I Stand with the Queen

JR_Rustler_III

πŸ‡°πŸ‡· Gookwaffen πŸ‡―πŸ‡΅
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»πŸ₯©
Destructive Ceremonious Master
I condemn every right-wing figure who is taking the opportunity of her death to attack her, and I condemn anyone hoping King Charles will fail. I think likely King Charles will fail.
He's already declared that he's in bed with the Davos/WEF/globalist/transhumanist crowd, so he's already "failed" in the sense that he no longer represents the UK, or the British people, or the legacy of the British monarchy.

Who knows, maybe that will change. But I doubt it.

Obviously nobody here supports the negroes who are controlled by Jews, and the Jews themselves, who attack the monarchy, but what else would they do? As much as QE2 pandered to the Jews and the negroes and the pakis and the fags, etc., it was never going to be enough, because QE2 was white, and all the European monarchs who ever lived are white. So obviously Jews and their minions are going to attack her, and her progeny, and her ancestors. This isn't that complicated.
 

Coltraine

America First
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»
ZOG stands. Babylon stood. He’s seemed distant for some time. Not everything exists via the Will of God.
Yes, and that's why I don't use God in my own judgment of the British Monarchy (see my first two comments in this OP). Because even Jim Jones sincerely believed he was doing God's will under God's own authority whenever he perpetrated mass murder-suicide of the Peoples Temple cult in 1978. There's millions of instances across history where bad things were done and said under the assumption that God was willing these things into existence.

Which is all why I think it's a bad argument altogether. Not that it's either "true" or "false" objectively speaking, but just that someone declaring that God blesses one thing or another is so often in the eye of the beholder. The fact is that everybody sincerely thinks they're doing the right thing regardless. If people believe in God, then they consider their own actions blessed by God accordingly. And despite what Wikipedia says about Adolf Hitler, nobody deliberately sets out from the beginning thinking that they're going to go against God's will or something and just overpower the deity. Well, Jews do that constantly, but my point is that Hitler too thought he was acting on God's orders and with his blessing- and normies still use this example today in the same way I just used Jim Jones above.

My point is it's not nearly as simple as just claiming that God blesses something or someone.

Everybody assumes God blesses their actions- as England's King Charles I assumed it too right before Oliver Cromwell and company beheaded him and installed themselves as God's agent here on earth.

However... if we're going by objectively what God blesses or doesn't bless, then the existence of the British Monarchy currently despite all the calamity associated with modernity ever since the time of the French Revolution, then this speaks to the fact that the British Monarchy is indeed blessed by God to still be standing.
 

Danespear

Kike Woke AF
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»
Well then God is judging the British Monarchy good then since God hasn't destroyed it.
He hasn't?

Maybe take another look at Charles and his heirs.

Take a look at pictures of Jimmy Saville and many other demonic ghouls just like him who had and still have free reign in all royal houses.
 
Last edited:

Danespear

Kike Woke AF
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»
Okay the burden of proof is on you if you're going to say that Jews backed the Norman Invasion. I'm all ears if you've got proof to that claim
The only person who has mentioned the word "jew"in this context is you. WTF are you even talking about?

I'm asking you or anyone to tell me where William, as war chief, came from and how he assembled the resources to do what he did. The history, as far as I can tell, is extremely murky on this subject. Suspiciously so. Considering the course of the 1,000 years following 1066, aren't you a little curious though?
 
Last edited:

Sardinian_Guy

Vlad nuke Brandon
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“
Royals are parasites jut read what happened in Italy during WW2 when the Italian King fled Rome to Brindisi in Southern Italy to surrender to the AL"lies" leave the capital and government without a guide made German forces suspicious about the general populace because partisans (aka terrorist in these days), starting a civil war between Italians that endured for a year
 

Coltraine

America First
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»
He hasn't?

Maybe take another look at Charles and his heirs.

Take a look at pictures of Jimmy Saville and many other demonic ghouls just like him who had and still have free reign in all royal houses.
"Oh, daddy isn't absolutely perfect in all conceivable ways... I should just destroy my family and the entirety of the planet because daddy isn't absolutely perfect in my eyes alone!"

You guys make the most adolescent arguments.
 
Last edited:

Danespear

Kike Woke AF
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»
"Oh, daddy isn't absolutely perfect in all conceivable ways... I should just destroy my family and the entirety of the planet because daddy isn't absolutely perfect in my eyes alone!"

