Isn't it a bit absurd to declare symbolism will be their downfall in describing an event where you have zero idea of what the symbolism actually means? It's not like they're parading some goat skull about or anything.
I posted the same video. It's just the changing of the long guard. It doesn't just happen at Buckingham, it's a whole thing. And youtube-mc-clickbait-title guy got everyone in a tizzy.
Yea, and considering that at this point the UK royal family is pretty much purely symbolic, it's not surprising that they and anyone associated with them are steeped in symbolism. If they didn't employ symbolism, they'd basically be no different from any other random family.
And as you insinuate, there is nothing inherently wrong with symbolism. It ultimately depends on what is being symbolized.
The British Monarch represents "the Crown". The Crown is the body of law built up in British history. The Monarch represents the Crown, and is subject to the Crown. To fulfill that role, the Monarch must make certain oaths to uphold the crown.
They are a symbol of the Crown, but are subject to the Crown. The Crown is the sovereignty established through law.
Since the Magna Carta, it was established that monarchs are subject to law, and cannot designate law willy-nilly according to their own whim. This principle was tested at the time of the English Revolution, and reinforced. (The Monarch lost his head.)
Purely symbolic? No. They have great power and wealth. But under law, they are subject to the Law, which is what is embodied in "The Crown".
The law rules. The law came into being rooted in the immutable laws transcendent of men. The problem is, when corruption infiltrates, then those who violate the law are not held accountable. This is the problem. So they ride roughshod over the law with impunity.
From a theological perspective, its the same thing. Evil came to have 'jurisdiction' over the world because of the actions of the original human progenitors. Evil uses lies, and violates God's law with impunity, because there has been no one qualified to hold it to account.
This is why the Messiah became necessary. And although Jesus opened spiritual salvation via the cross, the material plane has remained under evil's control, because Jesus had to give up his body in order to accomplish that spiritual salvation. That's why the 2nd coming became necessary.
The money masters are the bankers. They are not the crown. And, if the royal turds serve them, it's because the royals are owned by them. Like A&E in the garden, the royal families signed themselves over, and so the bankers have control and jurisdiction.
But ultimately, sovereignty resides in the People. The constitutional monarchy is a tacit acknowledgement of this principle, as is the US constitution.
This is why the Great Awakening is necessary. The bankers, etc, and their evil system can only be held to account by those who have the authority to do so, and this is the People. The problem is, the People have not understood this.
The Crown is the ally of the People. It is like a sword that can be used to cut down evil and set things right. But the People do not know how the wield the sword. They have been out maneuvered by the evil sectors for a LONG time.
Those who were paying attention during 2020/2021 saw this very clearly. All the "mandates' in the world doesn't make them actually lawful. But the problem was, too few people understood this and pushed back. And when you do not push back, from a legal standpoint, this is acquiescence and signifies agreement.
To wit: This mandate requires that you MUST wear and mask IF you agree that this mandate requires you to wear a mask.
It was merely presented as a psyop to gain compliance and agreement from the people. These mandates and other measures violated the law in hundreds of ways, but because too few people were awake enough to push back and hold the violators accountable, who do you think "won the day"?
The Parliament serves the Crown. The Crown is the sovereign Law that governs the United Kingdom. The symbol of that Crown, aka the Law, is the Monarch.
The Monarch is subject to the law, but also represents the law. So Parliament reporting to the Monarch is part of the Parliament reporting to the representative of the Crown.
This (I think) is something that so many people simply ignore or are ignorant of. What is the position of the Monarch under British Law? What is the position of the parliament?
The Parliament is (under law) meant to represent the People. All are subject to the Law, aka the Crown: the monarch, the parliament, the people.
(Putting aside the issue of corruption - pretty much ALL governance systems have been infiltrated and corrupted):
The monarch and their immediate family undertake various official, ceremonial, diplomatic and representational duties. The monarchy is constitutional, meaning that, although formally the monarch still has authority over the government—which is known as "His/Her Majesty's Government"— this power may only be used according to laws enacted in Parliament and within constraints of convention and precedent.
Note that the British common law became the foundation for the US constitution (which codifies common law). The very reason that the United States was formed and how they justified the revolution was that the British monarch was acting "unlawfully".
How much goes on behind the scenes, and what levels of power and wealth the Monarch actually wields, that may well be debatable. But from the viewpoint of law, they too are bound by law, and in the British system, only Parliament (representatives of the people, supposedly) can make statues and laws.
