarchy was legally handing off like 3/4s of their power, which I've already shown in the BoR 1689 and Act of Settlement 1701.

Again, the absolute state of Dutch """""invasions.""""

...

hows the weather in Kazakhstan?

That's how the queen still owns America the corporation, are you usually this dense and need to be spoonfed because I'm getting that impression

Opens train stations, etc,shakes hands, claims benefits.

not much else.

...

Well the last time the monarchy started fucking with parliament we removed his head. We put them back because we think it's better to have a head of state that's just a nice person and it unites the commonwealth.

They have joked that they're job is the world's most experienced plack unveiler.

What does this mean? Are you supposed to own a TV?

>reply to a post in which i go into detail about queen victoria stopping signing approval for law in the 19th century
>bring up autistic conspiracy theories in which the queen, who doesn't even control britain, somehow controls america
>expect me to understand

If you own a tv, you have to pay a yearly fee for a license.

Damn that clogg nigger just got rekt.

For the BBC.

Germans and other European nations have the same thing and pay more for it. They never get trolled for it though because Sup Forums is racist against white English people. Sup Forums is full of SJW niggershits.

I'm not defending the concept, but how this got to be known as something exclusive to Britain is beyond me.

I mean not that I'd ever defend the concept, but at least in the UK you don't have to pay for it if you don't watch TV like in the majority of other countries with a TV license policy. (Easily 100+ countries)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence

>Austrian TV licence
>€335.14 p.a.

We need to kill them all.

youtube.com/watch?v=htbr8PCwmEo

She can fire the Aussie government
uk.businessinsider.com/weirdest-powers-queen-elizabeth-ii-british-sovereign-prerogative-swans-dolphins-2015-5

She can't. Stop reading clickbait articles. Only her Governor General can do that (whom acts independently of the Crown and the sovereign), and it happened once in 1975 and they changed the rules forever.

So now it can't ever happen again.

Google the 1975 Australian constitution crisis. The Queen had no involvement, just the Crown its self.

I believe in Italy the "canone RAI" which is the same thing, actually applies even if you don't have a TV, it's more like electrical appliances in general.
There's no way around that aside from straight up evasion.

Don't tell them lad ffs
DELET

That's not at all unique to Italy. England just gets all the shit for it, but most countries in Europe & Asia with a TV licensing system force people to pay for it even without a TV.

>your own shitty national pride.

Already told you I'm British m8. Since you can't read a post on a Malaysian kids tv bbs I doubt your claims to understand British history in Amy depth. What you've been taught is partial history, serving the national myth. The realities of the so-called glorious revolution are much different. The invite of the British parliament was 7 nobles who really hated Catholics above the love of their country. The invasion fleet was one of the largest ever afloat at the time, and 20,000 Dutch trips landed in Suffolk. These are facts and the traditional narrative of a voluntary invasion which supports the fantasy of Britain as. a free and impenetrable island fortress.

You can't even spell clog so you can fuck right off squire.

>Entire empire fucked up
Cunts and power

Complains about heavy crown and uncomfortable ride.

Mate, how you can accuse me of knowing partial English (and British) history is beyond me when I've proven I'm completely willing to debate the matter of the Glorious Revolution and all of 17th century English history. It's one of the few things I can say with certainty I know about. You're the one throwing out petty little insults, claiming to be British and trying to claim the Glorious Revolution to be some sort of British propaganda.

I don't think YOU understand the significance of it. We can start at Cromwell and the earlier parliamentarians overthrowing the monarchy and replacing the office with the Lord Protector act which officially made Cromwell more powerful than any king in English history had been for 500 years. Jump ahead to the Restoration. Monarchical power begins crumbling. It all comes to a head in 1688 with the reasoning laid out in the Bill of Rights 1689 which resulted in the overthrow of King James and parliament allowing William and Mary to co-rule under PARLIAMENTS OWN TERMS and as figureheads. Nothing more.

The last monarch to attempt to stand up to parliament was Queen Anne in 1707 after William and Mary on the Scottish Militia Bill and parliament told her to fuck off.

Why could parliament tell an anointed Queen to go fuck herself for exercising (previously) legal powers?

Because William and Mary agreed to making parliament supreme over the monarchy. Which still stands today.

Having an organic constitution actually allows parliament to adapt flexibly with the times. We don't have any sacred constitutional texts therefore we can alter the law appropriately when the time is right (see uk gun laws v usa gun laws).
The uk parliament is almost unrecognizable compared to the medieval version because it evolves and changes.