So today I found out that the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland can dissolve Parliament at any time she wants...

So today I found out that the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland can dissolve Parliament at any time she wants, and can technically declare war on anybody she wants without needing to go through Parliament.

The Queen is getting up there in years. Surely she can't be happy with what the elected cunts running the country have done to it. Why doesn't she just tell Parliament to fuck off and declare war on Germany to end this endless flow of shitskins into Europe?

And as a side note, I would have fucked the shit out of the Queen back in the day. Sorry if that triggers you, Bongs.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=6R4X7OeL3Mc
youtube.com/watch?v=lW9Uudkx42g
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Answer me, bongs

Because (((parliament))) has the media and bankers on side. So without supreme support of the people, to do so would be suicide.

...

they would finally have the excuse to do away with the monarchy altogether

The Queen is German.

That should tell you everything you need to know about how the entire empire collapsed under the reign of a single person.

You will be surprised how many people do not know this.

A lot of the people are disaffected desu, and the armed services swear an oath of loyalty to the crown, not to Parliament

>american
>blames german for the collapse of the british empire
wew

>the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland

What choice did she have? After WWII, the entire socio-political structure of Europe was changed forever. It wasn't like the old times. All of the European powers were pressured by the international community and by their subjects to give up their colonies overseas. She really didn't have much say in the matter.

Could you imagine how much the SJWs would be bitching and cajoling today if white people still had colonies in Africa and shit?

Parliament make the same oath. Would you trust it to be enough in an age where no one can be held to their word?
And as i said, the media and banks wouldn't be on the side of the monarch speaking against them. They'd make sure Her Majesty looked like Il Duce before the hour was up.

Yeah that was another thing I was kinda surprised to learn. From what I saw, nearly every official document and every oath that public officials is in the name of the Queen/monarch, not in the name of Parliament.

From the sounds of it, Parliament rules only by the good graces of the Monarch.

Your not paying attention. If Parliament even tried, they would be dissolved. Put in the tower and promptly beheaded. The Queen is still the Queen. Her absolute power remains intacted. Pay attention moron

>If Parliament even tried, they would be dissolved
Unless they are all at once, literally dissolved, then no. They would just ignore the command, declare Her Majesty insane, and switch into Cromwell mode. Do you people learn nothing of The Civil War?

she only has that authority if the british people obey, and even then there would almost definitely by a humanitarian intervention by the usa

That's the head of the Committee of 300 m8. She can do way more than that.

Because no one would listen to her; the best-case scenario for the Queen in that case is that everyone just kind of ignores her and continues to do what they were doing anyway, maybe with some trappings of having listened to her (i.e., the Parliament starts calling itself "The Parliament-in-Exile", the Prime Minister starts referring to himself as the "Leader of the Loyal Opposition", and so on).

The worst case is that she's deposed and Charles takes her place.

Yes, but you've beheaded two monarchs in the past, and every monarch knows this because at their coronation they're shown a copy of the Parliament bill that authorized the execution of Charles II (I think? Might be off on which specific king it was). The sitting monarch of Britain may *on paper* be the most powerful single person in the country, but in practice the monarch does not have autocratic power.

Most Brits know this. They also know that if the Queen tried to do away with Parliament or declare war, she'd simply be removed from the Throne, and the Throne would pass to her successor (Charles, in this case, though it's doubtful he'll reign as King Charles III, given what happened to Charles II).

The British like the idea of having a monarch but have a distinct lack of interest in the idea of a monarch who tries to act like an autocrat.

Queens Guard would makes quick work of Parliament. Bullets speak louder than words.

If the Queen ever tried to do anything non-ceremonial she would just get cromwelled.

No she can't. The only person allowed to do so is the prime minister (not anymore in the case when they used to do that to prepare elections). If user had done his research he would know that.

She has 0 real power. All of her power are purely symbolical and under strict review of the parliament.

She does appoint the Prime minister of her choice => in reality she is fucked if she doesnt follow the coutume which says that the prime minister is the head of the party who has the majority in the lower house.