You guys make the most adolescent arguments.
Sillier than I ever would have expected from you.
 

BillyRayJenkins

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½


I’ve seen a lot of people attacking the Queen because she oversaw the end of the British empire. I think there is probably something to say about that, actually – but it doesn’t even matter at all. Maybe the Queen could have been political, and maybe her being political would have been a good thing, but she wasn’t political.

Furthermore, the monarchy had been chained up since Oliver Cromwell, and the actual amount of power they had was questionable. Cromwell proved that the parliament can just kill the monarch, and that was something they had to keep in mind. The crown probably wanted to side with Adolf Hitler, and they couldn’t make that happen.

But it doesn’t even matter either way. It’s literally irrelevant. The Queen, whoever she was as a person, remains a symbol of the British and of white people in general – a symbol of our previous glory. The blacks and Jews attacking her view her as a symbol, so we pretty much have to take that at face value.

I’m sure as hell not standing with these blacks and Jews attacking the Queen – that is disgusting to me. I’m never standing with the Jews on anything, as I’ve repeatedly explained – yes, I will stake positions based on not agreeing with Jews, and I don’t apologize for that.

Yes, there are conversations to be had about what the Queen could or couldn’t have done, what she did or did do, and what she did secretly or semi-secretly. I think it’s fine to have that conversation. But you don’t go out and condemn her after she died, standing with these undesirables. That is plainly gross.

I condemn every right-wing figure who is taking the opportunity of her death to attack her, and I condemn anyone hoping King Charles will fail. I think likely King Charles will fail. I don’t think he has the strength to stand up against these screeching mulatto females calling for an end to the monarchy. But we should all be hoping and praying that he preserves the throne.

Things are not always going to be this bad. Eventually, things are going to get better. When things get better, it would be good to have the monarchy in tact, as a link between the present and the past. It would give the British, and white people generally, the moral authority to build a new political and social order. We can get that moral authority from something else, but there is no reason not to have the monarchy.

Prince William could be a based King.



He would play the same role in a right-wing society that Elizabeth played in a leftist society – he would just stand back and not ever say anything political, while providing moral authority to the nation.

Charles doesn’t look especially healthy, so we’re probably looking at a situation where William will take over around the time things start to shift back to the right, and we begin to physically remove some of these people from our country. This would be much better than a situation where Charles goes along with allowing these Jews and their pets to abolish the monarchy.

Continue reading...
Andrew

The thing is, Queen Elizabeth II did NOT begin the dismemberment of the British Empire, her father George VI signed off on that. By the time she was put on the throne in 1953, Britain was phasing out all her African Colonies, working toward independence, India had already been free for 6 years at that point. As to Cromwell, Charles II who was installed after Cromwell's death and his brother James II, last Catholic King, had a great deal of power. Even after the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the King had one way he maintained his power. At that time, The House Of Lords, like the US Senate had to sign off on all laws. So the King would just make his favorites Lords and they would vote stuff down. Where everything went into the toilet was Queen Victoria. After Prince Albert died in 1861, the Queen basically put on her widow's rags and refused to do anything about the Government, giving the House of Commons literally total control, although The Lords would still act as a Veto. In 1911, Commons voted to remove the Lords veto power, making the Lords a symbolic relic and ever since then, the Royals have taken a back seat. Still until recent years, the Queen did have the power to dissolve Parliament and the British Military and Police all took oaths to HER. So had she declared a State Of Emergency and dissolved Parliament, spoke out on behalf of the Indigenous Brits, Parliament likely couldnt have stopped it. The thing is the Queen DID NOT CARE. She was fully on board with Kalergi and the Jewish demons. So am I gonna demonize her? No. The last King of England who MIGHT have stood against this madness was Edward VIII and he refused to be King, because of a divorced skank he refused to be without. George VI, whose real first name was Albert, Elizabeth's Father was a stutterer and a pushover and he allowed the Jews and the slime everything they asked and more. Edward VIII it is worth noting had he been allowed to rule, would have made Elizabeth Queen in 1972 at his death as either he or his wife or both were infertile.