Exactly the Royals hold a lot of power, especially in the House of Lords. America has Congress and Senate. Each of them being people that are voted in.
But n Britain our Senate (Lords) were all selected by the Monarch, so when a law is passed from Parliament to Lords (congress to senate) to get passed as a law it goes into the Monarchs 'Yes' men jurisdiction.
Meaning the monarch still has somewhat absolute control. If a Lord does not do what he wants he can simply remove them.
There are certainly constraints upon what the Monarch can do. You say, "he can simply remove them" but in practice, is this true? Without any repercussions? Without objections? Any consequences? I don't think so.
There definitely be push back, but what has the last few years taught us other than people complaining doesn't change a thing.
Remember Britain was an empire, we might of gave the countries back but we haven't changed a thing in regards to structure of our government and monarchy. It's still the same as it was then.
It's just the monarchy had a change of conscience and believe in 'political neutrality'.
With all due respect, and at the risk of catching a ban, I don't believe disagreeing with someone who happens to be a mod falls under the category of giving them grief.
I 100% understand how people arguing with mods about things related to the mod doing their jobs is worthy of a ban or reprimand.
But being a mod shouldn't mean that no one can disagree with their opinion on topics such as this without being in fear of getting banned.
Being a mod doesn't make someone's opinions infallible. I think there should be a clear line drawn between a mod expressing their opinion on a subject like any other Anon, and a mod being in mod mode when they're dealing with something that requires them to do their job as a mod.
It’s “how” the tone is done. I was not questioning the question. But since you seem to need an excessive detailed explanation; thank you for attempting to correct a Mod, where NO Correction or Intervention was needed Anon. Please mind your own business period. And that is a clear warning.
Ok, Devil's avocado here. (And Brent, you know I respect our mods highly.)
Here's the quote:
Isn't it a bit absurd to declare symbolism will be their downfall in describing an event where you have zero idea of what the symbolism actually means? It's not like they're parading some goat skull about or anything.
I think a lot of us will probably fail to see how there is anything untoward in the tone here (I do). Maybe in the assertion.... ie..e "you posted an absurd subject line" but the tone seems perfectly fine to me.
If you can clarify or expound on this, that would be great.
That said, offgridguy came back and responded well to your admonition, so that's a win, either way.
Yep I was only worried in the tone. As of the questions and info, I’ll let CatsFive and y’all ponder this. I understand some symbolism but I myself am no expert or information guy on going to deep on this area.
I apologize for the tone, I'm having a difficult time watching what is happening to this Country I love, and that probably slipped in to what was an attempt to convey that the particular symbolism in use had no obvious meaning to me and I was hoping for someone better informed to explain what the entity/affiliation/significance of it was. I gather from some other comments I am not the only one confused by it.
"goat skull". Good one. I see what you did there... 😉
But you have a point. We need more resources that teach the symbolism. And I'm not talking about the "official" symbolism, but what things really mean.
We definitely have something odd going on, here. I cannot find anything else like it. The black covering on a ceremonial staff or mace could signify mourning or remembrance, particularly if it's used in a military context or during a state ceremony where honoring the fallen is part of the protocol. It can also represent solemnity and the gravity of an occasion, marking it as a serious and formal event. The use of black in such a context aligns with its traditional association with respect and the somber recognition of significant transitions or periods of national reflection.
The presence of a white horse carrying a staff with black covering in a royal guard context can hold symbolic significance, often representing honor, tradition, or a ceremonial role. The specific meaning may vary based on cultural and historical contexts, so it's advisable to refer to the traditions and customs of the particular royal guard or ceremonial unit in question for a more accurate interpretation.
"King Charles is in a very serious condition - Cancer very aggressive"
"William is on the brink of succession"
Britain's Mirror revealed that King Charles' health condition is "much more serious" than doctors first thought as he finally battles a very aggressive cancer.
Tom Quinn, an expert on Buckingham's subjects, said that doctors thought the cancer would not be so aggressive but they were wrong.
The Blues and Royals wear blue tunics and metal helmets with red plumes. Except for the Trumpeters who ride grays, they ride black horses.
unusual to see that formation of two black horses and one white horse
Well, that may well be true. The dude narrating the video certainly seems to think so. And as something unusual, it's an interesting departure point for research. But to move from "it's unusual (aka uncommon)" to "It must be a comm" or "it's evil symbolism" is quite a leap, imo.
