THE ROYAL PARASITES HAVE DESIGNED THE BEST WAY OF CRUISING THROUGH LIFE AT EVERYBODY ELSE'S
EXPENSE. NON-STOP PARTYING, WINING AND DINING ACROSS THE GLOBE PAID BY THE TAXPAYERS AND
EVERY OTHER COUNTRY THAT TOLERATE HER FREE FOREIGN TRIPS, AND HER MASONIC SPOKESMEN HAVE THE
CHEEK TO CALL IT WORK.
Burrell trial exposes how the royal parasites interfere in court cases, AVOID appearing in HRH courts and
how the queen CANNOT be tried or prosecuted in the very courts she resides over
Paul Burrell only one of the many homosexuals who work at the palace
Her gutter rags paint a picture that she ONLY rubber stamps Britain's judicial appointments
but throughout history the royals masonic lackeys have reigned over the peasantry using every dirty
murderous trick in the book to steal the family silver with total impunity and why SHE is the richest
despot on the planet by far.
Men have been and continue to lose their livelihoods and lives in HER dens of inquity where the QUEEN personally selects the
evil masonic judicial bastards who are stripping men bare to line the royals and their goffers pockets
Some interesting facts from today's Daily Rat exposures.
How Prince Charles dramatically tried to stop court case of Diana’s butler Paul Burrell that threatened to humiliate the Royals
Paul Burrell was accused of stealing 310 items together worth £4.5 million
The police discovered 2,000 negatives. Charles in the bath with his children, and many others showing the young princes naked.
Cops filled a lorry sent from London with 2,000 items that de Brunner judged had been illegally removed.
The princess,would never have given away such personal material, and certainly not in such quantities.
There can be few people in Britain unaware of the 2002 trial of Paul Burrell, which was dramatically halted after the Queen had a ‘recollection’.
Among the most serious disclosures are those relating to Prince Charles — and the attempts made on his behalf to try to stop the prosecution going ahead.
Although married himself, Burrell had so many gay affairs with guardsmen that Diana’s chef called him ‘Barrack-Room Bertha’.
Unaware of the scale of the alleged theft, and knowing that low-paid staff occasionally pilfered small items, Charles told his assistant private secretary Mark Bolland that Burrell probably did steal some things ‘because they all do’.
'The prince will say he gave the things to [the butler] and that Burrell’s actions were all right.’
During his second police interview Burrell was asked: ‘Did you tell anyone that you had the property?
‘No,’ he admitted, insisting that the items — including all Diana’s school reports — were gifts.
Burrell’s solicitor Andrew Shaw, for his part, appeared to think the case would never come to trial.
‘You’re making a terrible mistake,’ he told Maxine de Brunner. ‘They won’t let Burrell’s secrets be splashed
in the public domain. They’ll never let this come to trial.’ (HOW THEY CAN AVOID THEIR DIRTY LINEN BEING AIRED IN PUBLIC)
Fiona Shackleton,Charles’s divorce lawyer revealed that Paul Burrell had sent the prince a handwritten
letter in which he offered to return some of the items, provided Charles agreed not to support any prosecution.
The letter had been returned on her advice.
The CPS lawyer explained that the case could be closed only if Prince William and Diana’s sister Lady Sarah McCorquodale, who together inherited Diana’s property, signed statements to drop their complaints.
Shackleton’s view was that Charles could not be party to undermining the legal system. (WHICH HE TRIED TO DO ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS)
Agreeing to accept the return of some property in exchange for dropping the investigation, she said, would make it look as if Buckingham Palace were participating in a cover-up.
(SOMETHING THEY DO ALL THE TIME)
This, of course, would have been the ideal moment for the Queen to recall that she’d allowed the butler to take some of Diana’s possessions for safekeeping. But apparently she didn’t say a WORD.
Who knew what Burrell might say in the witness box? In effect, he was a time-bomb, having witnessed the prince’s secret meetings and phone calls with Camilla while he was married, and Diana’s many rendezvous with her boyfriends.
The police had now had time to watch six videos found in Burrell’s home, featuring Diana talking about the most intimate details of her relationship with the Royal Family, her sex life with Charles, and her affair with police protection officer Barry Mannakee.
What had happened, the police wondered, to the missing ten tapes? [Material from Settelen’s six recovered tapes was used in a Channel 4 documentary last year.]
And there was another tape that worried Charles. Kept in a box of Diana’s and now, he believed, in Burrell’s possession, it described the alleged HOMOSEXUAL rape of one member of his staff by another of his staff.
Burrell’s lawyers now issued a warning to Shackleton. If Burrell were prosecuted, they said, he would have to describe from the witness box not only details of Diana’s sex life, he might also read out quotes from letters in which Prince Philip had allegedly threatened her.
Burrell’s lawyers later explained that this was not a threat — the defence was seeking only to protect the Royal Family.
He wanted to let Charles know that he’d return all the property, but insisted on telling him so in person.
Throughout the 25-minute meeting, the spin-doctor had been appalled by Burrell’s ‘creepy manner’. The royals’ staff, he thought, were ‘a slimy, weird group with odd relationships’.
Later, he reported back to Charles that the butler wanted ‘a big hug and an offer of a job at Balmoral. He doesn’t want to be cast out’.
Instead, Charles was palpably shocked when the police told him 2,000 items had been seized at Burrell’s home.
It was the first time he’d heard the actual number.
‘He’s taken the lot!’ Charles exclaimed.
After listening to more evidence against the butler, Charles was asked if he supported a prosecution. ‘We’ve got no alternative,’ he sighed. Before leaving, the police asked Charles not to have any contact with Burrell.
The prince was now in a fix. Officially, he had to support the CPS’s charge that Burrell had stolen the items but privately, he still wanted the prosecution halted.
Another big sticking-point was that Diana’s sister and co-executor, Lady Sarah McCorquodale, was adamant that the butler should be brought to trial.
In an attempt to avert prosecution, Burrell’s lawyer handed the police a 39-page statement signed by his client.
Among other things, it described the butler’s close relationship with Diana — how he would smuggle her boyfriends into Kensington Palace, cancel public engagements so she could be with her lovers, and provide meals for the princess and her man of the moment.
Even the police could see that if Burrell gave detailed testimony about Diana’s sex life in court, the monarchy would be seriously harmed.
The lawyer then sent further warnings about Burrell’s intention to speak about events of ‘extreme delicacy’ and ‘matters of a very private nature’, and how his enjoyment of Diana’s ‘intimate’ trust would require ‘close examination’ at trial.
Again Charles did not reply. This provoked Burrell’s lawyer to threaten to summon the prince as a witness.
Burrell’s lawyer again approached the police, insisting that a message be passed on to Charles.
His client, he said, was offering to return all the royal items in his possession if the prosecution was dropped.
Charles ordered his new private secretary, Sir Michael Peat, to express his concern about continuing with the prosecution if it was a lost cause.
Both officers were disturbed by Peat’s performance. In his concern to protect Charles, he seemed to forget that Burrell had actually been charged with stealing property belonging to Diana’s executors, not the prince.
Or that any decisions about the prosecution now had to be taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who was sure he could prove Burrell’s guilt.
Peat summoned two of Diana’s executors to the palace — her sister Lady Sarah and the princess’s former private secretary, Michael Gibbins.
‘The police,’ Peat told them, ‘don’t have enough evidence to mount a successful prosecution and the case must be stopped. There is a risk of acquittal.’
He also spoke frankly about Charles’s fears that, among other things, Burrell would testify in detail about both Diana’s love life and her anger at the way she’d been treated by the Royal Family.
But it was no good. After two hours of discussion, he’d failed to persuade Charles’s sister-in-law to change her mind.
Paul Burrell, aged 44, stood in the dock of Court One at the Old Bailey, accused of stealing 310 items together worth £4.5 million.
The Queen had recalled a meeting five years earlier, soon after Diana’s death. Burrell had come to the palace to tell her about preserving some of the princess’s papers.
‘The Queen agreed that he should care for them,’ said Peat.
Only by questioning the Queen in court could Burrell’s version of the conversation be rebutted, and that was constitutionally impossible.
