
© Armstrong Economics
Monarchy is the oldest form of government in the United Kingdom. Right up to the very last few days, Queen Elizabeth embodied the dignity of the British people and fulfilled her role as the impartial guardian of the people. In reality, the British monarchy represents the Head of State. The British Monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy; they yielded the ability to make and pass legislation to the elected Parliament.
Once upon a time, Parliament was to represent the people. But ever since the rise of Marxism during the 19th century, Parliament no longer represents the people. It has devolved into not much more than a food fight in a high school cafeteria. Members hurl insults at one another, and the respect for civility has oddly flipped from Parliament back to the Monarchy.
Although The Sovereign no longer has a political or executive role, they play an essential part in the life of the nation. Queen Elizabeth has been the impartial Sovereign, and now she is replaced with her son,
King Charles III, who is by no means neutral and has become an activist for Klaus Schwab and pushing forward his Great Reset, which is his version of Marxism 3.0.I remember having a conversation with former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and how rising from the name-calling in Parliament, she would meet with the Queen that was perhaps the moment of rising above the chaos to the world of dignity and respect. As Head of State, Queen Elizabeth undertook constitutional and representational duties that are over one thousand years of tradition, which are now coming to an end with Charles III. Instead of being impartial, he is the new activist destined to ensure a new dark age for Britain.

© Armstrong Economics
It was Edward the Elder's (899-924) son, Æthelstan (924-939 AD), who first controlled the whole area that would form the kingdom of England. Æthelstan's sister had married Sihtric, the Viking ruler of the Northumbrians. When Sihtric died in 927 AD, Æthelstan succeeded to that kingdom, and his coinage and charters began to describe him as 'King of the English.' His ambitions did not end there since his charters also began to describe him as 'King of Britain' and 'Emperor.' It was not until 937 AD when Æthelstan, along with his brother, Edmund (939-946AD), defeated a combined force of the kings of Dublin, Scots, Strathclyde, and others at a place called
Brunanburh. It was this victory that became celebrated in an Old English poem that made its way into the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

© Armstrong Economics
Curiously, it was exactly 3 cycles of 309.6 that marked the peak in the British Empire, implying it was a reaction within the scope of 6,000 years of history, which took place in 1867 during the reign of Victoris (1837-1901). It was the Second Reform Act of 1867 that enfranchised all working-class men in the United Kingdom, approximately 7 million, with the right to vote. While election reform had passed in 1832, the right to vote was limited to property owners on the same theory of the Roman Republic that only a property owner took affairs of state seriously.
The Tories had supported the Second Reform Act of 1867 with the theory that it would bolster their majority in Parliament. Ironically, this resulted in their defeat, for it was the era of the rising view that eventually embraced Marxism. The demise of Britain as we have known it will most likely come in 19 cycles of 8.6 years from 1867, bringing us to the conclusion in 2030.
Charles III will most likely be the last Monarch of Great Britain, and it will be his link with Klaus Schwab that ends the monarchy of Britain. Sadly for Britain, he will not be the prudent neutral person for all of Britain, but the activist promoted by Klaus Schwab.
Reader Comments
But the problem is, the group Charles and Schwab represent believes in it, and actively works toward its realisation.
At least their public obligations and performances surely serve that purpose. A performence I can see degrading substantially with the old queen gone, just to mention that.
In what pies they really have their fingers in, the public can only guess.
All I can think about at the moment is that me and my partner are rapidly sinking beneath the waves that Britannia was ludicrously supposed to rule.
On Monday, whilst many in this country will get a paid holiday, we've been told by our employers that the business will be closed.
No chance to book off that apparently solemn occasion as holiday, so we'll have to forgoe a day's wages so we can "pay our respects".
No choice in the matter, "F***k you serfs, & know your place".
smuckits, fruckits freaking effits
puffits munchkins mumbling bumbling
stompoing pumkins.
Crumbling stuffling stifling conversations
ending in
?
(there answer resides within - make a choice why don't ya...
if the choice is 1 I will flip one card...
if the choice is 2 I will flip another...
so, seems evident choice means there is always more than 1....
there is always choice nowadays.....
so what you think that means?
~~~~~
Means to me you can choose what you want...be it one pill or another or no pill at all.
I've made my choice.
I feel their contribution would be far more constructive and provide a far more welcome insight into our current malaise.
do you want the silver coin or the gold one?
Well, being you pondered maybe too long and maybe not, let me tell - it depends upon the weight of the coins proffered and weighing done fairly is absolute basically on planet earth. Beyond that it depends on the ratio value of gold to silver and that like so much is in flux, but lately I got an idea bout what direction things are headed in that regard. Anyhow, take the two of the together and your got the answer you big ole clown you.
Rumor I heard is bullocks bollocks said you was full of it, but maybe you can prove me wrong on this? Go for it please. I mean cause you said it....and really, who wants to be mean in 2022?
I'm currently living in a world of shit thank you very much.
Obviously, that applies to an ever increasing number of people on this planet, but nonetheless, I didn't find your comment very fair.
1. I'm living in a world of shit. (Join the club).
2. You imply many are clowns (Maybe you are wrong - ever consider that).
3. You didn't think I was playing fair - oh baby, baby you....
4. Need I go on?
~~~~
wars on the mental level sometimes get funky don't ya think....
All I try to do is lighten people's moods during these stressful times.
I know it won't always work, but I certainly don't want to fight with anybody on this site.
That's what "they" would love us to do right? 😺
.you need a hug.8 seconds for the gold!
8 seconds.
A 10 second hug if you know the details.
50-50
Place your bets.
I was initially trying to vent a bit of steam regarding my current predicament.
Please stop trying to provoke me, I'm not a troll or a fool.
I would much rather converse with you in a civilized manner.
I never inferred I was some kind of superior being!
Fucking leave me alone!
I come to this site to hopefully join other like minded people.
Your comments tonight have not been helpful.
Thanks for calling me a loser, I already knew that!
I'm seriously not trying to be a bully and some might want to challenge me on this, but we could go back to the whole conversation and break it down one comment at a time, but is that time well spent when most likely we basically agree on most things? Seriously - that is a serious question.
Maybe it was nothing by my imagination and for eff sake I'm not doing a good job of lurking......
I have to improve my technique is what I'm thinking and I'm thinking this is happening on the fly and it is gonna be...
I know I haven't been commenting very long, but have followed and lurked on this site for over twenty years.
I often find myself being misunderstood.
If I don't reply for a while, it's because I'm at work and now have to put away several tons of stock.
All the best mate... 😺
Peace,
Ken
[Link]
[Link]
We are seeing this for a reason, their world is not perfect and it shows.