Why is The Monarchy The Subject of Conspiracy Theories

Auldy

Senior Member.
I vividly remember being a child and learning that when my name was written on something, like my pencil case or school bag, it denoted that it was mine. It belonged to me. Stuff with other peoples names on it belonged to them. Then I learnt about the concept of money. My grandpa gave me one of each of every (Australian) coin, 1cent, 2cent, 5cent, 10cent, 20cent, 50cent. I was so excited! Then I noticed that on the back of every coin, was Elizabeth II in both name and picture. I was so dismayed, this money did not belong to me! It belonged to this Queen lady. I presumed she was incredibly wealthy and powerful because she must obviously own all the money. I endeavored to one day have my own money with my face and name on it.

Of course I eventually grew up a little more and learned that the Queen is a figurehead and has about as much power as a spatula at a boxing match, and while she is wealthy, the belongings are the crowns, not the person wearing the crown.

I find it interesting that the Queen is always at the head of conspiracy theories. Why not other world leaders, why isn't the state belongings of the USA or its tax revenues related to Obama's net worth? Is it because he is an elected leader? Or is there too many antichrist conspiracy theories about him that this one would seem too far fetched. What about un-elected monarchs from around the world?

While I am an anti-monarchist (in the Australian sense) I appreciate everything that Queen Elizabeth has done for the commonwealth, particularly during the war years, but I don't think anyone seriously can believe she has personal control over such a huge portion of the worlds wealth.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
I think it has to do with a natural fascination for hereditary power. People do resent it to some extent and so are eager to find flaws, or abuses of power, to explain why these people are powerful and the rest of us aren't.
Also just the fact of existing in the position they hold for so long a time means there likely would have been some kind of dubious machinations in their past somewhere.

Any family that has power and spans a couple of generations seems to be the subject of conspiracy theorising. 'New money', or new rises to politiical power are less interesting because there's less narrative to explore.
The more history the more narrative there is to put ones impressions of conniving and abuses of power.

Also the queen is such a lovely, nice and polite figurehead, and that makes the contrast of any story about her actually being a ruthless blood drinking baby murderer or whatever just that bit more compelling.

Mostly though, people are suspicious of (and fascinated with) power, and being vigilant in watching those with power is mostly a good thing when it doesn't go to extremes.
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
Before I reply I will state for the record I am a (small R) republican and would rather have a democratically elected head of state than one decided by accident of birth, and if the UK wants wants to keep a bum on the throne it should as a self supporting titular role with limited ceremonial duties and no constitutional role.

I think the distrust of monarchy has several causes. The history of the institution is partly to blame. There is a darker side to the house of Windsor that is often played down, from the hiding away and isolation of Prince John, via Edward 8th's cozying up to the Nazis, and Queen Mary's Kleptomania to Prince Phillips perceived closet racism and complete lack of tact; these and numerous other scandals and foibles lead to a basic under current of distrust amoungst many people here in the UK, especially in poorer inner city areas. Now in most cases this leads to indifference. For example I live in an inner city area that is rated as one of the 20 poorest in the UK, when the diamond jubliee happened in 2012 grants were made available for street parties, the take up across the city was very poor and most of those that did happen were in the more affluent middle class areas, even the one that took place at my local community centre, (organised even after a survey showed there was no interest in one) catered for 300 people and was attended by around 50. (on an estate with around 8,000 residents). From what I can gather this patten was repeated nation wide in poorer areas despite an alleged 90%+ approval rating. Most of the people I speak to from day to day perceive the monarchy as outdated, out of touch, big C conservative (despite them being apolitical) and of little or no relevance to the man in the street.

Now to most of us 'anti-monarchists' THAT is the issue, but to the conspiracy theorist mind it is the door into something deeper. Then when you add in the traditions whose origins are lost in the midst of time, such as the crown lands / crown estates stuff, the monarchs role parliament and royal assent, the monarchs links with various traditional orders such as the order of the garter and their traditional links as 'commanders' of the armed forces your opening up a huge rabbit hole that is ripe for your average CTer to jump right in.

And the situation isn't helped by the fact the royal family are not exactly the most open of institutions. OK like most people they just want a bit of privacy, maybe more so due to fact they are in the public eye so much, but this perceived 'hiding things' is only gonna add more fuel to the CT fires.

Finally once people start looking for conspiracy they see it everywhere. take Lady Diana's famous (and alleged) 'They are not human' quote for example, To most people that is just a comment that her and various Windsors are not getting on, but to the CT it becomes 'proof' they are reptilians. Or Charles' 'I am a decedent of Dracula' line is taken not to mean he can trace his line back to King Vlad and the Romanian royal family (not hard for the royals, they are all inter-related somewhere back through the generations) - oh no, it is proof he is a baby eating vampire. They can't win.