It's far too easy to amplify speculation if research or evidence are ignored, and I think (personally) that's unhelpful. It's certainly not Q-ish, if you know what I mean. Q is all about research, evidence, facts,
Nah, I’ve seen Charles for the faggot he is since the early ‘70s. His momma bought him an Aston-Martin back then, probably hoping he’d kill himself in it. I think he’s the reason she hung on so long, she knew him for what he is.
I wonder about the anti-Prince William hate though. He seems to not be such an asshole.
They can all go to hell as far as I’m concerned; my people refer to their flag as “the butcher’s apron”…
I think she knew he was weak and after he was compromised with the whole Camilla Diana thing she knew he wasn’t up to the job and thus hung on as long as she could.
He was champing at the bit to take the throne and the media was being briefed regularly that she was handing off work to him and he was going to be regent yada yada and there would then be subtle pushback usually via the Times about how the Queen took her vow to serve for life literally. It felt like a media bun fight.
The Queen kinda wrote him off after Diana died - I don’t think he ordered it cos he hasn’t got the stones - I wonder if Michael Fawcett was involved in it and that way why he famously said he could “do without just about anyone except Michael” and Fawcett was given repeated chances after being collared d for
Financial impropriety.
However Diana’s death was used to gain control of Charles and cow the Queen.
Kind of “if we can take out your most popular you are all vulnerable”. At that point she focused on William and training him up. In later years it was notable that the Queen turned to William to help carry the load more than to her heir apparent. Also both William and the Queen visited MI5/6 notably, on a number of occasions. This was after her government were tumbled for interference in the US election. If William were one of theirs then the media would be kissing his ass 24/7 a la Obama/clinton/markle. It’s notable they don’t.
Looks like it's a military flag that is being covered, cause they don't want the people to see it. Or they are just training and only uncover it for an actual event or parade. Compare this photo to previouse ones and that might hold the answer.
It would be hilarious to fly a flag, but also cover it up so that no one could see. Seems like it would be ridiculous, but I wouldn’t put it past them to do something like that.
Training runs with new horses are typically done at night, with less traffic.
The crowds here are lined up to see the Changing of the Guard at Buckingham Palace, which happens every day (as far as I know.) It's a very popular tourist event there, so there's nothing unusual about that. But the video narrator, and others on X, were saying they've never seen anything like the three riders at the front carrying what looks like a black-sheathed flag.
So we have here the colour guard of the Blues and Royals, Household Cavalry. The Blues and Royals used to be a separate Regiment, and the Life Guards was the other making up the Household Cavalry until they amalgamated them both a few years back.
The Officer has his sword drawn, to protect the "Colours" and most likely the duty "Colour Sergeant" with Colours covered, and the Duty Trumpeter on the white horse, riding slightly behind the colours which will always be in front.
You would not have the colours unfurled unless it was an official showing of them, my best guess is they are simply moving them or training, I honestly don't think there is anything to it. The Standard isn't flying at Buckingham Palace meaning the King isn't there, I can't quite make out who they gave the "Eyes right" salute too, but it looked like they past a gate or entrance or possibly paying respect to the Princess Diana memorial imho if they were heading up towards Admiralty Arch.
And no, the duty trumpeter isn't missing a leg, them riding boots cover a long way up the leg, and the rest of his leg is hidden between the horses "numnah" (The black sheepskin material the saddle sits on) and his winter red coat.
When the King is in residence (At which ever palace/castle/house or the Royal Arms of Scotland when he's there in Scotland) the Royal Standard will be flown, when he's not it'll be the Union flag.
I think the narrator is confusing the State Trumpeters with the mounted duty trumpeters and escorts of the Blues and Royals Regiment. I can't recall the original reason, but the bulk of the horses the Blues and Royals ride are always "Blacks" usually Irish Draught breed. I suspect the use of a grey horse (technically there's no such thing as a white horse) is to differentiate between the fighting troops and those who would sound the various orders for charge's etc during battle.
These Regiments have a long history with many different honours and traditions, my Cavalry Regiment for instance was also part of the charge of the light brigade in 1854.
I think what got everyone's attention was the colours being sheathed in black. I've never seen that before - has anyone else? Any photos anywhere, anything?
One statement on X: Rare Sighting Of The #UK Kings Guardsmen Regiment Marching Down The Mall Westminster. White Horse Comes Out When The King Is There (But Charles Was Not There) 2 Black Horse Guardsmen Escort The Kingdoms Flag Which Is Covered In Black.
