Commonwealth nations uneasy about putting Charles III on the money

[Rawhide "Doug" Kobayashi]

In what can certainly only be a poor omen for the Commonwealth of Nations, it seems that no nation's mint is particularily interested in putting their new reigning sovereign, King Charles III, on their countries' respective national currencies; take for example, Belize:

"Let's put it this way, the notes are still good. Why would we spend money and get rid of it and hurry put the King on it at this time? I think as we go replacing them, quite likely we are going to put the King for now. We have to wait and see what will be the recommendations from the Constitutional Reform Commission that we just set up. We finally enacted into law, so they will be launched on the 1st November to do the actual work and if people want to take away that and then put your face on it, then we will put your face on it. But the point is that the Queen will stay for right now. When we replace the dollars, then certainly we will replace it right now for the king until the law is changed."

He's supposed to be the King's loyal minister in Belize!

Even Australia, which is possibly the only Commonwealth nation that still has a viable monarchist movement, they don't seem particularily keen:

However, the Australian $5 banknote may not feature King Charles for a little while. A Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) spokesperson told The Guardian, “We will plan for an update to the $5 banknote design in due course. Creating the design for new banknotes is a complex process.”“It can be several years [between] when a banknote is printed and when it is issued into circulation depending on demand from the public and the need to replace banknotes that have become worn in circulation.”

Canada meanwhile said outright they have no plans at all to put Charles on the money.

So is this it? Is this where the Commonwealth slowly frays further until, like the Roman Senate, it becomes lost to memory in the background noise of all else that is occuring simultaneously?

 

[Langbardo]

Also because he's an elder man-- with a young negro queen they all would be pushing for the new notes

 

[surenot]

Also because he's an elder man-- with a young negro queen they all would be pushing for the new notes

not even a negro qween, here up in Canada we have some rosa parks type that is somehow a hero noaw?

Yas qween!

 

[Rawhide "Doug" Kobayashi]

Also because he's an elder man-- with a young negro queen they all would be pushing for the new notes

With all due respect, I think Charles is more disliked because he is a detestable man who spent his best years befriending real pieces of work like Sir Jimmy Savile and (is credibly accused of) murdering his popular wife, and indeed it was long suspected that Her Majesty was just expected to live forever to prevent this sort of thing from happening...alas.

 

[Nikephoros II Phokas]

King Charles is a degenerate. A degenerate king for a degenerate age. I don't understand what their problem is. They put those reprobate fags, Brinton and Levine, and a nasty whore, Harris, in the position of being the public face of the Biden administration. I don't see why they have any problem with Charles.

 

[Langbardo]

He's disliked because he's a jet pilot, a helicopter pilot, a parà, and led the fleet to reconquer the Falklands.

 

[Lord Osmund de Ixabert]

Happily none of that is determined by democratic consensus. Your countries are indentured servants of the central bank which is owned by the Crown. That will decide the matter. The political puppet show is hired by the central banks to give you the illusion that you are in contorl of your government—therefore you would never rebel against it; else you'd have to lop your own head off. It's a system of covert monarchical rule that works perfectly. You'll never overthrow it. (Covert? Well not really. 'Hidden in plain sight' might be a better way of putting it. But it's really just 'plain sight.' Either you have eyes to see what the world is telling you explicitly—that the King is the ruler—or you are blind to reality.)

If His Highness does not appear on the dollar bills, it'd be because he doesn't care to be. Not because of any public sentiment against it; sentiments of which I see no evidence whatsoever, by the way. The monarchy is as popular as ever here—new paintings of the royal family on public buildings have sprung up everywhere in recent times. No one vandalises them. No one voices any opposition to their presence. I see houses with Union Jack flags and pictures of the royal family on them everywhere.

Probably more fake news.

You know that most of these 'polls' you encounter in the mainstream media are intended to create a public opinion, or serve some other ulterior agenda (e.g. obtaining funds for combatting antisemitism—by using fake polls showing how 'widespread' the antisemitism is; a practice that also energises the Little Jews—by keeping them as paranoid and aggressive as possbile).

In any event,—long live the King!