No reigning monarch could appear in ‘Her Majesty’s’ court. ‘That’s the end of the trial,’(THAT STATEMENT LAYS BARE THE ENORMITY OF BRITISH INJUSTICE THAT
CAN FLOW FROM ANY INDIVIDUAL ESPECIALLY THE RULING MONARCH BEING ABLE TO AVOID ANY FORM OF PROSECUTION)
According to palace rumours, however, Peat did tell Peter Goldsmith, the attorney general, that the recollection was a ‘golden opportunity to get rid of this embarrassment’.
To some in the prosecution and to police at the Old Bailey, the circumstances of the recollection described by Peat lacked credibility.
Inevitably, some of those involved in the case questioned whether the Queen had ever met Burrell in the ‘three-hour’ audience he had described in his statement of February 13, 2002.
The surprise was the timing of her revelation, coinciding as it did with Charles’s increasing despair — and the palace’s highly convenient interpretation of that meeting.
‘An act of genius,’ was the judgment of one Whitehall observer. ‘Only a golden bullet could have stopped the trial.’
Only two people could order the trial to end: the Director of Public Prosecutions, David Calvert-Smith; and the Attorney General, Lord (Peter) Goldsmith.
Now he was being asked to consider how to save the monarchy. His decision was that the trial should be brought to an end.
Crown Prosecutor Boyce announced in the courtroom that the trial was over. Charles and Peat breathed sighs of relief.
So did Burrell: ‘The Queen came through for me,’ he exclaimed. In the ensuing excitement, his brother, Graham, told a journalist: ‘He will have his revenge, but he will do it with dignity.’
With the trial in ruins, everyone was blamed except Charles.
Diana’s sister concluded: ‘They couldn’t afford for Paul Burrell to go into the witness box. Burrell had told the Prince of Wales that he would tell all unless the trial was halted.
Edmund Lawson, the QC commissioned by Michael Peat to investigate the allegation that Charles’s household had influenced the halting of the trial, said in his report that such an allegation did not stand up to scrutiny: there was simply no evidence to suggest there was any interference by Prince Charles ‘to procure the termination’ of the trial.
Nor was there any evidence to suggest that the Queen’s recollection had been made in order to derail the trial.
‘Let’s nick Peat for seeking to pervert the course of justice,’
The scandal, had the prince’s private secretary been formally cautioned and interviewed, would have been immense. But nothing happened.
That left the most important mystery — the Queen’s recollection.
And Charles? In the polls, his popularity fell back to the dismal level last seen in the days after Diana’s death.
Another gun totting moll to add to the royal mafia's vast arsenal
After Dunblane the establishment had the excuse to disarm the peasants but NOT themselves
Even the Daily Rat finally has to expose the royal parasites
Though still showing sympathy for the queen. 'Why is Prince Charles so extraordinarily self-indulgent?
Why can’t he be more like his mother, who lives without complaint under leaky roofs and in rooms that haven’t
been repainted since her Coronation?'
'Nobody knows what utter hell it is to be Prince of Wales,’ Charles said in November 2004. His idea of hell, it must be said, is unlikely to be shared by most of his future subjects.
Take, for example, accounts of what it is like to have Prince Charles come to stay for the weekend.
Before a visit to one friend in North-East England, he sent his staff ahead a day early with a truck carrying furniture to replace the perfectly appropriate fittings in the guest rooms.
And not just the odd chest of drawers: the truck contained nothing less than Charles and Camilla’s complete bedrooms, including the Prince’s orthopaedic bed, along with his own linen.
His staff had also made sure to pack a small radio, Charles’s own lavatory seat, rolls of Kleenex Premium Comfort lavatory paper, Laphroaig whisky and bottled water (for both bedrooms), plus two landscapes of the Scottish Highlands.
The next delivery to arrive was his food — organic, of course. His hosts decided, despite their enjoyment of his company, not to invite him again.
Their experience was less distressing, however, than that of the family asked to host Charles for a long weekend on the Welsh borders.
Over the preceding months, they’d invited many friends for the four meals at which he’d preside; they’d also hired staff and ordered in masses of food and flowers.
But on the Friday afternoon of Charles’s expected arrival, there was a call from St James’s Palace to offer regrets. Under pressure of business, the Prince could not arrive until Saturday morning.
The following day, the same official telephoned to offer regrets for Saturday lunch, but gave the assurance that Charles would arrive for dinner. Then, that afternoon, the whole visit was cancelled due to ‘unforeseen circumstances’.
The considerable waste and disappointment were not mitigated when Charles later revealed to his stricken hostess the reason for his cancellation. He had felt unable to abandon the beauty of his sunlit garden at Highgrove, he said.
For about six months of every year, the heir to the throne enjoyed a unique lifestyle in beautiful places, either in seclusion or with friends.
Although his travelling staff (a butler, two valets, chef, private secretary, typist and bodyguards) could anticipate most of his movements between his six homes, the only definite confirmation of his final destination, especially to his hosts, would be the arrival of a truck carrying suitcases, furniture and food.
There then followed endless telephone calls with his staff as he changed his mind about his future plans and projects.
For four months every year he lived in Scotland, where he expected people to visit him from London, usually at their own expense.
Sometimes, he travelled abroad. After the death of the Queen Mother in March 2002, for instance, he flew to Greece to stay for three days on his own in a monastery on Mount Athos.
Unfortunately, someone took a photograph that showed the Prince stepping off a boat with a butler and a remarkable amount of luggage in tow — certainly far more than anyone could need for a few days’ meditation.
The image didn’t exactly chime with the theme of the imminent Jubilee celebrations: to emphasise the monarchy’s relevance in modern Britain. Charles’s staff could see this, even if he couldn’t.Julia Cleverdon, an executive on one of his charities, stuck the photo on her office wall and wrote, with risky irony: ‘We’re off to Mt Athos with 43 pieces of luggage.’
The Prince’s other free weeks were likely to be divided between well-off friends. At Chatsworth, the 175-room home of his beloved Debo Mitford, the Duchess of Devonshire, Charles and Camilla would be assigned a whole wing for up to three weeks.
During the shooting season, the Prince opted for the company of Gerald Grosvenor, the Duke of Westminster, at either Eaton Hall, near Chester, or at the Duke’s shooting lodge in the Forest of Bowland in Lancashire.
In between, he stayed at Garrowby, the home of the Earl and Countess of Halifax in Yorkshire, and with Chips and Sarah Keswick in Invermark, Scotland.
Even his personal policeman was roped in to cater to his comfort. If the Prince had to attend a function, the policeman would arrive with a flask containing a pre-mixed Martini. This would then be handed over to the host’s butler along with a special glass that Charles insisted on using.
And if he was expected to sit for a meal, the host would be informed in advance that an aide would be delivering a bag containing the Prince’s food. This was in complete contrast with the Queen, who always ate what everyone else was having.
None of this petulant behaviour would be on show, however, when Charles emerged in public. On those occasions, he’d show what appeared to be genuine interest in people and events.
Few outsiders could guess, commented one adviser, whether or not he was ‘just putting on a game face’.
Sir Christopher Airy, who became his private secretary in 1990, was once reprimanded for suggesting to Charles that a forthcoming visit was ‘your duty’. The Prince shouted at him: ‘Duty is what I live — an intolerable burden.’
At home, his demands were constant, which meant an assistant had to be on call in Charles’s office until he went to sleep.
All his aides were subject to familiar daily tirades. ‘Even my office is not the right temperature,’ he’d moan. ‘Why do I have to put up with this? It makes my life so unbearable.’
Sir John Riddell, his private secretary for five years from 1985, once told a colleague that Charles was better suited to being a second-hand car salesman than a royal prince.
‘Every time I made the office work,’ Riddell observed, ‘the Prince f***ed it up again.
‘He comes in, complains that his office is “useless” and people cannot spell and the world is so unfair, then says: “This is part of the intolerable burden I put up with. This incompetence!” ’
When Charles entertained at home, everything was geared to his own habits and convenience. Dinner would be served to guests at 8pm, but he wouldn’t arrive until 8.15pm, because he’d decided against eating a first course.
It was fine, therefore, for dinner guests to start without him. Not at breakfast, though: visitors to Highgrove were cautioned by Camilla not to begin eating before the Prince appeared.
He was also unusually particular about his gardens at Highgrove. Because he refused to use pesticides, he employed four gardeners who would lie, nose-down, on a trailer pulled by a slow-moving Land Rover to pluck out weeds.
In addition, retired Indian servicemen were deployed to prowl through the undergrowth at night with torches and handpick slugs from the leaves of plants.