As I think I said before Andrew, if I can't have an Austrian Uncle, I'd definitely prefer Monarchy to any modern form of government, as Tradition is what anchors a people. Had neither Queen Victoria or Elizbeth II lived as long as they did and a King had taken over sooner, its possible things wouldnt be in as bad of shape as they are. Possible not probable
 

Coltraine

America First
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»
Sillier than I ever would have expected from you.
You addressed yourself to me originally with an adolescent argument. You sought me out- not the other way around. To which I responded with way more than you deserve here.

I gave a much more sophisticated, holistic, pragmatic argument above in my first two comments here for why the institution of the British Monarchy should not only endure now but why it's an objectively positive entity overall relative to the type of civilizational clusterfuck we find ourselves inside at the moment.

In reaction to my very practical argument, you guys come at me with this "Fuck You Dad... Burn It All Down!" type of angst where you're actively making the perfect the enemy of the good while alternatively bringing "God" into the argument as if anybody here or anywhere else truly knows God's actual will whatsoever! And you do this without addressing a single positive argument made by either Anglin or myself in the above OP.
 

FreddieMiles

awsheeit
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’
Rhetoric and appealing to common traditional/historical centers-of-attention in this way is a powerful political mechanism which definitely should never just be voluntarily forfeited under really any circumstances in my opinion. Because if /we/ do not use this kind of rhetoric now in the present, if /we/ fail to own this story, this history, this heritage, then we better believe that somebody else will attempt to own it and manipulate it for themselves (likely against /us/) currently. In essence, that's exactly what Jews have been so successful at doing to our people over the last few decades especially. First they make us ashamed to identify with our own heroes or great ideas of the past, and then secondly before you know it Jews are invoking those same heroes and ideas for themselves as us now in the present in order to control our own people and to own our own future destiny! This was the way Leo Strauss and others, for example, managed to gain control over America's burgeoning Conservative movement originally- through this specific kind of rhetoric where through it Jews were able to redefine what it meant to be conservative and, really, what it meant to be American too ultimately. And in the future, we just must prevent and guard against these sorts of easy rhetorical own-goals if possible in my opinion. That's kind of the point to me bringing up all this shared history originally.

Ed Dutton did a memorial stream and then came back and did a critical stream, which I thought was more interesting. Ed lists several changes to English law - loss of fundamental rights. I wasn't aware of the extent. It's a different system since they only have tradition over there rather than written law / bill of rights. The need for institutional players to stand up and oppose is paramount and this queen did nothing.

 

Coltraine

America First
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»
Ed Dutton did a memorial stream and then came back and did a critical stream, which I thought was more interesting. Ed lists several changes to English law - loss of fundamental rights. I wasn't aware of the extent. It's a different system since they only have tradition over there rather than written law / bill of rights. The need for institutional players to stand up and oppose is paramount and this queen did nothing.

You of all people I thought would appreciate my original argument, since most of it is stuff I've borrowed directly from you (as intermediary) over the years.

The funny thing is that I really don't even care that much- I'm American and thus my own cultural history is anti-Monarchical in general and even anti-British specifically at least originally.

But whenever I see these sad goyim agreeing with the Jews here for all the wrong reasons indeed, it just compels me further to want to take the classical, traditional side of monarchy in general and the British Monarchy in particular. I look at my company on either side of this argument and I think I'm good where I stand.

I'll check out the link eventually though. Thanks.
 

TheAvenger

Love Your Fate :"Amor Fati"
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»
He'll always be Queen Charles for me, the new King is the new inbred Queen of the lizards.

I'm really perplexed how anyone can defend these monstrosities.

Here's a minute take on what's in store.

 

Habakkuk

Well-known member
Career Poster
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»
E Michael Jones had, I think, a balanced take on the queen and her legacy. Of course he’s a confirmed anglophobe, but at least he takes the time to distinguish his own criticisms of Elizabeth from those of the CRT Twitters mob. And he also clarified something I had misunderstood previously, debunking the claim that Cromwell was the man directly responsible for readmitting the Jews to England.


The Jews who had been superseded by the Lombards returned to England in 1660 at the time of the restoration under Charles II, not as most people believed, under Cromwell during the interregnum.
 

FreddieMiles

awsheeit
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’
You of all people I thought would appreciate my original argument, since most of it is stuff I've borrowed directly from you (as intermediary) over the years.

