Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

Excerpt from The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy:


"The reality was the Windsors had their fingers in many pies and had a huge say in global affairs. At home, they dictated to the British Parliament, and no elected Prime Minister could take up office without first pledging total allegiance to the Queen and future King. To Kentbridge’s way of thinking, that proved Britain was no more a democracy than was the United States." –The Orphan Factory


In her native Britain the Queen also has more powers assigned to her than the average journalist, and certainly the average British citizen, seems to realize. This lack of awareness of the Queen’s true powers is possibly due to the fact that she rarely exercises her authority and only seems to do so when there’s no alternative.

Nevertheless, the powers she has could be argued to be undemocratic given she is non-elected and received her authority by birth – all of which sound like the antithesis of a democracy.

This sentiment was echoed by Graham Smith, chief executive of Republic, a British group which campaigns for an alternative to the monarchy. In an article by CNN (London) on June 1, 2012, Smith described the British Monarchy as being highly “secretive”.

“Having recently lobbied successfully to have itself removed entirely from the reaches of our Freedom of Information laws,” Smith stated, “it lobbies government ministers for improvements to its financial benefits and for its own private agenda.”

Smith continued, “The queen and Prince Charles must be asked for consent before our elected parliament is able to debate any legislation that affects their private interests … The “Crown” is the supreme authority in this country – not the people. The Crown has vast powers that cannot be challenged in a court of law and those powers are exercised by the queen on the instruction of our prime minister”.

The CNN article also mentioned the Queen’s ability to appoint government ministers and other public servants, as well as “the power to go to war, sign treaties and change the law through the little-understood Privy Council”.

Conspiracy theorists believe the Queen’s imperceptible wealth – the unknown element that apparently forms the bulk of her true net worth – goes hand in hand with her rarely acknowledged political powers in Britain and throughout much of the world.

According to this theory, the Queen’s overall’s wealth can essentially be compartmentalized into three separate categories: the Monarch, her visible fortune and, lastly and most importantly, her invisible fortune.

Here's an article headed "Why UK should abolish its 'failed' monarchy" that seems to confirm The Queen is far, far more powerful than most of us realize... http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/30/wor...

As an Englishman, I think the lot of 'em should be abolished.

"God save the queen, a fascist regime... our figurehead is not what she seems..." :)

But then I've never been too fond of the Christian/pagan festival of Christmas either...

Aiden wrote: "Lance it does not Confirm anything Sir. it is just a biased opinion of a left news group.
As an Australian I love the Royal family and hope they go on.
They provide jobs, they give inspiration and..."

Nope I love Christmas.
On the wider issue...you may well be right, but a little research into the wealth (declared and undeclared, official and unofficial) and power of the Windsor family - Her Majesty in particular - may open your eyes. It sure opened mine...as did research into the history of the Windsors.

Aiden wrote: "As an Australian I love the Royal family and hope they go on..."

Hi Aiden,
As an Australian (and New Zealander) I am highly concerned with the nature of control the Crown/Windsors technically have if they chose to exercize their extensive powers in Australia, NZ, Canada and other Commonwealth countries. I'd suggest reading other posts in this Royals section if you're interesting in learning more about just how rich and powerful the Queen may be.

Criticizing the Royals in this fashion ain't remotely about being Left Wing or being a Monarchist or a Republican. It's about becoming aware of what Royals and other elite families are all about - which historically and to this very day is about expanding their empires at the cost of the common people.
I used to be pro Monarchy too until I did the research.

Regards from Sydney,
James

I love this comedic book, where the royal family's abolished and the Windsors have to adapt to living on a poor housing estate! :)

Aiden wrote: "Lance it does not Confirm anything Sir. it is just a biased opinion of a left news group.
As an Australian I love the Royal family and hope they go on.
They provide jobs, they give inspiration and..."

http://youtu.be/SbhMfZRhsXw

Lance wrote: "Aiden wrote: "Lance it does not Confirm anything Sir. it is just a biased opinion of a left news group.
As an Australian I love the Royal family and hope they go on.
They provide jobs, they give i..."

But people don't want to look into things. They like things just the way they are. Oops I just realized I posted teh wrong video on this thread. Oh well it's interesting so I'll leave it. But I know there was one about the Queen of England too. I have to find it. Tell people to check out ITCCS.ORG.