(Edit: Replaced double hyphens with proper em dashes. Added parenthetical remarks to first paragraph.)​

 

[Lord Osmund de Ixabert]

not even a negro qween, here up in Canada we have some rosa parks type that is somehow a hero noaw?

You realise that instilling a victimological mindset into the savages is precisely how you control them, do you not? Have you seriously not figured this out yet? It's simplicity itself. When you've made them willing victims, who think that being a victim of 'white supremacy' is their greatest virtue, and really defines who they are as a people,—that's when you've broken their minds completely.

It's the next level of rulership. Breaking the minds of your willing subjects,—I for one am totally in favour of the practice. It's been a smashing success, hasn't it? We've even got savages to acknowledge the supremacy of the white race. "White supremacy—that's a thing. It defines me. I am a victim of it." Well, yes all of these things are now true; they've become practically real now, thanks to people believing in them.

Thank you for being such obliging slaves, I suppose? What else is there to say on the matter?​

 

[Gawn Chippin]

King Charles is a degenerate. A degenerate king for a degenerate age. I don't understand what their problem is...

It shouldn't be a problem, given that there are fitting examples readilly available for coin-stamping:

 

[Lord Osmund de Ixabert]

Indeed, good call. What a nice, simple, practical garb. Free from superfluous ornmament and pretensiousness. The kilt of course has so many practical advantages compared with trousers. From a physiological point of view alone, the kilt is the most rational form of nether garment a man could possibly use for most of the daily tasks of life, especially if you are an outdoorsman. An eminently practical piece of attire, as I have said--well calculated to preserve the health, promote the comfort of the men that wear it, help them bear the inclemency of the weather, wade through marshes and rivers, maintain superior cleanliness (and that with greater convenience and ease), and so on.

There is a mild but perpetual discomfort with trousers. All men can relate to this--well, other than men with small micropenises, or with no penises at all (as from castration). Unlike trousers the kilt is not prone to cause such discomforts; nor hinder the mobility and agility of the wearer.


​

 

[Lord Osmund de Ixabert]

For many people, myself included, the main charm of the kilt is its very simplicity and practicality--the lack of all that unnecessary frippery and effeminate ornament that we associate with trousers. We don't want your "fancy pants" because we are not faggots. Indeed a fondness for "fancy pants" and suchlike frippery is oftenest found in flaming faggots, Italians (flamboyant mama's boys that the are), American niggers (raised by single mothers), and of course women.

Trousers in general are very gay and womanly.

Indeed aside from their very particular use in horsemanship, trousers were always worn most often by women and rarely worn by men until relatively recently. In the few traditional societies in which they appeared, they were associated with femininity. Thus the women sometimes wore trousers and other times wore dresses; while the men always wore flowing robes, kilts, togas, etc.

If you prefer trousers over kilts and robes, it is because you probably have a micropenis and you want to wear something form-fitting, in the hopes that you might eccentuate your legs and bottom.

If your goal is to prance around in fancy pants like a faggot until you get sodomised, then go wear your fancy pants and leave us real men alone--we are not interested in your fancy pants. We will stick to wearing our kilts, chlamyses, chitons, togas, robes, etc. We just want something simple, practical, and comfortable. Is that so much to ask for in this world?
​

 

[Gawn Chippin]

It just goes to show, which one of the two was man of the house:

 

[Lord Osmund de Ixabert]

From the use of kilts in the military we know that kilt-wearers are cleanlier, more agile, better able to maintain good health and hygiene, that they suffer from fewer abdominal problems, are less liable to get sticky & dirty all over their skin and be unable to pull off from it in a convenient way.

It's been proven that kilt-wearing men have a higher sperm count and testosterone level than trouser-wearing faggots.

It is said by military historians that the very sight of the kilt among the Highland soldiers of Scotland would strike the enemey with terror.

Now aside from practical considerations, of which I could further expatiate at great length, if desired, we should not neglect to take into account the many aesthetic and immaterial advantages of the garb: it is indeed precisely because of its simplicity and relative lack of ornament (as compared with your preferred fancy pants) that the kilt is so aesthetically pleasing and picturesque to the eye.