The funny thing is that I really don't even care that much- I'm American and thus my own cultural history is anti-Monarchical in general and even anti-British specifically at least originally.

But whenever I see these sad goyim agreeing with the Jews here for all the wrong reasons indeed, it just compels me further to want to take the classical, traditional side of monarchy in general and the British Monarchy in particular. I look at my company on either side of this argument and I think I'm good where I stand.

I'll check out the link eventually though. Thanks.

:ROFLMAO: yeah I know dude. I recognized that - as a people, you need affirmation to create any kind of form. (The "dissident" or "dissonant" or "radically opposed" Right doesn't understand this. In their efforts, they navigate primarily via opposition or negation. They take form as "given", to already exist, not realizing it has to be created. And they don't grasp that affirmation is the principal creative modality.)
Anyway- form is the objective; entropy is the danger, the precursor to death. And the most readily available forms are your historical forms, which rather than create anew your task is simplified to just extending them through time and space. Preserve the form, preserve the practice, preserve the memory. Ergo, negating any form that is central to your history is a losing gambit. I followed the argument you developed in your comments. But... since we're in agreement on the strategic level, I was going off on a tangent. I saw this meme on twatter, something like during the reign of QEII, britons lost the rights of X, Y, Z, etc. Some pretty stark statements, I thought it must be exaggeration. Then I saw autistic Ed's stream and he mentioned some of the same points. The English used to be protected from double jeopardy, for example, being tried for same crime twice. Evidently this has been taken away.

Anyway, if you need to do something political, in the public space, you can only speak through reference to the historical forms of the population you wish to reach. A people are in symbiotic relationship to the concepts they know and use, and through which they understand themselves. You can't just go in there, negate it all, propose something new, and then say DoN't YoU uNdErStAnD? Political existence is pre-cognitive, prior to rational justification. If you want to change something about a people, you have to find that thing you want somewhere already within them. Affirmation is basically the creative or collective act. Listen to Trump speak, he never "proves" anything. Most of the time he throws out affirmations. He brings into center, into focus, affirmations of who we are - the collective act, creating form - and negations of our enemies, as contrast. He just riffs, bringing these sentiments into center. Delineates forms, us vs them. This is a phenomenon first based on presence, which then functions as collective point of shared attention, which then acts by bringing sentiments into and out of view - who we are, who our enemies are - so each can be experienced and understood collectively. This results are the participants understanding themselves as one form. That's a political body. It's a very different experience, or way to spend time, than saying Don't you understand my IdEoLoGy?? Here are my arguments, my facts....
 

TheBoom

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“
King Charley is one of the leaders of the Great Reset and has a wide range of strategies to push it.

"His official website announced on June 3 2020: β€œToday, through HRH’s Sustainable Markets Initiative and the World Economic Forum, The Prince of Wales launched a new global initiative, The Great Reset”.

A royal tweet declared: β€œ#TheGreatReset initiative is designed to ensure businesses and communities β€˜build back better’ by putting sustainable business practices at the heart of their operations as they begin to recover from the coronavirus pandemic”.

This may come as a bit of a surprise to those who see Charles as a bumbling but affable figure, who talks to his plants, loves traditional architecture, protects nature and tries to help young people get along in life.

But the reality, as we will show here, is that he is the head (or the very willing figurehead) of a vast empire of nefarious financial interests hiding hypocritically behind a facade of charitable philanthropy."

 

Coltraine

America First
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»
E Michael Jones had, I think, a balanced take on the queen and her legacy. Of course he’s a confirmed anglophobe, but at least he takes the time to distinguish his own criticisms of Elizabeth from those of the CRT Twitters mob. And he also clarified something I had misunderstood previously, debunking the claim that Cromwell was the man directly responsible for readmitting the Jews to England.


Yep. This is something that I hear often not only in our own circles but elsewhere at large too that Cromwell is responsible for readmitting the Jews to England. Amazingly, I even still come across this sometimes even in the academic context too.

But no Cromwell is not really responsible in general here. What can be said is that Cromwell tried to bring the Jews back into England formally and officially, and that he failed in that endeavor at the Whitehall Conference. And it can be said that there definitely still was a small group of merchant Jews living in London at the time of the Commonwealth, but even these Sephardic Jews at least outwardly pretended to be sincere Protestant Christians. It can also be said that Cromwell had numerous business dealings with Jews both personally as well as in his official capacity under his Commonwealth and Protectorate.