Charles also gave rein to extravagance in his office, where he employed an individual private secretary for each of his interests — including the charities, architecture, complementary medicine and the environment.
And anyone visiting the office at St James’s Palace would be escorted to it by no fewer than three footmen, each responsible for a short segment of corridor.
A weekend with the Prince at Sandringham, meanwhile, can be a decidedly odd experience. One group of writers and journalists, invited five years ago, arrived to find that each of them had been assigned a servant.
Friday after dinner was listed as a cinema night. The chosen film was Robert Altman’s Gosford Park, depicting upstairs/downstairs life to an audience surrounded by the reality of that social order. The film became a regular feature of Charles’s culture weekends.
Michael Fawcett, the Prince’s former valet and fixer, supervised the placing of chairs in front of a screen in the ballroom. In the front row were two throne-like armchairs for Charles and Camilla.
Soon everyone was seated, and servants entered with silver platters of ice cream. The film started. Charles and Camilla instantly fell asleep, and the ice cream slowly melted away.
On Saturday, the guests took a walk with Charles, during which he spoke about his belief in a sustainable environment. They were careful to avoid debate: their host, they had been cautioned, was easily offended.
‘People think I’m bonkers, crackers,’ Charles groaned suddenly, in the middle of a field. ‘Do you think I’m mad?’ he asked, in a manner that forbade a positive reply.
The two-hour walk ended back at the house, where the guests were served tea.
‘Right, we’re off,’ Charles announced, striding out of the house after a quick cup. Jumping into his Aston Martin, he drove at breakneck speed down narrow, twisting lanes, reassured that police motorcyclists had cleared other traffic.
His guests followed in a fleet of gleaming Land Rovers, arriving at Charles’s local church in time to hear a short concert.
On Sunday, female guests had been instructed to wear appropriate hats and gloves for a trip to the local Anglican church, St Mary the Virgin and St Mary Magdalen. The two who chose to go to mass at a nearby Roman Catholic church felt Charles’s displeasure.
By Sunday dinner, some of the guests had become puzzled about their host. His habit of commandeering a small bowl of olive oil just for himself provoked one visitor to recount a story of Charles during a recent trip to India.
The Prince had invited the banking heir Lord billionaires be rounded up to accompany him. During the tour, a sumptuous lunch was held in a maharaja’s palace.
Unexpectedly, a loaf of Italian bread was placed on the table. As an American billionaire reached out to take a piece, Charles shouted: ‘No, that’s mine! Only for me!’
In reply to that story, another visitor recalled that on a previous weekend at Sandringham, a guest had brought Charles a truffle as a gift. To everyone’s envy, Charles did not share the delicacy at dinner but kept it to himself.
Those who know him have often asked themselves why Prince Charles is so extraordinarily self-indulgent
At the end of the Sandringham weekend — the guests were asked not to leave until the Monday morning — some were told to leave £150 in cash for the staff, or to visit the estate’s souvenir shop.
Most would tell their friends that Charles seemed genuine, but that the weekend was surreal.
Those who know him have often asked themselves why Prince Charles is so extraordinarily self-indulgent. Why can’t he be more like his mother, who lives without complaint under leaky roofs and in rooms that haven’t been repainted since her Coronation?
In 2006, for instance, Charles used the royal train simply to travel to Penrith to visit a pub — at a cost of £18,916 — as part of his ‘pub in the hub’ initiative to revitalise village life.
And he spent £20,980 for a day trip by plane from Scotland to Lincolnshire to watch William receive his RAF wings.
By contrast, the Queen travelled by train — courtesy of First Capital Connect — to Sandringham at Christmas. Her ticket cost £50, instead of the £15,000 her journey would have cost by the royal train.
Some have speculated that Charles’s extravagance is a kind of revenge on the Duke of Edinburgh, for sending him to Gordonstoun in Scotland during his formative years. The Prince loathed the school’s Spartan regime, but his father insisted he stay there to complete his secondary education.
The other mystery is why Charles has never seemed to appreciate his great good fortune. Instead, he has given vent so frequently to resentment that one friend has dubbed him ‘an Olympian whinger’.
With a personal income of millions from the Duchy of Cornwall (£16.3 million in 2007 alone) he could afford to indulge his slightest whim — yet even that didn’t satisfy him.
One evening, the Prince was particularly maudlin at a dinner hosted by a billionaire in Klosters, Switzerland, for a number of the super-rich. When they’d finished eating, Charles huddled in a corner with King Constantine of Greece. ‘We pulled the short straw,’ sighed the Prince.
Compared with others in the room, he complained, both he and the King were stuck for cash. In his case, he explained, the Duchy of Cornwall administrators would repeatedly tell him what he couldn’t afford to do.
In fact, Charles doesn’t have to answer to anyone over his use of the duchy’s income.
At the time of his complaint, among his 124 staff — most of them paid for by taxpayers — were four valets.
Why four for one man? So that two would always be available to help him change his clothes, which he did up to five times every day.
It could be argued that it is his association with billionaires that has made Charles so dissatisfied with his lot. During a recent after-dinner speech at Waddesdon Manor, Lord Rothschild’s Buckinghamshire home, Charles complained that his host employed more gardeners than himself — 15 against his nine.
Fortunately, the public were unaware of such gripes. His staff, however, began to realise that his extravagance was threatening to undermine his public image.
To counter this, Michael Fawcett told a charity donor: ‘His Royal Highness lives modestly. He hasn’t got a yacht and doesn’t eat lunch.’
This had the benefit of being partly true: Charles has never bought a yacht and prefers not to eat lunch — though he could easily afford both.
More worryingly, the Prince’s then private secretary Sir Michael Peat decided to brief a journalist that ‘Charles does not enjoy a champagne and caviar lifestyle’.
Contrary to the public’s perception, he continued, the Prince possessed only one car, and did not even own his own home.
In reality, Charles had access to a fleet of at least six cars, including two Aston Martins, a Bentley, an Audi, a Range Rover and a Land Rover.
And Peat’s quibble about the legal ownership of the six homes variously occupied by the Prince (Clarence House, Highgrove, Birkhall, the Castle of Mey, Balmoral and Sandringham) was clearly disingenuous.
Among other things Peat failed to mention was that when Charles moved into Clarence House, in 2003, the cost of refurbishment had soared from £3 million towards £6 million — all funded by the taxpayer.
Or that the 15-bedroom Castle of Mey, had been rebuilt with the help of a £1 million gift from Julia Kauffman, a Canadian-born heiress living in Kansas City.
Foreign Office officials, however, were well aware of the Prince’s tendency to demand the best of everything, without dipping into his own pocket.
Indeed, relations with the heir to the throne became increasingly strained as he continued to insist on travelling on private planes, especially to the Continent.
After one particularly nasty spat, Charles reluctantly agreed to fly commercial in Europe. But on his return, he refused ever again to take a BA plane.
‘He wanted the convenience — and not to mix with hoi polloi,’ observed one mandarin dryly.
REBEL Prince: The Power, Passion and Defiance of Prince Charles by Tom Bower, published by William Collins on Thursday at £20.
Anger on streets over royal parasite's wedding VIDEO
Bastard council leader calls for homeless people to be removed from Windsor before royal parasites wedding
Only a loyal fucking FREEMASON could make such a disgusting statement
A council leader has demanded police clear his borough of homeless people before the royal wedding in May.
Simon Dudley, leader of the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead, has asked Thames Valley Police to ‘focus on dealing’ with homelessness ahead of the wedding.
He tweeted of his concern at ‘an epidemic of rough sleeping’ in the borough and on Tuesday wrote an open letter to Anthony Stansfeld, Police and Crime Commissioner for Thames Valley.
The Conservative councillor wrote in the three-page letter: ‘There is a growing concern amongst residents, businesses
and visitors regarding the number of people occupying the streets of Windsor, who are begging during the day and in
some cases taking occupancy throughout the night.
‘In the Royal Borough we believe homelessness is completely unacceptable in a caring, compassionate community
such as ours. We are working to create the necessary housing for our residents.
‘Obviously, the level of tourist interest is set to multiply with the Royal Wedding in May 2018, and there
are increased concerns from our residents about their safety. The whole situation also presents a beautiful
town in a sadly unfavourable light.’