Hi Irene,

We seem to be very much on the same page, but I'm glad there are people of varying beliefs in this group. It's good to have debate and to make people look at things from another point of view... and we need 'em to come around to our side of course! :)

Irene wrote: "WHO are these people you invited to discuss these topics? James purposely invited a bunch of sheeple to the party so the truthers and the sheeple could argue with one another!
..."

Damn, Irene. You're onto my evil plan...

Irene wrote: "Aiden wrote: "Lance it does not Confirm anything Sir. it is just a biased opinion of a left news group.
As an Australian I love the Royal family and hope they go on.
They provide jobs, they give i..."

Uh oh...It's medication time! (At this end I mean...not that end).

There are great reasons why monarchy is still important but with that Britain also loses the right to claim itself a democracy. Democracy means everyone is equal under the eyes of law.

Rivka wrote: "There are great reasons why monarchy is still important but with that Britain also loses the right to claim itself a democracy. Democracy means everyone is equal under the eyes of law."

I suspect those "great reasons" you refer to Rivka can all be countered. However...

Your point about democracy is well made. As James said at the outset..."the powers she (the Queen) has could be argued to be undemocratic given she is non-elected and received her authority by birth – all of which sound like the antithesis of a democracy."

It is an inherent contradiction, yes.

One also wonders what happens when the Queen flips, and decides to exercise her regal powers. In that context, this is a little worrying:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/wo...

Get rid of the lot of them. History is full of dodgy or insane monarchs who led their countries into unnecessary wars, or bled them dry for the sake of their own need for material gratification. Being born with a title doesn't make you worthy of it.

Rivka wrote: " There are great reasons why monarchy is still important..."

I don't agree.
As you rightly point out, it is undemocratic to have a Monarchy in existence - not just in Britain, but in all Commonwealth countries including Canada, Australia & New Zealand where the Queen's/Crown's powers are extensive.
So being undemocratic, that should be the end of the story for those of us who seek equality in society. Once freedoms and rights are sacrificed, even slightly, due to traditions or sentimentality, we are in big trouble. History has shown if you give the global elite an inch, they'll take a mile every single time...

I do have a problem with the powers the Queen still has in my own country and several others. Not because she would exercise them - she wouldn't - but because someone else will exercise the royal prerogative on her behalf, and there's no democratic control over who does that. I'm not Australian but if I was, I'd have some questions about why an unelected Governor-General was able to sack the late Gough Whitlam in 1975. The Queen herself will have had nothing to do with it but that wasn't the point; an unelected person was able to use Presidential powers on her behalf.

Edward wrote: "Aiden wrote: "Lance it does not Confirm anything Sir. it is just a biased opinion of a left news group.
As an Australian I love the Royal family and hope they go on.
They provide jobs, they give I...

Edward wrote: Defies comment. One question; "Does providing servant jobs to people make a great humanitarian?" If so the owners of "Whattaburger" should be knighted, if not already done. ..."

Ha!
Unfortunately naive, gullible and ill-informed serfs have been thanking their psychotic rulers for Whattaburger-style jobs for centuries.

I seriously believe that the only reason that countries like Canada and Australia are still part of the Commonwealth is because basically most people think if it's not broke, why fix it. That is probably why Scotland is still part of the UK as well even though a fair amount of people were thinking about voting for Scotland to become a republic. If Australia become a republic, New Zealand would probably follow, along with some nearby smaller countries.
Gough Whitlam was sacked basically because he was ahead of his time. He wanted to close Pine Gap. Kevin Rudd was sacked because he wanted to put higher taxes on mining companies.
Financially, the royals still have power. Even in the UK, no one in Commonwealth countries care as much as they used to about the royals, so socially they don't really have any power.

Kelly wrote: "I seriously believe that the only reason that countries like Canada and Australia are still part of the Commonwealth is because basically most people think if it's not broke, why fix it. That is pr..."

Kelly - I suspect you are spot on...altho in the case of NZ I think it's only a matter of time before we split from the Commonwealth. We may even be ahead of Oz in that particular race.

The more I research on the Monarchy, the more I think they need to be abolished (and they should have to pay back everything they stole!)