She can't declare war at all. It's the power of the parlement.

user, Montesquieu studied your country to theorize the Division of the Powers, you should take a look at it. Basically in every parlementary regime like the UK the parlement is the main power which do everything. If it decides that the police should be under the juridiction of the church then so be it. The Queen like most of the royalty has never stopped giving away real powers in exchange of allowing to exist and having a strong symbolical role.

Yes, and? The Europe and the USA would then come steamrolling in to stop the "tyrant" who did that. Because parliament is just politicians. Not people. They're like a hydra. Cut off one head, and three more get "elected." That's why the banks and media back them, not the monarch who is accountable and could tell them to fuck off.

>No she can't. The only person allowed to do so is the prime minister
No on both accounts legally. But in practice, yes.

The walls have been breached

No, she can still technically dissolve Parliament and declare war. In practice it is left up to Parliament to declare war and whatnot but in theory, she is still an autocrat and can dissolve Parliament at her will.

I wouldn't expect a Frechman to be well versed in divine rights of monarchs since you have a tendency to execute all of yours.

Retards who used buzzfeed as their research.
That s retarded and completly false. You don't even know a single law of constitutionnal coutume and yet here you are.

Anons plz

She is the queen of northern Ireland. The republic of Ireland is ruled by pic related

>The Queen is German.
this is the most repeated piece of propaganda/lie about britain. the queen is british. her father george VI was british, his father george V was british, his father Edward VII was british. Edward VIIs father was Prince Albert, a german, and his mother was Queen Victoria.

that means she is 5th generation british on the paternal side, many many (100's) more on the maternal side.

she has seen war and doesn't want to see it again. the forces that guard the realm will keep blighty safe and white. just look at Di in Paris.

and we'd all have fucked her in her youth.

>The Queen is German.
When will this meme die?

Yes she could dissolve Parliament but she never will, to dismiss a democratically elected Government would send the country into civil war.

Look at her nose m8. She's (((German))).

Sup Forums is always right, the nose never lies.

Last I checked, the Armed Forces didn't swear an oath of allegiance to parliament. They swore it the Queen.

the queens gives royal assent to laws. until that point they aren't actual law. the government governs on behalf of her/his majesty.

>From the sounds of it, Parliament rules only by the good graces of the Monarch.
it is overly simple, but in essence that is true. but if the queen decided to change the system it would create a constitutional problem and shit would get heated.

(((humanitarian intervention)))

Properly speaking, Albert was Saxon, as he was from the Saxon duchy of Saxe-Coberg-Saalfeld, and the couple married in 1840. Germany didn't come into being until 1871; its predecessor, the North German Confederation, didn't come into being until 1867.

yet the queen will not save us. I had hope she would do something, at least about her fuck up descendants but so far it seems like this will be the last worthy monarch of UK and that her fighting days ended around ww2

In case you dont know: She`s a fucking reptiloide and part of the whole scheme anyways.

Not 100's more. Queen Elizabeth the first died a childless virgin so a distant cousin from Belgium or somewhere had to come and be king.

Factoid no.74: the state of Virginia in the USA is named after queen Elizabeth the first's virginity.

>Retards who used buzzfeed as their research.
Try again, history books work very well. Happened in the past assuming it will not happen again is pure stupidity. Elisabeth may not to this, but one of her predecessors could.

she's always looked like an ugly man, hasn't she?

That's implying an oath means anything in this day and age.

I will never fight a war our government wants us to fight, but I will wipe out the entire German population personally if HM asked me.
God save the queen

fair point, you're correct. i think it's fair to say he is considered german though, given it is now germany.