Councillor Dudley’s tweet last month read: ‘Sadly there is an epidemic of rough sleeping and vagrancy in #Windsor @RBWM
[Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead]. I will be writing to @StansfeldPCC [Thames Valley Police and Crime Commissioner]
copying @TVP_Chief [Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police] @Bhupinderrai70 [a Police Superintendent] at @ThamesVP
[Thames Valley Police]… asking for them to focus on dealing with this before the #RoyalWedding’.
Anthony Stansfeld, Police and Crime Commissioner for Thames Valley, has since responded by saying he is happy to listen to any concerns.
Councillor Dudley also tweeted: ‘It’s largely vagrancy and begging… People marching tourists to cash points to withdraw cash,
hanging out near car park ticket machines to get discounts and ask tourists for money’ during a lengthy discourse with residents.
But Thames Valley Police said it has received no such reports.
In a statement released today, Mr Stansfield said: ‘I am always happy to listen to any concerns they may have and work
together where possible.
‘My office and Thames Valley Police work in close partnership with all local authorities and regularly meet with
representatives from every council. I myself attended a Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council in October
and these issues were not raised. I will of course provide Cllr Dudley with a full response addressing his concerns
once I have received the letter and investigated further the issues he has raised.
‘Supporting the vulnerable, including the homeless, is a priority within my Police and Crime Plan and I have previously
provided funding to homeless shelters in Berkshire. I also provide a Community Safety Fund to local authorities which allows
them to fund any local priorities they may have to prevent crime and improve community safety and this year provided Royal
Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council with nearly £150,000.’
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will marry at St George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle on May 19. Tens of thousands of
well-wishers and tourists are expected to descend on the town for the ceremony.
Something in common with the UK's royal mafia and the North Korean mafia
Cross paths with either of them and you'll end up in a psychiatric gulag
Lunatic press barons pathological obsession with NAZI parasites
Desmond (Daily Express), Harmsworth (Daily Mail) and Murdoch (The Sun) use their EVIL rags to promote parasitic entity.
The power of a few headcases who get away with warping the perspective of the sheeple to view
the royal NAZI bastards as worthy of some sort of deference.
Murdoch rags crank up threat to royals with Uber driver bullshit
A regular ploy to garner sympathy from a long suffering public
Victoria: Glamorising dead ugly royals using models in drama's
They get Jenna Coleman to play Queen Victoria (Laughable)
There's no lengths they wont go to paint them as some sort of beautiful goddess's
BRITISH ROYAL PARASITES BEHIND PAEDO EMPIRE
CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE
How could a seemingly wholesome angelic religious family be the kingpin or more like queenpin behind some of the most evil traits on the planet? Or that is what HER compliant media keep telling us in endless propaganda and despite mounting evidence of them deeply embroiled in the paedo empire that started to unravel with TOP BBC presenter and predatory paedo Jimmy Savile.
He alone proves the complicity of the British royal parasites in allowing Savile to abuse with impunity for decades. So how can they be at the forefront of protecting a network of evil perverts despite their star status? In the first instance the royal parasite is personally responsible for hand picking the chief constables and judges running the legal system who systematically failed time and again to do anything to nail Savile. Her loyal lord lieutenant the Duke of Kent as head of the worldwide freemason mafia answers directly to the royal parasite and ensures only loyal (using blackmail) subjects get the key positions of power.
A whole tier of individuals, including those given OBE's and knighthoods that included Savile, are then given extra special treatment and protection in that whatever they involve themselves in the good old masonic cops will take whatever measures to cover up for them even if they have to use dodgy DNA evidence to divert their criminality onto an unsuspecting member of the public to be used as another patsy to take the rap for their crimes. Any man who has seen the royals cop mafia in action during divorce will know the lengths they will go to relieve non-mason men of their assets and estates BUT especially their children who become part of the paedo empire Savile was involved in and proven when he got access to seized children in homes right across the UK and where many judges are patrons who ensure easy access for their lackeys .
The Dunblane massacre was a cover for speculative society members , the legal arm of the freemasons, who had been removing children from Queen Victoria boarding school (its current patron is the Duke of Edinburgh) to abuse over weekends and was about to be exposed just before freemason Thomas Hamilton's mass murder, that as well as being a massive smokescreen to hide the abuse, led to the disarming of a whole population and to a tyranny unseen in any other country across the globe thanks to the inability of the peasants to protect themselves against this evil network of power.
Despite the growing mountain of evidence linking the ruling elite with abhorrent crimes their media still spout out the propaganda that sees the sheeple blindly continuing to show deference and like Michael Jackson fans and despite exposures of his crimes against children over decades, his loyal sheeple still blindly follow and support him while ignoring his crimes. You can never underestimate the gross stupidity of sheeple when herded by a global propaganda machine.
Princess Diana may have been KILLED after secret six month plot, former agent claims
A FORMER secret service agent has described the “ludicrous” security measures imposed by the Paris Ritz hotel on the night of Princess Diana’s death – and believes the people’s princess may have been murdered.
Alan McGregor said he saw a mystery bellboy drive her car just minutes before she got into her vehicle before her fatal crash in a Paris tunnel on August 31 1997.
The 68-year-old believes a potential murder plot could have been planned six months before her tragic end.
Mr McGregor worked was tasked with protecting the Saudi royal family at the Ritz hotel in the months leading up to her death.
He said: “The night she died my wife woke up to tell me the news.
“My first response was ‘I’m not surprised’.
“I’d seen so many breaches in her security at that hotel and strange goings-on it was bound to happen sooner or later.
“The security that night was ludicrous.”
Mr McGregor claims that a bellboy in a green uniform drove her car to the hotel’s back entrance, where it was left unattended until driver Henri Paul appeared.
He added: “Why was it driven by a bellboy? It should have been a specially-trained driver or a security agent. He could have been anyone.
“You just don’t do that in security — especially when it’s somebody as high profile as Diana.
“Nobody used that entrance either because it wasn’t secure. Any member of the public could have walked up to it.”
He added: “You could say all the elements that led to her death were just a tragic coincidence but part of me believes it could have been six months in the making. While I was working in Angola earlier that year we had lots of meetings to discuss ways Diana might be killed or injured.”
Driver Henri Paul was said to have been three times over the drink driver limit the night of the crash, yet Mr McGregor is skeptical of the claims.
He added: “Paul wasn’t a drinker at all. I never saw him buying alcohol. He just wasn’t that sort of bloke. It doesn’t make any sense.
“I’d been through that tunnel so many times too and it would have been almost impossible to hit that pillar.”
British royal parasites bump off enemies using car crashes
The modern day version of being 'hung, drawn and quartered'.
We know if you cross paths with these evil bastards you will end up
in a psychiatric gulag and there are enough activists who have been
attacked by freemason thugs acting for the royal mafia and forced
into mental asylums. War criminal and lawyer Tony Blair brought
in laws to do that for them called the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre.
'British police told me Princess Diana was murdered': Death crash driver's dad claims son was 'collateral damage' in plot
Henri Paul's dad, Jean, says he fears he will go to his grave without knowing the full story behind the crash
The dad of Diana’s death crash driver Henri Paul claims UK police told him she was murdered.
Jean, 85, said: “Inside Scotland Yard, some believe there was a secret plot to kill Diana.”
In an exclusive interview with The Mirror, Jean has told how he fears he will go to his grave without knowing the full story behind the crash that killed his son Henri , Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed.
But he remains convinced the royal and her lover were deliberately killed in a bid to stop the future king of Britain’s mum marrying a Muslim – and the couple’s chauffeur was “collateral damage”.
Despite a string of official enquiries ruling Diana and Dodi died in a tragic accident when French driver Henri crashed their car while drunk in a Paris tunnel, Jean insists they were targeted in an Establishment plot.
And he claims some British police investigating the smash also believe the pair were “bumped off”.
In an emotional interview at his home in Lorient, Brittany, Jean – who has studied the evidence and seen classified information surrounding the tragedy over the past 20 years – said: “Diana was killed and my son was killed. I believe they were both murdered. My son was simply collateral damage of a plot to kill Diana and they killed him as well.
“I am 100% sure he was not involved in this plot. He was too honourable and too honest. The English police came here to visit me and sat exactly where you are sitting now.
“Even inside Scotland Yard there are two sides. One believes there was a secret plot to kill Diana, the other believes it was a genuine accident.
“Even today there are too many classified secrets with this incident.
“I have no real hope to know what really happened. Perhaps it will be known in 30 or 50 years. But I would really like to know before I die. But I don’t think it will happen.”