My feelings toward the Queen and the Monarchy in general can be summarized in the song Elizabeth, My Dear by British band The Stone Roses https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJNcn...

Tear me apart and boil my bones
I'll not rest till she's lost her throne
My aim is true my message is clear
It's curtains for you, Elizabeth my dear

Queen Elizabeth is identified among the 300 people in the world that controls nearly 7 billion of us. I read somewhere that around 44 US president have blood ties to the royal families of Europe mostly British. I don't know how true is this. Also, do Brits pay royalty tax?

Yes they do pay royalty tax

That is upsetting

sounds expensive

James wrote: "The more I research on the Monarchy, the more I think they need to be abolished (and they should have to pay back everything they stole!)

My feelings toward the Queen and the Monarchy in general c..."

You've made me remember that when everyone was glued to their T.Vs watching William and Kate get married, I indulged myself by playing Sex Pistols' God Save The Queen at full blast, much to my neighbours' annoyance. Well... I believe in free speech! :)

He also said: "Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"

More royal scandals rocking the U.K. From the BBC yesterday:

"Prince Charles receives copies of confidential cabinet documents, according to government papers released after a freedom of information battle.

The Cabinet Office's "precedent book" shows the prince, the Queen, ministers and a handful of others get papers from cabinet and ministerial committees.

Campaign group Republic, which got the information after a three-year battle, called the prince's access "wrong".

The Cabinet Office said the Queen and her heir should be "properly briefed".

The precedent book was written in 1992, showing the arrangement has been in place for more than 20 years.

The book says the need for secrecy with the documents is so great that "special care in circulation and handling" is required, and cabinet ministers are handed their copies in person.

"The standard circulation for cabinet memoranda includes the Queen, the Prince of Wales, all members of the cabinet, any other ministers in charge of departments, the attorney general and the chief whip," it says.

"A few other senior ministers may receive copies at the prime minister's discretion... Ministers of state and junior ministers do not normally receive memoranda.""

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35108362

And then it was revealed Prince William also is privy to secret government papers.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/20...

If you'd rather, you could just bury your heads in the sand and debate the much more important story of Charles and Camilla's 'sweetest ever Christmas Card'. I mean, we need to get our priorities right. Right?

http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/...

Off with their heads, Harry!

THE BLACK QUEEN ON A 20 POUND NOTE - Presented by Undergrounder Harry Whitewolf https://www.goodreads.com/videos/9601...

The above discovery Harry made is really weird.
I think that ad superimposed Beyoncé's face over the top of Queen Elizabeth II's face, almost as subliminal advertising as I doubt many would recognize that.
For what purpose do they do this?

I note that was right below a headline about ISIS.

James Morcan wrote: "The “Crown” is the supreme authority in this country – not the people. The Crown has vast powers that cannot be challenged in a court of law and those powers are exercised by the queen on the instruction of our prime minister."

I feel terribly naive on this, but in the sake of learning more, I am curious... Because isn't this *exactly* what a monarchy is?

This is what is taught to most good little American children in grade school, and we don't question it further - this is why democracy and presidency is supposedly so great - because we don't have a ruler that can tell us what to do (not really true, but that's a discussion for another thread).

Yep, America is one of the only countries in history if not the only country to be set up "of the people, by the people and for the people."

James Morcan wrote: "THE BLACK QUEEN ON A 20 POUND NOTE - Presented by Undergrounder Harry Whitewolf https://www.goodreads.com/videos/9601...

The ..."

Thanks for posting this James.

James Morcan wrote: "Ha!
Unfortunately naive, gullible and ill-informed serfs have been thanking their psychotic rulers for Whattaburger-style jobs for centuries. ."

Yeah, but they make a mean vanilla malt! (At least the ones I've been to...)

Just sayin'. ;)

Also found this other image of the faces of Beyoncé and the Queen being merged: https://culturecomposition.files.word...

What's going on here?

Majesty: Queen Elizabeth II and the House of Windsor

As a New Zealander, I am very happy with the Queen. She is there, and for us she is cheap. Get rid of her and you would have all these politicians pratting around, always in your face, trying to be important. Effectively the Commonwealth countries are Republics in that they have the republic form of representative government, so why change anything just because some politicians want to be seen doing something? Much better to require the politicians to do something for the people, as opposed to for themselves.