As a quid-pro-quo for financing and backing the Stuart Restoration, it was Charles II who really gave Jews permission. And Jews only really started coming in mass during the 1660s- and even then under Charles this was still not legal readmission of the Jews either. The way the Stuarts (and the Jews) desired it at that time was that everything would be intentionally kept ambiguous on the legal level. And thus the Crown sort of just pretended it didn't notice Jews at that time swarming toward England in abundance, taking over commerce in various areas, while at the same time the Jews were really not supposed to be flouting their distinct Jewishness in public either.

Gradually this status-quo eventually provided the initial impetus for formal Jewish Emancipation in England during the 19th Century. Jews had tried to do this earlier in time but always failed pretty hard because of the antipathy this proposal engendered in many sectors of British society. It's a subject that definitely a lot of people are not totally clear on to be honest- I've noticed. Eventually I've been wanting to do a better effort-post on the Cromwellian era and on the Restoration in general here.

The most interesting thing about it in my opinion is how the Jews got their readmission without technically, formally titling it readmission. And that's something we can all certainly relate to here in our own times probably with how Jews work and how Jews just are- as well as how they interact with/toward the non-Jewish community too at the same time. This example, for instance, reminds me of our recent "vaccines" that weren't really traditional vaccinations whatsoever, but mRNA genetic modifiers that were publicly presented merely as "vaccines", in which even the popular dictionary definition of "vaccine" had to be altered in order to do that! Well, Jewish readmission to England under the Stuarts was a similar proposal with similar deceptive dynamics.

In this case in the 17th Century, the most hardcore Christians then considered that they had ultimately won in the battle over Jewish Readmission, and technically they did win indeed. But it's just that Jews along with the British elite of that time didn't care about mere technicalities really. They were enabling Jews to come in and thrive and they didn't necessarily give a damn what it was called or how the people saw it themselves. Which is quite a statement made if you ask me. It's a flex of the capability of Jewish Power itself at that early date.

As far as I know there has never actually even been a formal repeal of the 1290 Expulsion, and this is the main argument that William Prynne, a famous Puritan lawyer and anti-Semite, made at the time of these debates such as at the Whitehall Conference and elsewhere during this same period. And since there was no repeal of the 1290 Expulsion, it followed naturally (and legally) that the Jews then couldn't be readmitted to England on those grounds. So while it was difficult for the Stuarts at the time to legally invite Jews back in, they still allowed it happen regardless under the pretext of various naive Protestant "conversionist" proposals that stipulated that having Jews physically in England would somehow hasten their supposed conversion to Christianity, which we all see how that's worked out so poorly in the ensuing centuries and currently, lol.

The bottom line is that the ambiguity of it all is precisely how the Jews got readmission accomplished. And that yes, this happened under King Charles II rather than Cromwell mostly. Cromwell is still guilty for laying a lot of the groundwork however.
 
Last edited:

Wigless

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏ
Yep. This is something that I hear often not only in our own circles but elsewhere at large too that Cromwell is responsible for readmitting the Jews to England. Amazingly, I even still come across this sometimes even in the academic context too....


The bottom line is that the ambiguity of it all is precisely how the Jews got readmission accomplished. And that yes, this happened under King Charles II rather than Cromwell mostly. Cromwell is still guilty for laying a lot of the groundwork however.
Thanks for that. I've learned a good deal from several posters on this forum and you're definitely one of them.
 

Mark

Well-known asshole. Don't mess with MarkieBoy!
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»
We can't all stand with the Queen.


"A guard has fainted while keeping watch over Queen Elizabeth II's coffin at Westminster Hall in London in front of a long queue of people paying their respects to her.

Video footage shows the guard swaying before falling face-first off the catafalque, which is a slightly raised platform on which the coffin is placed.

Two police officers rushed to the guard's aid and a change of guards occurred not long after.


A rotation of royal bodyguards and other royal military units, including the Household Cavalry, the Grenadier Guards and the Coldstream Guards, are keeping a 24-hour vigil around Her Majesty's coffin.

On Thursday morning (NZ time), Queen Elizabeth's coffin was carried in procession from Buckingham Palace to Westminster Hall.

King Charles and his sons, Prince William and Harry, walked behind the Queen's coffin as it travelled from Buckingham Palace to the hall.