And the former council worker angrily hit back at claims Henri, 41, was boozed up at the time of the crash in August 1997. He added: “He was not an alcoholic. He was not a drug addict. That’s just lies.”
He claimed his son’s blood sample could have been swapped or tampered with to make it appear he had drink in his system.
Jean, who saw Henri’s body at a hospital, said: “On that day there were over 20 autopsies that took place and it was easy for the authorities to switch blood samples to show alcohol was present in the sample they said was Henri’s.
“That is what I believe happened.”
The jury at Diana’s inquest, which heard from 250 witnesses and lasted three months found the 36-year-old and Dodi, 42, had been unlawfully killed and the deaths were the result of “gross negligence” on the part of Henri and paparazzi who were following their Mercedes on motorbikes.
And in 2013, the Met dismissed reports claiming SAS troops were behind the couple’s death, insisting there was “no credible evidence” of secret service involvement.
There were also allegations a mystery white Fiat Uno could have collided with Diana and Dodi’s car.
But frail Jean said: “It took them over an hour to get Princess Diana to hospital and that is when they made arrangements to make up the story about the Fiat Uno, the white car. It was a diversion and a decoy.
“This was just one of the many things that do not add up. For example I still cannot believe a street cleaning vehicle was going through the tunnel cleaning up just a few hours after the accident. That is shocking.”
Dodi’s dad Mohamed al Fayed also believes his son and Diana were murdered by an Establishment appalled at the idea of having a Muslim wed a royal.
A friend of the Harrods owner reportedly said last week: “Mohamed remains confident that information will emerge confirming his belief that Dodi and Diana were deliberately killed by the security services.
“He always says, ‘My son was slaughtered’, and he believes that was because the Establishment would not allow a Muslim to be married to the woman who would be the mother of the future king.”
Diana’s former lover James Hewitt told an inquiry into her death that he was “warned off” and received phone calls telling him to end their liaison, which lasted from 1989 to 1990.
But he denied reports he had been warned by MI5 that if he did not stop seeing her he would die in a car crash.
Diana’s first lover after her marriage to Prince Charles, bodyguard Barry Mannakee, was killed in a 1987 road smash. Some of his family believe the secret services were behind the death, but that has never been proven.
His brother-in-law Richard Emmins reportedly claimed: “First, he had this accident, then Diana dies in a Paris car crash...however getting to the truth will probably be impossible. We are up against the Establishment. They only let you know as much as they want you to know.” On Saturday the Mirror told how chauffeur Karim Kazi claimed the Mercedes was a “death-trap” and should never have been allowed on the road after it was written off and parts stolen.
And Jean added his thoughts to the state of the Mercedes the princess and Dodi died in. He said: “The truth is the car was old and it was dangerous and it should not have been driven.
“The brakes were dangerous. They discovered 6% water in the brake fluid. How did that happen?
“There was a piece of metal found at the scene, but nobody knows what it was. There are too many unanswered questions. But I do know my son is dead.” Jean still lives in the in the house where he and wife Giselle raised their five sons.
Former teacher Giselle, 87, was traumatised by Henri’s death and is now very ill living in a care home.
Jean told of the terrible moment they were informed their son had died.
He said: “I was here at home and the phone went in the middle of the night.
“It was about 3am, it was a colleague of Henri. He told me Henri was dead.
“The Chief of French Police should have called me to tell me the news but he didn’t, but did apologise later. It didn’t matter really as it didn’t change anything. Henri was dead.”
But it was not the only tragedy to hit the family – as Jean and Giselle have outlived all but one of their five sons.
He added: “Henri was still alive and attended the funeral of his brother Pascal who died of cancer. Then Henri died in Paris, then Jean-Luc who died from a heart attack. Then the youngest Sylvan died. He died suddenly. It was an aneurysm he was only 51.”
Henri was buried but then exhumed and cremated. His ashes were placed with those of his brothers.
Jean paid tribute to his chauffeur son and said it was time the world knew “the real Henri Paul”. He said: “Henri was a loyal and generous man.
“I remember we received many letters of support from all over the world, one in particular from Australia and another from an English milkman.
“They both said, ‘We know your son is innocent.’ And that is what my son’s friends put on a wreath for his funeral.
“The very last thing I want to say about this incident is: Someone killed my son. Someone killed my son.”
Royal parasites use children AGAIN to wave flags as propaganda stunt in Warsaw
An old trick they use regularly in Britain with unsuspecting children and without
the CONSENT of their parents. How do we know? It actually happened to us when we were kids.
Dragged out of school a flag pushed into our hand by a teacher and asked to wave at a strange women in blue.
David Cameron and Prince William implicated in FIFA corruption probe VIDEO
Super-rich especially the royals get richer from subsidised farming
Multiple articles have appeared this week in the compliant rags about some secret plans that will kick into gear
when the Queen dies. We can only surmise why they are all running the same story as more propaganda
to promote the present and future generations of a parasitic entity that, over the last few years, a myriad of
websites have done a spectacular job of exposing the behind the scenes machinations this lot have been getting up to.
For far to long the sheeple have been browbeaten to tug the forelock to a bunch of ultra greedy parasites
who have so much wealth thanks to the control they exert over the political and legal systems of Britain and
with tentacles across the globe. The British crown ain't just a few posh toffs working a racket in London city
they are intimately woven into a global fleecing machine that makes ALL the mobs and mafia's pale with
what they are robbing from the unsuspecting public and with the complicity of the media that spends so much time
kissing the royal arses.
Just as the BBC predatory paedo Jimmy Savile was hailed a legend in those rags when he died we KNEW the evil he was hiding behind
and the same rags only exposed after his death in case he brought the establishment down. All the rags who praised him in death
had mountains of evidence that he was a serial abuser of children and did nothing allowing that abuse to carry
on throughout his life and until his death. He was KNIGHTED by the royal parasite for his services and used the BBC
as a platform to promote them at every opportunity. No one at the BBC had their head up their arses more than Savile.
So despite the mourning already starting before her death we will ensure the enormity of her crimes are fully
published, as others have done, and the evil network of power she controls with her loyal lord lieutenant
the Dukey Kent who heads the freemason mafia (5,000,000+) who do her dirty work and why she remains the richest
despot on the planet by far.
There will be no love lost for the millions of men, many who are not even fully aware, they have been ruthlessly and brutally treated by
her lackeys in the crown courts that have caused monstrous damage to those men's families touched by pure evil.
Royals masonic lackeys try and justify massive PUBLIC spend on their palaces VIDEO
Royal parasites on the benefit scrounging again into the millions
A shocking state of affairs when the political mafia spend years telling the peasants
WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER as austerity pulls the heart out of communities up and down the
length and breadth of the UK while they condone £369 million EXTRA spending of public funds to cover the cost of a make over
for only ONE of the old royal bag's palaces.
The royalist sheeple who bow to this tyranny condone the mass murder of the most vulnerable sections of
society who have endured years of tory 'sanctioning', their version of the Nazi final solution, only to
see that saved money being spent on ONE individual who is the richest despot on the planet see below link .
Also the billions allocated towards a make over of their own palace at Westminster while they cut people's
pittance to the bone or remove altogether.
Any doubts about what sinister royal connections there are with freemasonry
is captured in this old image.
In 1886 photo taken of Prince Arthur, the Duke of Connaught (the third son of Queen Victoria),
Albert Edward, the Prince of Wales (eldest son of Queen Victoria), and Prince Albert Victor,
the Duke of Clarence (grandson of Queen Victoria)
Royal Family Secrets Exposed 2016 VIDEO
THE MOST DANGEROUS TERRORISTS ON THE PLANET!!!!!!!!!!!
Hypocrite royals and their bullshit on animal conservation VIDEO
Duke of Cambridge rants about Ivory trade
From left to right; Prince Philip (extreme left) with Prince Jagat-Singh (with his foot on tiger's head),
the Maharajah of Jaipur, Queen Elizabeth II and the Maharanee of Jaipur. The tiger which was over 8ft
long was shot by Prince Philip during a tiger hunt during the Royal Tour of India. The skin will be sent to Windsor
Castle. 26th January 1961
Royals enjoy shooting wildlife with their vast arsenals
The royal hand picked to push domestic violence scams globally
Crocodile tears but NOT for the millions of male and child victims of these evil bastards
Today Britain's top royalist rag the Daily Rat pushes one more royalist propaganda story
'I promise I'll keep trying to help': Camilla's pledge after meeting survivors of domestic violence
Now this is NOT a one off article Charlie's missus is traipsing around the world with the same chant and
just one search for "Duchess of cornwall on domestic violence" will bring up hundreds of links to stories
from all over the world with her ranting about domestic violence.