Since the white horse is rare and present when the monarch is there (commentator recording it) mentioned no monarch was present.
Someone else suggested that maybe the white horseman was holding a bag containing King Charles ashes.
I found this: The Household Cavalry is a union of the two most senior regiments in the British Army; The Life Guards and The Blues & Royals. Trusted guardians of the Monarch since 1660.
I just read the other day some royal watcher claimed after King Charles's death is officially announced Princess Ann(e) was to become Queen Regent until George is old enough to take the crown skipping over Prince William. Don't know if this is true or not.
No, they wouldn't do that unless William died/abdicated also, neither of which has much chance of happening. Should George, William's oldest son, end up being the king, his mother Catherine is most likely to be named regent. But right now, it's William who's on deck.
This wasn't exactly training - the crowds were gathered there to see the Changing of the Guard, which happens every day there at Buckingham Palace (as far as I know.)
Training rides for new soldiers/horses usually happen at night when there is less traffic and fewer spectators, not right in front of the crowds for the Changing of the Guard.
Well, the King was having some cancer scare or something recently, wasn't he? And the guy says the white horse usually only comes out when the Kind is present, but he wasn't present. Could the King have passed away?
Isn't it a bit absurd to declare symbolism will be their downfall in describing an event where you have zero idea of what the symbolism actually means? It's not like they're parading some goat skull about or anything.
Fucking thank you, yes. It's literally absurd to look at a freeze-frame of some pomp bullshit and get all woo woo with it.
we're not looking at just a freeze frame. We're watching the video it came from, which is nearly four minutes long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfwWG7eIzu4
I posted the same video. It's just the changing of the long guard. It doesn't just happen at Buckingham, it's a whole thing. And youtube-mc-clickbait-title guy got everyone in a tizzy.
And to you also Anon. I’m pretty sure CatsFive knows his shit Anon. Tread carefully on going grieftastic.
Except royal procedure? Here is the original video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfwWG7eIzu4&t=2s Flag is draped to protect from rain. They parade right into the changing of the guard.
CatsFive is not infallible. A lot of good stuff usually but sometimes the cat posts - and stickies - sauce less flatbread
"flatbread"
kek
Grieftastic kek
Yea, and considering that at this point the UK royal family is pretty much purely symbolic, it's not surprising that they and anyone associated with them are steeped in symbolism. If they didn't employ symbolism, they'd basically be no different from any other random family.
And as you insinuate, there is nothing inherently wrong with symbolism. It ultimately depends on what is being symbolized.
Many of us belive that they are not purely symbolic.
Their has been much research on this years ago. Maybe someone has the DD.
The British Monarch represents "the Crown". The Crown is the body of law built up in British history. The Monarch represents the Crown, and is subject to the Crown. To fulfill that role, the Monarch must make certain oaths to uphold the crown.
They are a symbol of the Crown, but are subject to the Crown. The Crown is the sovereignty established through law.
Since the Magna Carta, it was established that monarchs are subject to law, and cannot designate law willy-nilly according to their own whim. This principle was tested at the time of the English Revolution, and reinforced. (The Monarch lost his head.)
Purely symbolic? No. They have great power and wealth. But under law, they are subject to the Law, which is what is embodied in "The Crown".
The crown is the money masters and the royal turds serve them.
Here is the thing.
The law rules. The law came into being rooted in the immutable laws transcendent of men. The problem is, when corruption infiltrates, then those who violate the law are not held accountable. This is the problem. So they ride roughshod over the law with impunity.
From a theological perspective, its the same thing. Evil came to have 'jurisdiction' over the world because of the actions of the original human progenitors. Evil uses lies, and violates God's law with impunity, because there has been no one qualified to hold it to account.
This is why the Messiah became necessary. And although Jesus opened spiritual salvation via the cross, the material plane has remained under evil's control, because Jesus had to give up his body in order to accomplish that spiritual salvation. That's why the 2nd coming became necessary.
The money masters are the bankers. They are not the crown. And, if the royal turds serve them, it's because the royals are owned by them. Like A&E in the garden, the royal families signed themselves over, and so the bankers have control and jurisdiction.
But ultimately, sovereignty resides in the People. The constitutional monarchy is a tacit acknowledgement of this principle, as is the US constitution.
This is why the Great Awakening is necessary. The bankers, etc, and their evil system can only be held to account by those who have the authority to do so, and this is the People. The problem is, the People have not understood this.