At the same time, it helps to pertetuate ancient traditions and race pride.​

 

[WillTell]

He's disliked because he's a jet pilot, a helicopter pilot, a parà, and led the fleet to reconquer the Falklands.

I had not considered this. Great point.

 

[WillTell]

You realise that instilling a victimological mindset into the savages is precisely how you control them, do you not? Have you seriously not figured this out yet? It's simplicity itself. When you've made them willing victims, who think that being a victim of 'white supremacy' is their greatest virtue, and really defines who they are as a people,—that's when you've broken their minds completely.

It's the next level of rulership. Breaking the minds of your willing subjects,—I for one am totally in favour of the practice. It's been a smashing success, hasn't it? We've even got savages to acknowledge the supremacy of the white race. "White supremacy—that's a thing. It defines me. I am a victim of it." Well, yes all of these things are now true; they've become practically real now, thanks to people believing in them.

Thank you for being such obliging slaves, I suppose? What else is there to say on the matter?​

There is just one problem with this kind of 3D Chess. When you encourage victimology, you incite Revenge, and it won't matter whether the revenge is justified or not, or who gets victimized next, or how much the conflict will cost.

Why is simply telling the truth such a negative?

 

[WillTell]

King Charles is a degenerate. A degenerate king for a degenerate age. I don't understand what their problem is. They put those reprobate fags, Brinton and Levine, and a nasty whore, Harris, in the position of being the public face of the Biden administration. I don't see why they have any problem with Charles.

Aye.
He won't even defend a Traditional ( previously very "modern" ) Anglican Ceremony.

What these INGRATES don't realize is that the whole idea of a Public Coronation of a Monarch is absolutely already a "modern" invention.

Under a REAL Traditional English Monarchy, the peasants DO NOT GET TOO "participate" in the Coronation, much less pressure the King to change his oath, or include other religions or subject people's.

It would be better to not have a King, than to suffer such humiliation.

Is it too much to ask for, if I simply want a King who will defend his "privilege's" WITHOUT APPOLOGY. He has hundreds of Ancestors who did great things for his country. He has nothing to be ashamed of.

And I'm saying that alongside also saying, "God Save The King."

 

[piscamaniac]

What these INGRATES don't realize is that the whole idea of a Public Coronation of a Monarch is absolutely already a "modern" invention.

What do you mean by public? The ceremony proper is invite only, the vast majority of the attendants some sort of dignitary -neo aristocrats, if you will. Do you actually mean televised? Well, there was no television in the middle ages, that's for sure; but the regalia and pomp of these ceremonies was partly to intimidate aristo and commoner alike, they seemed to be happy with the vulgar masses viewing the king parading about the streets back then (why not televise the ceremony, if that were possible back at the time)?

 

[WillTell]

What do you mean by public? The ceremony proper is invite only, the vast majority of the attendants some sort of dignitary -neo aristocrats, if you will. Do you actually mean televised? Well, there was no television in the middle ages, that's for sure; but the regalia and pomp of these ceremonies was partly to intimidate aristo and commoner alike, they seemed to be happy with the vulgar masses viewing the king parading about the streets back then (why not televise the ceremony, if that were possible back at the time)?

Actually, not even the modern parades were quite traditional. That sort of thing was separate. Commoners do not get to be present at the coronation. Much less see it.

 

[WillTell]

What do you mean by public? The ceremony proper is invite only, the vast majority of the attendants some sort of dignitary -neo aristocrats, if you will. Do you actually mean televised? Well, there was no television in the middle ages, that's for sure; but the regalia and pomp of these ceremonies was partly to intimidate aristo and commoner alike, they seemed to be happy with the vulgar masses viewing the king parading about the streets back then (why not televise the ceremony, if that were possible back at the time)?

Ending the assumptions and entitlement of the commons I think will be necessary to end the mass mental illness our culture suffers from.

Of course I also think our current Aristos are scum who have betrayed the English nation and need to be replaced by new elites some day too.

 

[Gawn Chippin]

Extraterrestrials posting their comment on the upscuming coroanation or was this the wörk of a CNC-controlled mowbot?