Domestic violence is the means by which the royals hand picked judges can steal men's entire estates
but most especially their children to hand to their paedo friends in high places. This is the most despicable global scam
that lets the royals and their freemason legal lackeys remove trillions from men in family courts NOT
on the strength of real evidence but on manufactured bullshit from lawyers on the gravy train of legal aid.
The Duchess of Con-wall is more interested in the financial returns to her EVIL family than interest
in women genuinely in need. The vast chasm of wealth this bullshit generates requires a steady stream
of lies and deceit to emanate through their controlled media to justify stripping men bare.
How the hell anyone can be proud of the Queen's squalid, mean-spirited and patronage-ridden monarchy is beyond my imagination...
I don’t understand the Brits. I never have, I just don’t get the national psyche.
They’ll rage furiously at the thought of a hard-working Polish plumber grafting his arse off because he’s “stealing our jobs” yet fawn, grovel, bow and scrape at a collection of German-Greek immigrant benefit-scroungers bleeding the country dry. As long, of course, as they’re wearing crowns while they do so.
Despite all of Cromwell’s efforts, the British remain a people in love with the Monarchy and their fascination with the interminable minutiae of the Royals’ pampered lives remains a source of endless fascination. They’ll tell you better Mrs Windsor than Mr Blair as head of state, any day of the week. Quite how and why Tony Blair would be the mandatory head of state if we didn’t have a monarchy is something only they know. Why they feel we need a head of state at all, in fact, is a topic you’ll debate at the risk of your sanity.
They seem to think, also, that the Windsors are to be thanked for generating every single pound of tourist revenue and that that justifies their existence. In fact, to the British, it seems as if the Windsors are the constitutional equivalent of the bloody Beatles; every single thing of any merit is to be laid at their door, irrespective of any evidence to the contrary. It’s a nonsense argument, of course. Like all the arguments from toadying monarchists are nonsense. It presupposes that somehow, someway, were we to rid ourselves of this decaying, corrupt, anti-democratic, feudal hangover, people would suddenly cease to visit our septic isle. People come to see the sights, the palaces, the artefacts, and the visible reminders of centuries of history. It’s not as if the Queen, or one of her dysfunctional offspring, pop out onto the lawn at Buck House to pose for photos with Japanese tourists, is it?
But let’s talk about the money for a moment. Those crazy Brits have spent the last 18 months or so bitterly complaining that because those of them in the private sector have had their pensions looted so public sector workers should shut up moaning and take it too. Frankly, this absolutely mystifies me; this spiteful, resentful ignorance that drives so much British political opinion. Yet it’s woefully inconsistent, isn’t it? Perish the thought nurses, doctors, cleaners, firemen and teachers should manage to hang on to their derisory pensions, which average out at a miserable £5K a year, by the way, but they’ll smile vapidly and cheer moronically while waving a plastic union flag at just one family raking in somewhere in the region of £340 million a year of public money. That doesn’t even include the indirect payments for security, travel, maintenance and those sumptuous dinner parties where the Queen entertains despots, torturers, dictators and murdering tyrants from the Middle East and Africa.
The nauseating Jubilee jamboree added a few extra zeros to the nation’s outgoings column as well. Oh, and the wedding the year before and soon another Royal mouth to feed (despite the Tories saying benefit claimants should have no further children). As if all that weren’t enough to challenge even the most resilient sycophantic ignorance, the Queen, with breathtaking gall, had the effrontery to ask for a further contribution from the government’s cold weather pot, set up to help poverty-stricken pensioners with rising fuel costs, to help heat her bloody palaces! God forbid this fantastically wealthy scrounger should actually pay for these things herself. Her personal fortune, including stocks, shares, property, art and so on is estimated at somewhere in the region of £3 billion.
(Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth, The value of her land holding alone is £17,600,000,000,000)
All this at a time when public services, public sector jobs, wages, terms and conditions are being slashed in the most savage round of austerity measures yet seen in modern times. We can’t afford them, you see. We all need to do our bit and make sacrifices because “we’re all in it together”, remember.
We throw billions of tax pounds at crooked and incompetent bankers, while allowing them to continue enjoying six and seven-figure salaries, bonuses and stock options and then we have these publicly-funded bean-fests of gluttonous and hideously expensive proportions as well. But we can’t afford to let nurses draw the pension they were promised, as part of their legally agreed terms and conditions of employment. Go figure, as the Crown's former colonial subjects might say.
Meanwhile, just a few miles across the English Channel the French shake their heads in disbelief. The average Brit sneers at the French while they riot, strike and rebel at every injustice and outrage. The average Brit, on the other hand, prefers instead to whine, bitch and sulk that someone may be slightly less badly-off than he is and when someone finally does take action, he condemns those people for doing that which he lacks the guts and integrity to do himself.
He prefers, instead, to fawn, grovel and scrape at the feet of a corrupt, anti-democratic collective of glorified social security spongers, parasites that the French had the guts to excise centuries ago.
But it’s not even the money, the inequality, the nauseating display of riches, power and privilege we continue to fund simply due to accidents of birth. It’s the affront to democracy that represents the biggest sin. The Queen and her fellow ermine-clad panhandlers aren’t just some quaint, loveable, eccentric legacy from medieval times. They aren’t powerless and they aren’t harmless. As fellow Saboteur, Nick Margerrison, has noted, they represent and also wield considerable powers, which can be utilised in times of national crisis (for crisis read rebellion, protest, civil disturbance and an uppity peasantry). Via the Royal Prerogative a panoply of special powers exist which can be wheeled out to suspend parliament, implement martial law and snuff out any forces deemed to threaten the existing order. Please don’t delude yourself these powers are merely symbolic; just ask Gough Whitlam…
Oh, and get this; the Monarch is exempt from prosecution for any offence at all. Ever. Outrageous, disgraceful and absolutely impossible to justify.
A constitutional, hereditary monarchy, along with an unelected upper chamber which can overrule decisions made by those whom the public has elected, has no place in any country claiming to be a democracy. No place at all; into the dustbin of history with these reactionary worthies and their entire apparatus of class-privilege, patronage and inequality.
As the Coalition’s vicious ‘Bedroom Tax’ starts to bite, merely another salvo in their ongoing class offensive against the nation’s poorest, will we see the Windsors forced to cough up the extra cash for their unused rooms in their opulent palaces and houses? I’m afraid there’s more chance of waking up tomorrow and discovering unicorns urinating rainbows on your front lawn.
Apart from anything else, what the hell is wrong with a people who individually and collectively have such little self-respect they’ll happily debase themselves before a collection of maladjusted misfits who only occupy the position they do thanks to centuries of incest, tyranny, murder, thievery and bloodshed?
And so you can do one of two things; you can continue to be a party to the triumphalist orgy of sickening, sycophantic fawning that celebrates the anti-democratic concept of inherited, unelected, wealth, privilege and power, paid for by us.
Or you could fight for a future where no one dies alone, cold, starving and homeless on our streets, while a single family of leeches is subsidized to the tune of hundreds of millions, maybe even billions, of pounds every year. A world where the poor are not booted from their homes for the crime of having a spare room and the real benefit scroungers are targeted with the same gleeful spite and callousness as that experienced by the most desperate among us.
Here's to a better, more humane, more egalitarian, world. A brighter, monarchy-free, future.
The royal family are parasites and scroungers VIDEO
No rush to help guardsman who collapsed during royal parasite parade VIDEO
Who's the creepy old bastard behind Kate at old lizzie's 90th ?
It's the grand old freemason the Dukey Kent never far away from the old parasites arse
HRW and Amnesty slam decision to seat UK Queen beside Bahraini king VIDEO
Royal parasites induce Stockholm Syndrome to ensure peasant loyalty
The royal parasites use their media to create a form of Stockholm syndrome the psychological phenomenon first described in 1973 in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors.
Those enslaved by the royals lackeys show the same empathy and sympathy that hostages show towards their captors. Delusions created by attachment to the very bastards that head the hierarchy's that make sure most of the peasants have the very minimum to survive on and leaves them with no ability to get out of the sink estates that system creates.
that requires huge populations to do all the menial tasks that prop up a totalitarian regime.