The Crown is the ally of the People. It is like a sword that can be used to cut down evil and set things right. But the People do not know how the wield the sword. They have been out maneuvered by the evil sectors for a LONG time.
Those who were paying attention during 2020/2021 saw this very clearly. All the "mandates' in the world doesn't make them actually lawful. But the problem was, too few people understood this and pushed back. And when you do not push back, from a legal standpoint, this is acquiescence and signifies agreement.
To wit: This mandate requires that you MUST wear and mask IF you agree that this mandate requires you to wear a mask.
It was merely presented as a psyop to gain compliance and agreement from the people. These mandates and other measures violated the law in hundreds of ways, but because too few people were awake enough to push back and hold the violators accountable, who do you think "won the day"?
Cheers.
If they were symbolic, the PM wouldn't have to go to the palace with a report once a week.
Parliament belongs to the Monarchy.
Er, wrong.
The Parliament serves the Crown. The Crown is the sovereign Law that governs the United Kingdom. The symbol of that Crown, aka the Law, is the Monarch.
The Monarch is subject to the law, but also represents the law. So Parliament reporting to the Monarch is part of the Parliament reporting to the representative of the Crown.
This (I think) is something that so many people simply ignore or are ignorant of. What is the position of the Monarch under British Law? What is the position of the parliament?
The Parliament is (under law) meant to represent the People. All are subject to the Law, aka the Crown: the monarch, the parliament, the people.
(Putting aside the issue of corruption - pretty much ALL governance systems have been infiltrated and corrupted):
Note that the British common law became the foundation for the US constitution (which codifies common law). The very reason that the United States was formed and how they justified the revolution was that the British monarch was acting "unlawfully".
How much goes on behind the scenes, and what levels of power and wealth the Monarch actually wields, that may well be debatable. But from the viewpoint of law, they too are bound by law, and in the British system, only Parliament (representatives of the people, supposedly) can make statues and laws.
Exactly the Royals hold a lot of power, especially in the House of Lords. America has Congress and Senate. Each of them being people that are voted in.
But n Britain our Senate (Lords) were all selected by the Monarch, so when a law is passed from Parliament to Lords (congress to senate) to get passed as a law it goes into the Monarchs 'Yes' men jurisdiction.
Meaning the monarch still has somewhat absolute control. If a Lord does not do what he wants he can simply remove them.
There are certainly constraints upon what the Monarch can do. You say, "he can simply remove them" but in practice, is this true? Without any repercussions? Without objections? Any consequences? I don't think so.
There definitely be push back, but what has the last few years taught us other than people complaining doesn't change a thing.
Remember Britain was an empire, we might of gave the countries back but we haven't changed a thing in regards to structure of our government and monarchy. It's still the same as it was then.
It's just the monarchy had a change of conscience and believe in 'political neutrality'.
Parliament is a Royal Palace as as such is not ruled by the laws of the land, they can do and say what they like inside its boundaries.
But they do have dungeons and are allowed to torture people.
I’m pretty sure CatsFive knows his shit Anon. Tread carefully on going grieftastic.
With all due respect, and at the risk of catching a ban, I don't believe disagreeing with someone who happens to be a mod falls under the category of giving them grief.
I 100% understand how people arguing with mods about things related to the mod doing their jobs is worthy of a ban or reprimand.
But being a mod shouldn't mean that no one can disagree with their opinion on topics such as this without being in fear of getting banned.
Being a mod doesn't make someone's opinions infallible. I think there should be a clear line drawn between a mod expressing their opinion on a subject like any other Anon, and a mod being in mod mode when they're dealing with something that requires them to do their job as a mod.
It’s “how” the tone is done. I was not questioning the question. But since you seem to need an excessive detailed explanation; thank you for attempting to correct a Mod, where NO Correction or Intervention was needed Anon. Please mind your own business period. And that is a clear warning.
Ok, Devil's avocado here. (And Brent, you know I respect our mods highly.)
Here's the quote:
I think a lot of us will probably fail to see how there is anything untoward in the tone here (I do). Maybe in the assertion.... ie..e "you posted an absurd subject line" but the tone seems perfectly fine to me.
If you can clarify or expound on this, that would be great.
That said, offgridguy came back and responded well to your admonition, so that's a win, either way.
Note: Thank you Mods.
Yep I was only worried in the tone. As of the questions and info, I’ll let CatsFive and y’all ponder this. I understand some symbolism but I myself am no expert or information guy on going to deep on this area.