Thank you! These idiots don't see this.

most of the army do have this weird honour thing where they'll die for the monarchs order instead of the governments
most oaths do mean shit, but i guess they get it drummed into them until they'll blindly serve without question

OK let me explain to you what is going on.
The UK doesn't have a written constitution, therefore there is an empty space about some powers. The principe is simple, if a power wasn't given specifically by a constitutionnal law then it falls under the power of the parlement. Here this is complex because the power was the property (in History) of the royalty.
Based on that it would be the Queen who would declare war if a war was about to happen.
But if she fucks with the parlment then it is a different story. First the parlement is the people and it has more legitimacy than royalty. Every conflit strictly confined between the two of them would end up in the royalty executed the minute they fuck up with the parlement.
But what if the people are witht the royalty ? Then yes the royalty would steal the legitimacy of being the representation of the people and would win vs the parlement.

But it will never happen. Sorry user.

Based Queenie

>her fuck up descendants
Which ones? The Olympian, the soldier who has devoted himself to helping others, the rescue helicopter pilot, the Duke who risked his position to help farmers, or.... Andrew?

It was still Germanic. They didn't suddenly switch ethnicities in 1871.

Are you a fucking retard?

I would fuck the shit out of her now it it meant brit vs kraut war

Yes.

There was proposals to give parliament the power to declare war but the queen vetoed it so it never went through.

>Trusting oaths
>in the current year
This isn't your High Medieval fantasy world you faggot

All public relations stunts. Don't you have a kangaroo to fuck in the ass or something?

I love the Queen. One of the few remaining white historical cultural icons that still exist. Gonna be sad when she goes.

Harry or William?

Fuck off Queerbecuck
When my family came to Canada in 1956 we made an oath of allegiance to the queen and all her heirs. I can promise you any republicans my wife gives birth to (there is no republican blood in my family so it's going to be her fault) I will disown. Fuck off

>Which ones? The Olympian, the soldier who has devoted himself to helping others, the rescue helicopter pilot, the Duke who risked his position to help farmers, or.... Andrew?
oh please, prince harry's army career was a stunt to restore peoples confidence in him after his debauchery came out. how blind do you have to be to buy into the whole "giving an interview right before going back into the fight" bull.
>the Duke who risked his position to help farmers
yeah there sure was a lot of "risk" william has a charisma of a paper napkin and leadership skill of a walmart manager(at best)

Probably not because she doesn't want to give away her power but she doesn't want political wars to happen.

You're ignoring the current law, which is based on the agreement that the monarch will only use monarchical (near absolute) powers at the behest of parliament. This, in legalese is an acknowledgement that they still exist.
Like, you're not really wrong, you just seem to get turned around near the end.
>it has more legitimacy than royalty.
Lolno.


So? And nah, finished my quota for the day.

>I wouldn't expect a Frechman to be well versed in divine rights of monarchs since you have a tendency to execute all of yours.
Well said

no she cant

Shut the fuck up republinigger

>prince harry's army career was a stunt to restore peoples confidence in him
He was already in the army. Did they have a time machine or something? And even if it were for that, it doesn't negate what he did, ie. serving on the front lines blowing holes in brown people basically your kith.
>yeah there sure was a lot of "risk"
In defying the Parliamentary agreement which was the result of a monarch getting a very close haircut? Kinda. It showed that he cared enough about his people to do that, and act on behalf of them as a royal should, even when they're not allowed.

>this thread

...

We executed one king who tried to flee his country but was forgiven (proof our ancestors loved him). But we tried to copy some shitty ass government near us and in respect to the king we gave him a right of veto.
He used it at every law attempt by our National Assembly. He did it so much we called him Mr Veto. He tried his best to stay in power instead of becoming more of a symbol like in the UK.
He got what he deserved to resist what was inevitable.

Honestly Louis XVI fucked up so much we had no choice. His speech during his trial (because a trial was done, a mock trial but a trial nonetheless) was really thoughtful and moving.

Yes it has. Right now the queen is loved i would give you, that but the parliament is still the representation of the people and without it the UK would be a trash land. And it s not like UK has only one individual that is royalty.