Those enslaved by the system aren't even aware they are enslaved when it is staring them right in the face. The world's sheeple have been conditioned to accept their fate and to hold those behind their pathetic existence as something to admire and to tug the forelock in appreciation of their dire situation. However lately their control mechanisms have been working overtime as the internet untangles the massive web of deceit they have been getting away with for far to long.
Royal parasite Phillip struggles to cosy up to Obama's missus (the gap says it all) VIDEO
I won't be wishing the Queen a Happy Birthday - she should be Elizabeth the Last
Creepy face swap
As Britain's longest reigning monarch turns 90, Kevin Maguire reveals why he won't be gushing with the rest of us
(Notice the compliant media still suggest they are talking on behalf of EVERYONE else a psychopathic trait)
Many happy returns to the 178,000 people celebrating a birthday but please spare me the gush over this embodiment of “something for nothing” in British life.
The state-orchestrated mass curtsey over our country’s Ruritanian relic will have a jealous Kim Jong-un machine-gunning his Generals, the tinpot tyrant demanding North Korea copy the obsequious propaganda hailing this country’s Dear Monarch who knows little about the lives of her subjects and probably cares even less.
Born into privilege and perpetuating privilege, the Queen’s role is to apply a royal gloss to grotesque inequality and greed with Forbes estimating her fortune at £275m.
(a widely inaccurate account of her vast wealth see link below for a more accurate figure)
To legitimise the unfairness of a roll of the DNA dice which condemns many to poverty, others to graft and a lucky few to a golden carriage ride.
To deploy deference as a weapon shielding the unearned loot of a ruling class, whether blue bloods or the corporate world’s robber barons.
My objection to the kowtowing isn’t the Queen ’s a nasty old lady, cruel to corgis and great-grandchildren.
Like most Britons, I’ve never met her. I’m unlikely ever to after irritating hubby Phil a while back by ignoring a flunkey’s instruction to bow in Buck House.
The happy returns extend to her as one of the 178,000 but the institution she represents belongs to the past and should dumped in the dustbin of history when she’s gone, Elizabeth II also Elizabeth the Last.
We should elect our head of state to meet and greet instead of cranky King Charles III being foisted on Britain.
To be followed by workshy Wills and simpering Kate, the Spencer Matthews and Kim Kardashian of the royal reality show, straining purposefully for the cameras to appear employed on another fabulous junket.
I don’t want to live in a Britain represented by hand-me-downs who must think the entire country smells of fresh paint, streets are paved in red carpets and the population waits silently in line to bend the knee or wave a little flag.
Electing a head of state is fundamental if we’re to call Britain a democracy and finally shake off the feudal family, whether we pick for the job a J K Rowling or, gawd, tax-avoiding billionaire Richard Branson or two-bit politician.
We Republicans will be ignored on Betty’s Birthday but the poll finding 17% want to axe the monarchy means there’ll be up to 11million of us silently spending our money face down and grumbling at the telly.
I admire how the Queen, with her German heritage, and Phil, a Prince of Greece and Denmark, prove migrants integrate successfully in Britain but its time to say goodbye to a Disney production way past its sell-by date with Elizabeth the Last.
Paedo's doing the vilest dirty work for the British royal mafia VIDEO
ROYAL BABYLON: The Criminal Record Of The British Monarchy VIDEO
Royals and MPs may give evidence in Westminster abuse probe over claims of connections to paedo gangs
MPs and royals could be ordered to give evidence over claims they had connections to paedophile gangs, it has been revealed.
Justice Lowell Goddard, the chairman of the landmark inquiry into historical child sex abuse, said politicians still serving at Parliament could be made to testify.
Child abuse allegations against VIPs, the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches, schools, local councils and 'certain people of public prominence associated with Westminster' will be among 12 areas for initial scrutiny, she announced.
The probe, set to cost up to £100million, will even look at claims the Royal Household was embroiled in the scandal. Members of the Royal Family could be called to give evidence.
Last month, Prince Charles was forced to deny he interfered in the case against paedophile priest Peter Ball, who was eventually jailed for sexual abuse.
Justice Goddard, a New Zeland High Court judge, said the investigation – to begin immediately – would look at allegations involving current and former MPs, plus government officials.
The inquiry will look at whether public bodies failed to protect vulnerable youngsters, with councils in Lambeth, Nottinghamshire and Rochdale all set to be probed.
The Anglican and Catholic churches and 'certain people of public prominence associated with Westminster' are facing investigation in the independent child abuse inquiry, Judge Goddard said.
The New Zealand judge did not name any individuals. The royal family has not been specifically identified as an institution being examined but it is understood it has not been excluded from potentially falling under the scope of the inquiry.
It came as the £18 million-a-year probe, which has been beset by delays following the resignation of two previous chairwomen, formally entered its investigative phase.
One of 12 separate strands set out by Justice Goddard on Friday was an 'objective fact-finding' inquiry into allegations of abuse by 'people of public prominence associated with Westminster'.
She added: 'The investigation will focus on high profile allegations of child sexual abuse involving current or former members of parliament, senior civil servants, government advisers, and members of the intelligence and security agencies.
'It will consider allegations of cover--up and conspiracy and will review the adequacy of law enforcement responses to these allegations.'
The inquiry - set up last July following claims of a high-level cover-up of abuse - can compel witnesses to give evidence but is not able to determine criminal or civil liability.
There are two main categories for the investigations.
In an 'institution specific' strand failings to protect children in the care or supervision of Lambeth Council in London, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Councils, and Rochdale Council will be examined, along with abuse in the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches.
The inquiry into Rochdale will focus in part on claims that boys were subject to sexual abuse by individuals including former MP Cyril Smith.
Custodial institutions and residential schools in both the private and state sector also face scrutiny.
The other section concerns a series of 'thematic' investigations into: abuse facilitated by the internet; sexual exploitation of children by organised networks; the protection of children outside the UK; allegations linked to Westminster, and the legal remedies available to victims through the civil justice system.
Justice Goddard said the investigations will begin immediately, with all likely to lead to public hearings, with the first preliminary sessions expected to take place in February.
She said: 'I am confident that this broad range of investigations will give a voice to victims and survivors who have experienced abuse in a variety of institutional settings or where there may have been institutional failings; and will combine consideration of non-recent allegations of abuse with urgent, contemporary issues of child protection.'
The judge said running 12 investigations in parallel is 'an organisational challenge that is unprecedented in a public inquiry in the United Kingdom', but added: 'We are determined to succeed and expect the full co-operation of all institutions and individuals who can assist us in our work.
'The scale of child sexual abuse in this country requires urgent and careful attention.'
The investigations are expected to take between 18 months and several years to complete. Justice Goddard said her aim of the inquiry's work being finished within five years is 'achievable'.
Harmsworth's royalist rag tries to distance the royal parasite from the secret, smug and sinister Privy Council
Only one arm of the royals vast army of freemasons who encircle the globe corrupting, murdering and abusing with absolute impunity.
Makes every other terrorist regime pale with the extent of HER power and control including Hitlers mafia the Gestapo.
They forget to mention her Loyal Lord Lieutenant and head of the global freemason cult the Duke of Kent in all of
their murderous goings on. When vile rags like Harmsworth's Daily Mail start exposing the murky world of the Privy Council
you know they have much more to expose about their murderous subterfuge.
Labour's new leader Jeremy Corbyn should have immediately refused to have anything to do with this royalist machine
that is behind the cover up of how they use blackmail to control.
They've covered up torture, led us into an illegal war and are now placing the Press under state control. It's time to kill off the shadowy establishment mafia that is the Privy Council
* Membership of the Council is for life and are appointed by the Queen
* The Privy Council approved the design and specification for new coinage
* It has also amended several Acts of Parliament and altered various laws
Earlier this month, a private ceremony took place at Buckingham Palace. Along with the Queen, four Cabinet ministers were present. All stood, including the 89-year-old monarch.
Nothing was reported in the Press, but this obscure group transacted more business than any Cabinet meeting.
They approved the specification and design for new coinage, including a commemorative £5 coin to mark the Queen’s 90th birthday.
The secretive group also amended several Acts of Parliament, altering the law of the land on crime, terrorism, education and adoption law.
They changed the statutes of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and gave notice of the ‘discontinuance of burials’ in certain English churchyards.