I apologize for the tone, I'm having a difficult time watching what is happening to this Country I love, and that probably slipped in to what was an attempt to convey that the particular symbolism in use had no obvious meaning to me and I was hoping for someone better informed to explain what the entity/affiliation/significance of it was. I gather from some other comments I am not the only one confused by it.
No worries. I just wanted to “check” the tone.
"goat skull". Good one. I see what you did there... 😉
But you have a point. We need more resources that teach the symbolism. And I'm not talking about the "official" symbolism, but what things really mean.
updoogle for anon handle
That goat skull comment made me laugh.
We definitely have something odd going on, here. I cannot find anything else like it. The black covering on a ceremonial staff or mace could signify mourning or remembrance, particularly if it's used in a military context or during a state ceremony where honoring the fallen is part of the protocol. It can also represent solemnity and the gravity of an occasion, marking it as a serious and formal event. The use of black in such a context aligns with its traditional association with respect and the somber recognition of significant transitions or periods of national reflection.
https://twitter.com/Naturegirl571/status/1761518655236366518
The presence of a white horse carrying a staff with black covering in a royal guard context can hold symbolic significance, often representing honor, tradition, or a ceremonial role. The specific meaning may vary based on cultural and historical contexts, so it's advisable to refer to the traditions and customs of the particular royal guard or ceremonial unit in question for a more accurate interpretation.
"King Charles is in a very serious condition - Cancer very aggressive"
"William is on the brink of succession"
Britain's Mirror revealed that King Charles' health condition is "much more serious" than doctors first thought as he finally battles a very aggressive cancer.
Tom Quinn, an expert on Buckingham's subjects, said that doctors thought the cancer would not be so aggressive but they were wrong.
https://www.pronews.gr/kosmos/vretania-o-vasilias-karolos-einai-se-poly-sovari-katastasi-poly-epithetikos-o-karkinos/
That's very strange. I never seen a parade movement like that.
Also note about half way through the video, the command "Eyes, right", is given, quickly followed by the command " Eyes, front".
It was not clear from the video who was the recipient of that honour. (The eyes right)
Edit. It may be just a training exercise for new horses to get them used to crowds and shouted commands.
The white horse looked a bit inexperienced.
It could be just training - however, the usage of black relates to death in pretty much all contexts I can think of.
As someone on Twatter pointed out: related to President Trump's black tie and Ivanka's black bow?
I with you there.
It feels like a definite "com".
We need a Londoner who might know the exact location, especially where the " Eyes right"' is given.
All ritual and symbolism is a comm. The question is, what is the message of the comm.
We can speculate that ooh,, its got a special meaning and oooh, look, black!!!! but how is that anything other than unbased speculation.
Facts and evidence, research. Without that, it's just fantasizing.
IMO.
Is this correct? According to https://changing-guard.com/household-cavalry.html
Well, that may well be true. The dude narrating the video certainly seems to think so. And as something unusual, it's an interesting departure point for research. But to move from "it's unusual (aka uncommon)" to "It must be a comm" or "it's evil symbolism" is quite a leap, imo.
It's far too easy to amplify speculation if research or evidence are ignored, and I think (personally) that's unhelpful. It's certainly not Q-ish, if you know what I mean. Q is all about research, evidence, facts,
It looks like the white horse is being held back and not inline.
And whats on the scrolls in its riders hands? Anyone recognize anything about them?
That's a duty trumpeter. The covered staff is because it's the Regimental Colours or Standard.
just FYI
Also
https://changing-guard.com/household-cavalry.html
Where is u/chickyrogue? Interesting to say the least cats 5.
Did Prince Charles “expire”?
Or Kate?
King Charles?
Never my fucking King, he's a tampon of a man.
That’s why I called him Prince Charles
Chucky the turd.
that's schumer
Nah, I’ve seen Charles for the faggot he is since the early ‘70s. His momma bought him an Aston-Martin back then, probably hoping he’d kill himself in it. I think he’s the reason she hung on so long, she knew him for what he is.
I wonder about the anti-Prince William hate though. He seems to not be such an asshole.