As a New Zealander, I want the antiquated British Monarchy the hell out of my nation's affairs :)

James wrote: "As a New Zealander, I want the antiquated British Monarchy the hell out of my nation's affairs :)"

She can't get much further away. I think she is totally harmless and does nothing. Do you really want the average politician replacing her?

Ian wrote: "She can't get much further away. I think she is totally harmless and does nothing. Do you really want the average politician replacing her? ..."

Call me crazy, but I believe in the strange idea that each nation should completely rule itself...I know, I know, it's an odd idea ;)

We already rule ourselves, well, sort of. Politicians have this habit of not doing what they promised when we voted. But this Queen certainly has not interfered in any way thatI am aware of.

Ian wrote: "We already rule ourselves, well, sort of. Politicians have this habit of not doing what they promised when we voted. But this Queen certainly has not interfered in any way thatI am aware of."

On the surface, you are correct.
However, dig a little deeper (that's why they call it "underground knowledge"...)

If the Queen has very little to do with Australia and New Zealand, not long after Kevin Rudd wanted to bring in an increased mining tax was he removed and replaced by Julia Gillard.

http://www.norepublic.com.au/index.ph...

Pine Gap
http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-fo...

and the result
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOJNa...


Socially, the Queen is not as relevant as she to be. But that doesn't mean she has no influence.

Since I am not an Australian, I guess my comments may be wrong, but the impression I got is this. Australians as a whole hate to lose, and the general impression was that Rudd at the helm would lose the next election. Accordingly, the party dumped him. The Queen had nothing to do with it.

Ian wrote: "Since I am not an Australian, I guess my comments may be wrong, but the impression I got is this. Australians as a whole hate to lose..."

Sounds like Trans-Tasman rivalry to me, mate!

Kelly wrote: "Socially, the Queen is not as relevant as she to be. But that doesn't mean she has no influence. ..."

Correct.

Picking up on your mention of former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, here's an excerpt from mine and Lance's book The Orphan Conspiracies that relates to this subject:

"The Queen’s representatives in Commonwealth realms like Canada, Australia, Jamaica and New Zealand are known as Governor-Generals, reflecting Her Majesty’s supreme authority. What most citizens of these countries don’t realize is that the Queen’s powers extend over and above elected prime ministers.

This little known fact reared its ugly head in 1975 when Australia’s elected Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was unceremoniously removed by then Governor-General Sir John Kerr. This was done at the behest of the Queen.

Prime Minister Whitlam had this to say to the press after being dismissed from office: “Well may we say God save the Queen, because nothing will save the Governor-General!”

Some researchers speculated the Whitlam Government’s policies were interfering with the Queen’s extensive business interests in Australia. It’s plausible policies that were called radical, Far Left and anti-business – as Whitlam’s policies were labeled by Australian and international media – could curtail profitability of Her Majesty’s vast enterprises.

Besides the Queen’s orders to dismiss Prime Minister Whitlam from office, there is a thread of evidence to suggest the CIA was also involved in Whitlam’s dismissal.

In 2010, a similar political event occurred in Australia when Kevin Rudd, the country’s elected Prime Minister, was abruptly replaced by fellow Labour Party MP Julia Gillard even though his popularity with the public was at a record high. Many citizens protested and some political analysts claimed it was unconstitutional to remove an elected PM from office. The Governor-General, however, did not intervene.

Interestingly, Rudd was in the process of implementing legislation to increase taxes on offshore mining companies to withhold more of the nation’s mineral riches for the Australian people. This legislation would have included higher taxes for Rio Tinto, the multi-national metals and mining corporation the Queen owns the majority of shares in.

As well as being able to replace prime ministers, Her Majesty has the authority in Commonwealth countries to dissolve Parliament and call elections any time she so desires, refuse to approve any legislation she doesn’t agree with and even pardon convicted criminals.

The leaders of all 53 Commonwealth countries officially swear an Oath of Allegiance to the Queen. Those who do not swear this oath are deemed unfit for office. Besides politicians, all public servants, lawyers, judges, police and military personnel are also forced to swear this oath. And new citizens of Commonwealth nations must swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen.

Bottom line is the Queen has absolute power throughout much of the mighty Commonwealth. Furthermore, she is unelected and unaccountable."

