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.
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.
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.