I will reiterate, I am opposed to the institution of monarchy in the UK, and / or the way it is structured, NOT the individuals themselves (In fact i sometimes feel sorry for them). My father is a major in the salvation army (now retired) and one of his colleges was a former royal protection officer, mid 70's til early 80's and I once asked him him what the royals were like. he said that Prince Phillip was 'one of the most objectionable individuals he had ever encountered', but the queen was 'a lovely person' and that Prince Charles was 'a bit dippy, but ok really'
 
Last edited:

Gladstone

New Member

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
I am surprised to hear this from an Australian, given that the Queens "Governor General" dismissed your Prime Minister in 1975. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

I've only had chance to skim read through a shit load of documents referring to the 1975 crisis. I'm old enough to remember the stink it caused, even in the UK, but I was only 12-13 at the time so the details are hazy.

But what I can astatine so far is that the dismissal came after a couple of years of political deadlock in the Aussie government that was in serious danger of stopping the country functioning so it seams the governor general acted in an attempt to resolve the crisis, seemingly off his own back.

The palaces stand point was as follows
As we understand the situation here, the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor-General as the representative of the Queen of Australia. The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution. Her Majesty, as Queen of Australia, is watching events in Canberra with close interest and attention, but it would not be proper for her to intervene in person in matters which are so clearly placed within the jurisdiction of the Governor-General by the Constitution Act
Content from External Source
Personally I think this is one of those cases that highlights the issues of an outdated system of a historic constitutional monarchy in relation to a modern democracy rather than any sign that Lizzie Windsor is directly controlling the world for evil purposes.
 

Auldy

Senior Member.
But what I can astatine so far is that the dismissal came after a couple of years of political deadlock in the Aussie government that was in serious danger of stopping the country functioning so it seams the governor general acted in an attempt to resolve the crisis, seemingly off his own back.

Correct, the Governor General acted within the bounds of the Australian Constitution and in a manner to resolve the deadlock. A government that cannot pass bills is not a functioning government and so the GG stepped in and did what had to be done. But while the GG is the Queens representative, he was not acting on the orders of her majesty.

And IMO, Gough was one of our best PM's. Got the wrong end of the stick in the end I feel.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I am surprised to hear this from an Australian, given that the Queens "Governor General" dismissed your Prime Minister in 1975. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

If you read that you will see that the reserve powers used were specified in the Australian Constitution - section 64 to be precise.

So it was not a matter of the GG having some arcane ability that no-one knew about - it was all there in "black and white".

In New Zealand we have no written constitution, and the GG is customarily bound to act solely upon the advice of ministers of the crown - unless the government has lost the confidence of Parliament - which requires an actual vote in Parliament.

In which case the GG can sack the ministers & call on someone else to form a Govt - and if they can't then the GG can call an election.
 

Psychic

Senior Member
In New Zealand we have no written constitution, and the GG is customarily bound to act solely upon the advice of ministers of the crown - unless the government has lost the confidence of Parliament - which requires an actual vote in Parliament.

In which case the GG can sack the ministers & call on someone else to form a Govt - and if they can't then the GG can call an election.
It's mostly the same system as in Canada, plus the fact that the monarch/GG appoints Canadian senators on the advice of the PM, and can prorogue (temporarily suspend) parliament. But it's all incredibly opaque - no one outside the inner circles really has a clear idea of how this works in practice, as the PM/ministry's discussions with the monarch/GG are never made public - and the exact delineation of power is very vague, as most of the limits on the monarch's power are by constitutional convention (so much so, that the office of PM is not even mentioned in the written portion of the constitution of Canada!). I think this all feeds people's imaginations - here we have a family, who constitutionally possess a very considerable amount of power, are constantly involved in discussions with the highest levels of government, and who actually excercise their power frequently - nominally on the advice of the PM but as the public isn't privy to the behind-the-scenes stuff we just have to take the politicians' word for it. Little wonder the charming old woman is for so many people the blatant manifestation of absolute power!

Plus, we have all the reasons Whitebeard listed, as well as the fact that the Queen is the monarch of sixteen countries and the Head of the Commonwealth.

Btw, while most people are unaware that Elizabeth II is also Queen of Canada, Australia, NZ, Jamaica, etc, the one title they do know her by is the one that she does not hold - there is no Queen of England, but of the UK. Ironic. (And entirely irrelevant, but still ironic.)
 
Here in the Netherlands the royal family is particularly treated with suspicion, especially since one of our previous princes played a leading role in the creation of the Bilderberg Group and the Lockheed Affair. This Prince Bernhard was also associated with the nazis. Another interesting point is the role our royal family has in Dutch Shell company, and the fact that our current queen is the daughter of a former minister of the Argentian Junta.
 

Psychic

Senior Member
Here in the Netherlands the royal family is particularly treated with suspicion, especially since one of our previous princes played a leading role in the creation of the Bilderberg Group and the Lockheed Affair. This Prince Bernhard was also associated with the nazis. Another interesting point is the role our royal family has in Dutch Shell company, and the fact that our current queen is the daughter of a former minister of the Argentian Junta.
Fascinating. Edward VIII (Elizabeth II's uncle) was widely rumoured to be sympathetic to the Nazis. And, if you reach a little further back into their history, you find a septic system's worth of sinister family secrets. No doubt these facts help attract CTs.