See more in this discussion thread: The Queen’s invisible riches > The might of the Commonwealth https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

There is nothing unconstitutional about a caucus voting to overturn the Prime Minister. The only reason it does not happen more often has nothing to do with the Queen and everything to do with the electorate usually throws out such ego driven politicians at the first opportunity.

Whitlam was an exception, but it is not clear whether that was the Queen or the governor-general - I tend to favour the latter.

By international standards, however, there would be something very unconstitutional about a FOREIGN element overthrowing officials such as Whitlam (if that's actually what happened...again, I'm not deluding myself into speaking in certainties here, but it's a highly suspicious event in Commonwealth history).

It's hard to imagine Americans being happy if they woke up one morning to discover their President had been fired by the Queen's representative! Fortunately for the US they have protections in their constitution to avoid any such foreign interference.

Also, the point you may be missing is the Governor General carries out the Queen's orders. And note in the above quote by Whitlam (Prime Minister of Australia, no less), he explicitly mentioned the Queen in his dismissal speech...There were other statements he made post PMship which also implied the Queen/Monarchy interfered.

Soon after that Australians wanted to become a Republic more and more.

Now whether Whitlam and possibly Rudd's dismissal were one-offs in Her Majesty's Commonwealth Realms is unclear. One could say yes, but perhaps Queen normally more subtle than say the Whitlam debacle? Perhaps Monarchy interference in our lands normally goes unnoticed?

To get to the bottom of this one would need to go beyond officially accepted viewpoints...For starters, begin to analyze things like the Queen's assets in Commonwealth mineral rich territories like Australia and Canada (mining conglomerate Rio Tinto being one of her primary Royal assets, for example) and work out potential conflicts of interest. Then also study the enormously complex definition of "The Crown" within Commonwealth nations.

In other words, one would have to dig very deep instead of off-the-cuff statements. An analogy would be mainstream scientists tell us what technology exists and does not exist, usually they are right as expected, however sometimes even they are unaware of classified science in the military etc...and therefore such scientist's assessments are sometimes totally incorrect despite their vast mainstream scientific knowledge. Sometimes there is a hidden element to science that supersedes academia. Likewise, even the world's leading political analysts often get things very wrong on the subject of geopolitics and interference in smaller nations' affairs by bigger nations.

I'm not pretending to know the ultimate answer regarding the Queen, but sense it's a bloody tangled web...Plus, the British Royals hardly have the best history in global affairs!

These articles all from established mainstream media & major news outlets NOT conspiracy theory sites:

The British-American coup that ended Australian independence -- "In 1975 prime minister Gough Whitlam, who has died this week, dared to try to assert his country’s autonomy. The CIA and MI6 made sure he paid the price" https://www.theguardian.com/commentis...

New revelations about the Dismissal continue to emerge after 40 years http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politic...

"Monash University political scientist Jenny Hocking said new research showed Sir John Kerr (Governor-General) acted with the foreknowledge and implied consent of the Queen, and with the knowledge of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia Sir Garfield Barwick​, High Court justice Sir Anthony Mason and the Leader of the Opposition to oust a democratically elected government."

---
"Kerr reveals that the palace knew that he was considering the prospect of dismissing Whitlam from as early as September 1975, when he confided his concern for his own position to Prince Charles in Port Moresby. Kerr raised with Prince Charles his concern that Whitlam might move to recall his commission if he became aware of the possibility of dismissal, and Kerr recounts Charles’ solicitous response: “But surely, Sir John, the Queen should not have to accept advice that you should be recalled at the very time when you were considering having to dismiss the government.” This is an astonishing revelation by Kerr, one that profoundly challenges our previous understanding of the Dismissal."


Malcolm Turnbull to try recovering John Kerr’s letters to Queen http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opini...

"One result of Australia’s constitutional monarchy — the Queen in Buckingham Palace as our head of state and the governor-general at Yarralumla as her representative and exercising her powers — is that the palace has a degree of ownership of our national history."

OK, that is a bad strike, but maybe they have learned. I guess the tax payer in me still prefers a harmless (as long as she stays that way) formal head of state to the hugely expensive business of satisfying ego-driven politicians.

Talking about strange ideas, I am more in favour of the people ruling themselves, or at least controlling politicians.