>Did they have a time machine or something?
no but they ramped up the propaganda.
youtube.com/watch?v=6R4X7OeL3Mc
come on
>serving on the front lines blowing holes in brown people basically your kith.
>implying he was not protracted 24/7
His kill count is low and he did no more than thousands of others, does not really make him king material nor does it cancel out his sleaziness. He is likely to end up like JFK - the bullet.

The Royal Family is either completely sheltered from the state of the country, or they are part of what has happened to it.

I hope the former but fear the latter is closer to the truth.

The queen has no power, if she used her power, the uk would be a republic.

Also, the queen using her power to overrule parliament? See the english civil war and Charles 1 to see what will happen.

Remember when you were relevant and given some attention ?
Me neither

Why are slavs so edgy

no kys burger

You're talking about a country that blamed the financial crisis on the disabled and migrants, of course they would like a retarded constitutional arrangement

Remember when we saved your asses in world war 2? Remember when we never ever surrendered in a war and won every single one we were involved in?

go ask them

user, from a constitutional point of view the Queen does have a gun pointed to her head.

If you really want to blame someone blame the shitty kings you had back in the day that made your parliament take away their powers. Or blame the politician class that is litteraly the cancer of our societies.

The Queen =/= The Crown.

The Crown own everything. She (if it is a she. lol.) has to walk behind the Lord Mayor of the City of London at the state opening of parliament. The interests in the City of London are the Crown. They outrank the Royals.

>They didn't suddenly switch ethnicities in 1871.

True, but the region that would become Germany was hardly homogeneous at the time, either. Saxons were different from Prussians, were different from Bavarians, were different from Austrians, and so on.

Let's be real, claiming that Elizabeth's "German" is an attempt to link her to Hitler, but Albert, her closest Germanic antecedent, would have been absolutely nothing like Hitler and probably would have found him vulgar and offensive.

>prince harry's army career was a stunt to restore peoples confidence in him

Any "stunt" that involves him fighting alongside Gurkhas to fight the Taliban in Helmand is a good one that deserves to work.

>the parliament is still the representation of the people
>and without it the UK would be a trash land.
Two subjects i really can't agree with you on. The former as they're only there by default. And the latter as politicians are a blight, which would be remedied by a functional monarch.

>His kill count is low and he did no more than thousands of others, does not really make him king material
His birth makes him not really king material, champ. Henry = second son. And do you really expect him to be John Rambo just because of your absurd idea of who gets to be "king"? Either way, he still ventilated more Muslims than most.

>Or blame the politician class that is litteraly the cancer of our societies.
Huh, i guess we do see somewhat eye to eye.
>nor does it cancel out his sleaziness.
Sleaziness? He was a mid-20s dude. If anything it was fairly tame. He didn't even mention anything about grabbing women by the pussy.

You never did. You came to get slaughtered on our beaches while useful people actually advanced.
But thx to that we could later use coffins of your dear soldiers to traffic drugs.

>His kill count is low and he did no more than thousands of others

He did his duty to Queen and Country. That is what matters.

Because going with dignity seems more desirable than being partitioned by a "cucked" Germany and co.
People seem to forget that the Brits' have lost their empire and are now little more than a Belgium-on-an-island with a hydrocephalic head in the form of London.
(a pattern that was seen in a similar fashion at the start of the last century with Austria)

>>>/infowars/
That isn't how it works. Hell, do you think Her Majesties heralds and sword bearers are more important because the walk before Her?

Fair point. I hadn't considered it in that light.

>and won every single one we were involved in?

Uh, off the top of my head, 1812. The result of that war was Status Quo Ante Bellum, i.e., there were neither winners nor losers.

Let's dig a little deeper, as I find it highly suspect.

- Russian Civil War, resulted in an Allied defeat and withdrawal. Canada was involved.
- Korean War. Resulted in a ceasefire, but given the state of North Korea these days I can hardly call the UN's involvement there a "success".

So that's one Status Quo Ante, one Ceasefire, and one Defeat.