The Netherlands' royal family is also more vocally involved in politics, are they not? Perhaps this puts them in the crosshairs of conspiracy theorists (particularly those who disagree with their politic beliefs)?
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
The majority of Brits are pretty much supportive of the Monarchy, but then again Brits don't really like change. We have been fortunate in that ER2 has conducted herself with immense grace and tact and as far as can be known, has never publicly expressed a political opinion.

Whilst she never gets involved in politics, she is an excellent diplomat, and gave the world a master-class in diplomacy and international relations on her visit to Ireland a few years back.


Having said all that, lets see how Charles gets along in the not too distant future, and how he will affect the currently approval ratings.....
 

Psychic

Senior Member
Whilst she never gets involved in politics, she is an excellent diplomat, and gave the world a master-class in diplomacy and international relations on her visit to Ireland a few years back.
She is an 'ambassador to the world' for the UK, but does not play that role for any of her other realms. To my mind, that's the greatest disadvantage of having her as head of state of Canada.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
It
Btw, while most people are unaware that Elizabeth II is also Queen of Canada, Australia, NZ, Jamaica, etc, the one title they do know her by is the one that she does not hold - there is no Queen of England, but of the UK. Ironic. (And entirely irrelevant, but still ironic.)

Yeah - well by virtue of the the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland including the country of England there is no Queen or King of England, and hasn't been since 1707.

Just as there is no English Parliament.......;)
 
I think it has to do with a natural fascination for hereditary power. People do resent it to some extent and so are eager to find flaws, or abuses of power, to explain why these people are powerful and the rest of us aren't.
Also just the fact of existing in the position they hold for so long a time means there likely would have been some kind of dubious machinations in their past somewhere.

Any family that has power and spans a couple of generations seems to be the subject of conspiracy theorising. 'New money', or new rises to politiical power are less interesting because there's less narrative to explore.
The more history the more narrative there is to put ones impressions of conniving and abuses of power.

Also the queen is such a lovely, nice and polite figurehead, and that makes the contrast of any story about her actually being a ruthless blood drinking baby murderer or whatever just that bit more compelling.

Mostly though, people are suspicious of (and fascinated with) power, and being vigilant in watching those with power is mostly a good thing when it doesn't go to extremes.

OT but just wanted to point out: American political dynasties are treated in a similar fashion, albeit to a lesser degree as Pete Tar pointed out (less history to exploit). I hear it about the Bushes, Kennedy's and the Clintons.

Back on topic: I wish I lived under the crown so I could more accurately comment! I've seen claims in the past that the Queen has a net worth in the trillions of £'s. I've never seen anything to make me think that she (or anyone) actually DOES possess such wealth.

I think Pete said it best.
 
The pound sterling is currently trading at 1.47 USD. I'm AWFUL at math and this has all probably been done before but please bear with me. I got the 17 trillion pound figure from deirdres thread (It's 17.6 trillion in the thread but I rounded it down to make it easier for myself).

£ 17,000,000,000,000x1.47 = $25,037,940,000,000.00

Global gross domestic product (GDP) at current prices from 2004 to 2014 (in billion U.S. dollars)


The statistic shows global gross domestic product (GDP) from 2004 to 2014. In 2012, global GDP amounted to about 72.6 trillion U.S. dollars.

Gross domestic product

Gross domestic product, also known as GDP, is the accumulated value of all finished goods and services produced in a country, often measured annually. GDP is significant in determining the economic health, growth and productivity in the country, and is a stat often used when comparing several countries at a time, most likely in order to determine which country has seen the most progress. On a global scale, gross domestic product has experienced a growth every year over the past decade with the exception of 2009.

However, a strong growth rate does not necessarily lead to all positive outcomes and often has a negative affect on inflation rates. A severe growth in GDP leads to less unemployment, however lower unemployment often leads to higher inflation rates due to demand increasing at a much higher rate than supply and as a result prices rise accordingly. Despite a relatively high global GDP growth, unemployment only marginally changed over the course of 5 years and is forecasted to remain stagnant going into 2017. Unemployment, however, is often difficult to predict, primarily now since most economies are still recovering from the 2008 global financial crisis. http://www.statista.com/statistics/268750/global-gross-domestic-product-gdp/
Content from External Source
(In 2014 Global GDP was ~77 trillion USD)

So unless my math is way wrong (which is completely possible), the supposed net worth of the Royal Family is roughly 1/3 the combined value of every good made and every service performed in every country on the planet in the year 2014.

That is, indeed, an extraordinary claim. And we all know what extraordinary claims require.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
As per the other thread, that idea is based on the idea that she owns all the land in England and the commonwealth. But she does not.
 
As per the other thread, that idea is based on the idea that she owns all the land in England and the commonwealth. But she does not.

Ya I had picked up on that from the thread. I wasn't trying to misrepresent what was in there (the Queen doesn't own all the land in England and the commonwealth) but to put into perspective the amount that she could supposedly raise according to these CT's. I know you've already thoroughly debunked the idea of the Queen having that sort of money or assets:

So this £17 trillion figure is total nonsense. It suggests the Queen could raise cash by selling Canada, Australia and the entirety of the UK! The Queen does not own those countries, she's simply the titular (powerless) head of state.
 
Top