They can all go to hell as far as I’m concerned; my people refer to their flag as “the butcher’s apron”…
I think she knew he was weak and after he was compromised with the whole Camilla Diana thing she knew he wasn’t up to the job and thus hung on as long as she could. He was champing at the bit to take the throne and the media was being briefed regularly that she was handing off work to him and he was going to be regent yada yada and there would then be subtle pushback usually via the Times about how the Queen took her vow to serve for life literally. It felt like a media bun fight. The Queen kinda wrote him off after Diana died - I don’t think he ordered it cos he hasn’t got the stones - I wonder if Michael Fawcett was involved in it and that way why he famously said he could “do without just about anyone except Michael” and Fawcett was given repeated chances after being collared d for Financial impropriety. However Diana’s death was used to gain control of Charles and cow the Queen. Kind of “if we can take out your most popular you are all vulnerable”. At that point she focused on William and training him up. In later years it was notable that the Queen turned to William to help carry the load more than to her heir apparent. Also both William and the Queen visited MI5/6 notably, on a number of occasions. This was after her government were tumbled for interference in the US election. If William were one of theirs then the media would be kissing his ass 24/7 a la Obama/clinton/markle. It’s notable they don’t.
Did Prince "Charles" expire?
ftfy
Think this could be a practice rehearsal for when Charles 'steps down'...
a WH comm similar to 'The Abbot' who photo bombed Charles' Coronation.
Is this a follow-up to the "Grim Reaper" at Charles's coronation?
It's the Blues and Royals Regiment.
The Blacks and Blacks?
Household Cavalry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blues_and_Royals
Very good question.
I believe it simultaneously is the symbol for Prince Charles’ cancerous prostate, and his desire to be Camilla’s tampon. (<== He actually said that.)
Looks like it's a military flag that is being covered, cause they don't want the people to see it. Or they are just training and only uncover it for an actual event or parade. Compare this photo to previouse ones and that might hold the answer.
You wonder, don't you? Note the flag being carried awkwardly by the soldier on the white horse.
It looks like a flag of distress. They are parading it to send comms. Those three clowns don't look happy. Maybe the future will prove the past here.
Edit.
An anon in that X thread reminded me that ivanka recently wore a black bow and trump had a black tie.
But, there's no flag 'furled,' here. I'm not trying to be argumentative tho in saying this. Do you understand something here that I do not?
You send a very strong symbol of not showing the flag. I assume the flag is under a heavy cover.
I doubt they have ever paraded down the mall, without showing a flag.
Yes! What was the consensus of opinion on that??
They control a lot lot more than people think.
The symbolic crap is just a cover.
Those "clowns" are known to be emotionless. Haven't you watched anything on tourists trying to get them to break into a laugh?
This whole thing is a stretch.
They ldont look neutral or emotionless.
They look like someone stuck a stick up their ass.
That looks like a bugle to me...
Interesting theory but I used to play trumpet, I have never seen a trumpet held on a stick while wrapped in leather
The rider on the white horse-look carefully and you will see it is silver in color and there are 2 tubes visible. AND the mouthpiece.
Yeah it's this: https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2018/03/new-state-ceremonial-trumpets-unveiled-with-a-pre-royal-wedding-fanfare/
The nearside clown is the one carrying a trumpet in his right hand. It also has a small frag on it not shown.
It's a bugle with a flag on it.
It would be hilarious to fly a flag, but also cover it up so that no one could see. Seems like it would be ridiculous, but I wouldn’t put it past them to do something like that.
I'd have to research, lol ( have so many irons in the fire) what, is coming up significantly? For your comment? I.e. actual event, or parade?
Probably Charles is dead or lost real power.
We need to just file this away, and the future will prove the past. Maybe
Training runs with new horses are typically done at night, with less traffic.
The crowds here are lined up to see the Changing of the Guard at Buckingham Palace, which happens every day (as far as I know.) It's a very popular tourist event there, so there's nothing unusual about that. But the video narrator, and others on X, were saying they've never seen anything like the three riders at the front carrying what looks like a black-sheathed flag.
So we have here the colour guard of the Blues and Royals, Household Cavalry. The Blues and Royals used to be a separate Regiment, and the Life Guards was the other making up the Household Cavalry until they amalgamated them both a few years back.
The Officer has his sword drawn, to protect the "Colours" and most likely the duty "Colour Sergeant" with Colours covered, and the Duty Trumpeter on the white horse, riding slightly behind the colours which will always be in front.
You would not have the colours unfurled unless it was an official showing of them, my best guess is they are simply moving them or training, I honestly don't think there is anything to it. The Standard isn't flying at Buckingham Palace meaning the King isn't there, I can't quite make out who they gave the "Eyes right" salute too, but it looked like they past a gate or entrance or possibly paying respect to the Princess Diana memorial imho if they were heading up towards Admiralty Arch.