Nigger you're stupid as fuck. Britain and France easily have the most powerful armed forces in Europe. Germany's is technologically advanced, yes, but is small and is plagued by the fact that 99% of Germans are cucks and hate themselves and their military. In a one-on-one fight, Britain would wipe the floor with Germany.

How was the Korean War not a success? Last time I checked South Korea still exists and is a prospering, democratic society whereas North Korea is a feudal shithole ruled by aging despots that is nearing collapse.

>His birth makes him not really king material, champ. Henry = second son.
we still have to consider all the options
>do you really expect him to be John Rambo just because of your absurd idea of who gets to be "king"?
no, I think Rambo would make a shit king. I expect a king to be a good manger/politician/wielder of power or at lest someone who will make an effort to restore some power. I bring up his military stuff because of how laughably manipulative is seems. you are the one who brought up him " blowing holes in brown people" as a positive and I simply pointed out that he was not exceptional in that

Parliament in the early days was composed like in every country of people with knowledge (nobles etc) or actual skills (rich merchants etc). Those people were in to keep the country safe from the distater of poor people taking power or the king becoming a tyran.
That parliament had way more legitimacy than every king.

Nowadays the parliament is composed of career politicians and is divided by party. People hate them.
So yes the members are dispised and the institution more and more but in the idea and in history the parliament is still more legitimate to reign than some kings.

i don't blame you she was a looker

>He was a mid-20s dude.
This balding weirdo fucked anything with a hole.

>he was not exceptional in that
Very few things are exceptional now. A king does not need to be exceptional either, just moderate.

>the parliament is still more legitimate
I could only agree with that sentiment if there were an alternative. Their legitimacy comes from their votes, yes? Regardless of the party, people still have to vote for one. If only four people voted, there would still be a parliament, and they'd still claim they had legitimacy by virtue of votes.

See: >He was a mid-20s dude.

It's the latter I suspect, hence whyd id abolish the bastards. For hundreds of years the men of London gave their blood, sweat, tears and money to that family, and when the time came to pay back a penny on the pound of the loyalty that they had been shown they instead sat on their arses and allowed the cockneys to be ethnically cleansed.

>I would have fucked the shit out of the Queen back in the day.

For once, OP is not a fag.

>Also, the queen using her power to overrule parliament? See the english civil war and Charles 1 to see what will happen.

Nice imagination there lad. Tarquin Jones and the unarmed Momentum Brigades get their doors kicked in by pic related, who is your money on

Might want to look up what Parliament is, old boy.

>See: He was a mid-20s dude.
I don't know how you do things in Australia but this is not how things go when you are a mid-20s dude, especially if you are from a family that has a reputation to protect. This is how things go when you are a burnt out pop star

Excuse me but she is not the Queen of Ireland. Ireland is a republic whose head of state is the President. The current President is a leprechaun.

>that is nearing collapse.

It's been "nearing collapse" for 30 years now. It's never going to collapse on its own. Meanwhile the Korean peninsula remains divided thanks to the dictates of geriatric, increasingly senile Nork generals and the self-absorbed tinpot dictators they support.

Remember that there is no ethnic difference between North and South Koreans; the divide is wholly political.

That is not "success", that is status quo. "Success" is a unified Korean peninsula under Seoul.

She was so nice to look at.

She can do whatever she wants. Honestly, she owns half the planet.
I'm ex British Army - Royal Engineers. I used to plant explosives and disarm IEDs. I had to swear an oath. It is an oath made by all soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines in the British forces. Maybe New Zealand and Australia too.
Not sure about that. Maybe Aussies and Kiwis can inform.

This is the oath:

>I, (Insert full name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

It doesn't mention UK, because Her Majesty IS the country. Neither does the oath expire. It is permanent.
Respect, tradition, honour, loyalty, faith, courage, dignity.

youtube.com/watch?v=lW9Uudkx42g

>I don't know how you do things in Australia
We understand that humans are human, and the only fault in that circumstance was the fag who let the pictures out.