Hundreds of thousands of people lined the streets to catch a glimpse of the coffin before Her Majesty was left to lie in state, giving the public a chance to pay their respects for the next few days."

 

Cathy

Fiddle with it to realize
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»
We can't all stand with the Queen.


"A guard has fainted while keeping watch over Queen Elizabeth II's coffin at Westminster Hall in London in front of a long queue of people paying their respects to her.

Video footage shows the guard swaying before falling face-first off the catafalque, which is a slightly raised platform on which the coffin is placed.

Two police officers rushed to the guard's aid and a change of guards occurred not long after.


A rotation of royal bodyguards and other royal military units, including the Household Cavalry, the Grenadier Guards and the Coldstream Guards, are keeping a 24-hour vigil around Her Majesty's coffin.

On Thursday morning (NZ time), Queen Elizabeth's coffin was carried in procession from Buckingham Palace to Westminster Hall.

King Charles and his sons, Prince William and Harry, walked behind the Queen's coffin as it travelled from Buckingham Palace to the hall.

Hundreds of thousands of people lined the streets to catch a glimpse of the coffin before Her Majesty was left to lie in state, giving the public a chance to pay their respects for the next few days."

I mean no disrespect, but that picture is funny.
 

Individualist

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»
I don’t hate the queen but I do think the brits are a bunch of hopeless cucks.

I guess I’m a dyed and true Jeffersonian, and I still believe in the spirit of 1776.
 

Mark

Well-known asshole. Don't mess with MarkieBoy!
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»
I mean no disrespect, but that picture is funny.
Another vax casualty, I'd guess. Heather McDonald's fall was much funnier - perfect comic timing!
 

Cathy

Fiddle with it to realize
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»
Another vax casualty, I'd guess. Heather McDonald's fall was much funnier - perfect comic timing!
I witnessed an usher faint during a church wedding ceremony. It was hilarious, but I managed not to burst out laughing, cuz that's just the kind of gracious and poised lady I am...πŸ˜‚

He was fine, just needed some air.
 

Mike Sinclair

I'm your huckleberry
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“
Escaped True Master
It's distasteful that Americans show so much reverence for the British throne. The English get a pass, sure, but Yanks should have only one King.
 

EddieBrock

Ex-Ladies' Man Bored of Low-Class Trash
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»
Yes, and that's why I don't use God in my own judgment of the British Monarchy (see my first two comments in this OP). Because even Jim Jones sincerely believed he was doing God's will under God's own authority whenever he perpetrated mass murder-suicide of the Peoples Temple cult in 1978. There's millions of instances across history where bad things were done and said under the assumption that God was willing these things into existence.

Which is all why I think it's a bad argument altogether. Not that it's either "true" or "false" objectively speaking, but just that someone declaring that God blesses one thing or another is so often in the eye of the beholder. The fact is that everybody sincerely thinks they're doing the right thing regardless. If people believe in God, then they consider their own actions blessed by God accordingly. And despite what Wikipedia says about Adolf Hitler, nobody deliberately sets out from the beginning thinking that they're going to go against God's will or something and just overpower the deity. Well, Jews do that constantly, but my point is that Hitler too thought he was acting on God's orders and with his blessing- and normies still use this example today in the same way I just used Jim Jones above.

My point is it's not nearly as simple as just claiming that God blesses something or someone.

Everybody assumes God blesses their actions- as England's King Charles I assumed it too right before Oliver Cromwell and company beheaded him and installed themselves as God's agent here on earth.

However... if we're going by objectively what God blesses or doesn't bless, then the existence of the British Monarchy currently despite all the calamity associated with modernity ever since the time of the French Revolution, then this speaks to the fact that the British Monarchy is indeed blessed by God to still be standing.
Ok, people can quote God while demanding nonsense, but what about when they quote God while demanding righteousness?

What God wants is what God wants, regardless of whatever nonsense humans interject.

My job is to further God’s Will. I will do whatever is required to accomplish what is asked of me.
 
Last edited:

Angryguy

Same angryguy new look
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ–
The blacks and Jews attacking her view her as a symbol, so we pretty much have to take that at face value.
Just like they attacked george bush as a symbol of white people. I detested their reasons but I am not going to do a 180 and defend him as a human being.
 
Top