And no, the duty trumpeter isn't missing a leg, them riding boots cover a long way up the leg, and the rest of his leg is hidden between the horses "numnah" (The black sheepskin material the saddle sits on) and his winter red coat.
Honestly don't see much wrong with it.
it has sometimes been said that UNDERSTANDING is better than REACTING.
In that vein, RESEARCH is better than RANDOM SPECULATION.
(seeing a lot of random speculation in the thread, and far too little research. This comment from u/scorpion76 should be top and stickied.)
Thanks anon, I appreciate the comment. Regards.
The narrator seemed confused with the Flag not flying at the Palace. Didn’t he say something like “the white horse only comes out for the King”?
When the King is in residence (At which ever palace/castle/house or the Royal Arms of Scotland when he's there in Scotland) the Royal Standard will be flown, when he's not it'll be the Union flag.
I think the narrator is confusing the State Trumpeters with the mounted duty trumpeters and escorts of the Blues and Royals Regiment. I can't recall the original reason, but the bulk of the horses the Blues and Royals ride are always "Blacks" usually Irish Draught breed. I suspect the use of a grey horse (technically there's no such thing as a white horse) is to differentiate between the fighting troops and those who would sound the various orders for charge's etc during battle.
These Regiments have a long history with many different honours and traditions, my Cavalry Regiment for instance was also part of the charge of the light brigade in 1854.
Thank you very much for the information and your insights! Thank you for your service.
You're welcome anon, have a blessed day.
I think what got everyone's attention was the colours being sheathed in black. I've never seen that before - has anyone else? Any photos anywhere, anything?
Our Regimental Guidon (Battle Honours) were often covered, but when they were on display we would salute them as we past them in RHQ.
One statement on X: Rare Sighting Of The #UK Kings Guardsmen Regiment Marching Down The Mall Westminster. White Horse Comes Out When The King Is There (But Charles Was Not There) 2 Black Horse Guardsmen Escort The Kingdoms Flag Which Is Covered In Black.
Since the white horse is rare and present when the monarch is there (commentator recording it) mentioned no monarch was present.
Someone else suggested that maybe the white horseman was holding a bag containing King Charles ashes.
I found this: The Household Cavalry is a union of the two most senior regiments in the British Army; The Life Guards and The Blues & Royals. Trusted guardians of the Monarch since 1660.
https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/corps-regiments-and-units/royal-armoured-corps/household-cavalry-regiment/
Anyone know where Prince William is? If Charles died or abdicated, then William instantly becomes king.
The code for the queen's death was "London Bridge is down." The code for King Charles's death is said to be, "Menai Bridge is down."
Really interesting. Would love to know more about the event shown in the video.
I just read the other day some royal watcher claimed after King Charles's death is officially announced Princess Ann(e) was to become Queen Regent until George is old enough to take the crown skipping over Prince William. Don't know if this is true or not.
No, they wouldn't do that unless William died/abdicated also, neither of which has much chance of happening. Should George, William's oldest son, end up being the king, his mother Catherine is most likely to be named regent. But right now, it's William who's on deck.
Hopefully more will be known in a few days
Or did he step down? Idk?
EITHER - I'm just trying to decode the symbolism of either outcome
Gotcha
Or did someone take away his money/ power.
Here's the entire video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfwWG7eIzu4
How about the monarch is dead?
Hmmm…has the flag been captured?
Drill baby drill. Can't seem to find out much about it and never seen one used before. Guess it is simply for a cover for training.
On the other side of the flag cover is the ER II crest. https://files.catbox.moe/d4wi3z.png
This wasn't exactly training - the crowds were gathered there to see the Changing of the Guard, which happens every day there at Buckingham Palace (as far as I know.)
Training rides for new soldiers/horses usually happen at night when there is less traffic and fewer spectators, not right in front of the crowds for the Changing of the Guard.
Most likely a naked little boy under that black umbrella being smuggled for Charlie.
and so, with the passing of the latest rothschild, we become aware that there may very well have been a message being sent...
I suspect the black think might be a "standard" but it's being viewed from the side so looks slim.
Well, the King was having some cancer scare or something recently, wasn't he? And the guy says the white horse usually only comes out when the Kind is present, but he wasn't present. Could the King have passed away?
If so, and William was automatically the new king, I wonder if Wm was there? Idk all speculation.