I was considering why recent events have not brought these uncomfortable truths to light, I had also considered a false flag event in the nature of garnering sympathy, I don't know why but my brain just spit that idea out while watching some of the recent news. This documentary is very revealing and why did Charlie Gard have to die ? and why did the Queen not lift a finger maybe this video will help answer some of these questions.
They changed the Company name from Saxe Coburg-Gotha to Windsor after it bacame too akward having a German name, whilst their Kingdom was fighting against cousin Willie, during WW1. What few realise, is that Queen Betty #2 is a constitutional monarch, and as such, the exercise of executive power is vested in the Prime Minister and his/her cabinet, not the Monarch. The Monarch's role is largely ceremonial.
There is no question that the Queen and some members of the royal family are very wealthy. Much of that wealth has been inherited over many generations, and of course the family 'firm' (aka unincorporated royal incorporation) derives a substantial income from their extensive land holdings and investments, none the less, specified members are granted an annual allowance to defray the costs of preventing the Royal tourist attractions (Buckinham Palace et al) from falling into decrepitude, and to defray the expenses incurred in providing Royal public services to their Royal 'subjects'. Control of fiscal and economic policy in Britain is vested in the elected government of the day, and as legislated by Parliament. Unlike El Presidente Trump, Queen Betty has no power to veto legislation that is contrary to 'the firm's' best interests. El Presidente Trump has signed with alacrity (undoubtedly with his black Sharpie) into law, legislation that has significantly benefitted His Trumpesty and his dynastic heirs (and their corporate holdings), with absurdly generous tax cuts: Queen Betty has no such powers. Yes...Queen Betty's assent appears on all legislation passed by Parliament...but it is a rubber stamp, ceremonial function; she can't hold up legislation being enacted until she gets a better deal for herself.
The queen is only worth 30 trillion yes Trillion with a T owns big swaths of Australia Canada New Zealand and other locals. mostly mineral timber and mining rights, and she still manages to get the peasants to pay her an annual salary.
Who controls the 'City of London' its is a separate financial district in London. City of London - Wikipedia
Your citation for this claim? I think you are mis construing what is meant by "Crown Land" in the context of Dominions that have not (yet) become republics, with a President as their respective head of state. Queen Betty does not personally own 'Crown Land' in Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. Nor does she personally own the exploitable resources to be found in those country's 'Crown Lands'. All royalties and other income derived from the sale, lease of, or resources royalties from Crown Lands are credited to the various National and State / Provincial governments which have actual legislative control over their respective 'Crown Lands' As you may be unaware, the UK has not been a feudal society, supported by the sweat of the peasantry for quite some time..The present Queen is no feudal overlord...she is essentially a mendicant civil servant who, on an annual basis places her begging bowl before Parliament to defray the depreciation costs of maintaing those parts of the national estate that she has responsibility for running; and for meeting the operating costs of discharging her regal duties and obligations to the nation. It should be noted that the royal family and the royal estate represents a source of revenue derived from the international tourism attracted to the pomp and ceremony dog and pony shows that Queen Betty puts on. (Interestingly often attended by many Americans whose provider of American 'pomp and ceremony' is delivered by a crass, vulgar, fat slob wearing a cheaply manufactured MAGA hat.) Edit: I am no monarchist, and would prefer Australia to be a Republic rather than a Federation with a British titular head of state. The devil is in the details and the model at an Australian Constitutional Convention cum popularity ballot put forth by the conservative government of the day basically torpedoed any prospect of a Republic for many years to come....Thank you Johnnie the suburban solicitor, Howard!
Try not to over think this issue. It all comes down to corporations, what they are and how they were first established. If you do your research well, you ought to find something called corporate charter, which will invariably lead you to 'patent', not the term for property protection, but the royal patent. Now, if you don't find this too terribly boring, you should also learn about sovereignty. We're talking about 'who' the only true sovereign really is as far as the British Monarchy is concerned. Now, if you don't get too distracted, the concept itself is really quite simple to understand. On the surface, the academia world will conclude that the Queen is merely "ceremonial", but those with a little know how in legalese can see it's all bout tricking people into believing this charade. By the way, it's no mistake that in America we have a fascist corporate government. The same is true with Canada, Australia, and every other nation where the Monarchy has had its greedy hands. What I am saying is that virtually everything is incorporated. And if you know anything about corporations, the board of directors and the shareholders have the power. How much do you know about Congress and its charter capabilities? How much of the Queens finances are kept secret? Folks, you've been hoodwinked. They learned a great deal with their student, Hitler -and they got a great deal from the experiment. We still have wars, but they are primarily for profit. The true conquering is done not with machines of death and armies, but simple economics.