It was a routine day in the life of the Privy Council, the government body whose origins are so ancient no historian is certain of when it was founded.
Much of its business — such as the issue of university charters and regulation of churchyards — sounds innocent enough. However, I believe that the Privy Council is one of the most sinister organisations in Britain.
Significantly, it dates back to the days when the monarch and their advisers could do what they liked, untrammelled by Parliament, the rule of law or the indignities of exposure by the Press.
Membership of the Council is for life. Appointments are made by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
Anyone who is made a Cabinet minister is automatically invited to be a member, and the rest (mostly politicians) include the so-called ‘great and good’ — the Commons Speaker, leaders of all major political parties, archbishops, senior judges and some royals.
Through the Privy Council, the monarch possesses several residual powers, including the right to declare war.
For criminals facing capital punishment in Commonwealth countries (a surprising number of which still have the death penalty), the Privy Council is the final right of appeal.
Crucially, too, it is the ultimate repository for the state’s most sensitive secrets and has the power to suppress highly classified information it feels should not be in the public domain.
All this would not matter too much if these powers genuinely were in the hands of the Queen, a woman who has been universally trusted and loved during her long and magnificent reign.
AND THE ONE SENTENCE THAT TRIES TO DISTANCE THE ROYAL PARASITE FROM THIS SECRETIVE GROUP IS HERE.
But the Queen does not exercise any of her formal powers. She is obliged by Britain’s unwritten constitution to act only on the advice of her prime minister
This means that government can use the Privy Council as a tool of clandestine, unaccountable power.
As a result, prime ministers use the Council to make arbitrary decisions for which they are not accountable or subject to democratic inspection.
One shocking example of this abuse concerns Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry into the Iraq war, instigated in 2009 and expected to deliver its report with a conclusion within two years.
The inquiry was set up as a ‘Committee of Privy Councillors’ (though it is independent of the Privy Council office and reports to the prime minister).
Sir John has now sat for more than six years, with no end in sight. Every day that passes, the inquiry looks more and more like a cover-up.
It has, notably, been far too deferential towards witnesses (many of whom are fellow privy councillors).
This could never have happened if Chilcot’s inquiry had been set up by Parliament rather than on privy council terms. MPs could and would have held Sir John (a Privy Councillor himself, of course) to account for procrastination and failure to ask penetrating questions.
Consider also another shaming example: the Privy Council has helped to suppress devastating allegations that the British intelligence services were involved in torture during the so-called ‘War on Terror’ that followed the attack on the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001.
In 2010, David Cameron set up a committee of Privy Councillors to look into these allegations. Five years have passed. The committee discovered nothing material and is now in abeyance.
What a contrast with the situation in the U.S., a country that came into being in deliberate defiance of the British monarchy and the secretive and ‘quaint’ medieval customs that go with it.
In the U.S., a Senate Committee, lead by Dianne Feinstein, mercilessly asked questions of the U.S. Intelligence Agencies and produced a crushing report that revealed the horrific scale of CIA abuses.
Yes, the disclosures were terrible, but the very fact that they were published in such detail was a vindication of the U.S. democratic system.
Had the investigation been carried out on cosy ‘privy council terms’, Senator Feinstein would have got nowhere.
The problem is that in Britain, the Privy Council has become the vehicle of a stagnant political elite.
Indeed, anyone who wants to know what the British Establishment is really like should inspect the Privy Council.
It is almost exclusively white, male (12 per cent of members are women) and middle or upper class.
It is a murky place, where scurvy deals are struck away from the public eye — a prime example of that very British institution, the old boy network.
No wonder a certain type of politician craves membership. No wonder prime ministers have been unable to resist the temptation to use the Privy Council as a source of patronage, something David Cameron has been particularly guilty of.
For he expanded the size of the Privy Council from 554 in 2010 to a grossly and over-inflated 657 in June. (At the start of the Queen’s reign, membership of the Privy Council stood at fewer than 300.)
Far too many recent appointments have been given to the Prime Minister’s cronies, such as the Tory chairman Lord Feldman and the Downing Street Chief of Staff, Ed Llewellyn.
Mr Cameron has also arranged for Privy Council status to be offered as a consolation prize to disappointed ministers.
I now come to the role of the Privy Council in probably the most disgraceful episode in British post-war history.
This concerns the British Indian Ocean territory of Diego Garcia in the Chagos Archipelago.
In the late Sixties, Britain expelled about 2,000 islanders from their ancestral home in order to make way for a U.S. military base (where it was rumoured to have hosted terrible human rights abuses).
As they were fully entitled to do, the Chagossians appealed to the British courts, arguing, not unreasonably, that eviction was illegal. The courts found in their favour and the islanders won the right to return to their homeland.
This appalled the U.S. government, which successfully exerted heavy pressure on Tony Blair in Downing Street. The unfortunate Chagossians still live in exile, thanks to a decision made in secrecy in 2004.
Instead of obeying British law, Mr Blair advised the Queen to use ‘orders in council’ to change the law.
As the Lib Dem Lord McNally told fellow peers in the House of Lords in 2009: ‘The shadier part of our constitution, provided by the Privy Council, allowed that decision to be overturned.’
The case of Diego Garcia is a truly shaming example of how the Privy Council can be used by the British state to take away decisions from Parliamentary control, democratic accountability, the rule of law and the eyes of the Press.
These decisions can only be made because the Privy Council is theoretically (though not actually) under the control of the monarch.
A more recent example of blatant abuse of the Privy Council concerns Mr Blair’s notorious propagandist Alastair Campbell.
When Mr Blair was elected prime minister in 1997, he was determined to place Mr Campbell at the heart of government.
This in turn meant giving Mr Campbell — a political appointee — the ability to give orders to civil servants. But this meant challenging the traditional, and highly cherished political neutrality of the British civil service.
There was only one way that the incoming prime minister could secure these new powers for Campbell. This was by forcing the Queen to authorise special ‘orders in council’, which over- rode constitutional norms. The consequences of this breach in procedure were grave. The integrity of the Downing Street official bureaucracy was compromised.
Five years later, Mr Campbell had the power and authority to use the government machine as a propaganda tool to sell the case for war with Iraq. The world still lives with the dreadful consequences of that disgraceful episode.
This brings me to yet another abuse of the Privy Council: the way it is used as a forum for the exchange of information concerning national security.
All opposition leaders have automatically become members of the Privy Council (giving them the right to put the title ‘Right Honourable’ before their name). This means they can be briefed by Whitehall on ‘Privy Council terms’ during international crises.
In theory, this enables opposition politicians to be better informed. In practice, though, they can be fatally compromised.
The classic case concerns the Iraq war, when Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith, as a Privy Council member, was briefed on secret intelligence.
As we all now know, the material shown to Mr Duncan Smith was based on fabricated claims about the existence of weapons of mass destruction that were not justified by the facts.
It would have been better for Britain (and the world) if Iain Duncan Smith had never taken up the offer of these special Privy Council briefings and adopted an independent position. Indeed, apart from avoiding an international catastrophe, if the Tories had opposed Blair over Iraq, they could, possibly, have won the subsequent General Election.
Undoubtedly, there is a lesson here for Jeremy Corbyn as he ponders whether or not to follow convention and become a Privy Councillor.
Corbyn has devoted his life to campaigning against political stitch-ups and official secrecy. He should refuse to join.
If he took such a stance, he would be vilified and mocked by the Blairite wing of the Labour Party — but let’s not forget that the crimes committed by the British state under Tony Blair have all been hushed up with the complicity of Privy Councillors.
More troubling than the Privy Council’s use as a vehicle for patronage is its exploitation by politicians as a weapon to suppress the truth.
As David Rogers has shown in his wonderful new book about the Privy Council, it was only in the Sixties that its role as censor of the theatre was abolished.
The Privy Council also helped to provide the authority for so-called D Notices (Defence Advisory Notices), which prohibit newspapers from publishing sensitive military information.
In theory, these D Notices were justified in the name of protecting national security. In practice, they were used just as often to save the Government of the day from political embarrassment.
This tradition of using the Privy Council to silence the Press is still very much alive. Next month, it will unveil a new Royal Charter to supervise the regulation of British newspapers.
This means, effectively, that Britain’s boisterous and unruly newspapers are being placed under state control — thus ending 300 years of Press freedom.
As a brilliant and penetrating article by the respected journalist Nick Cohen in this week’s Spectator magazine demonstrates, this Royal Charter has the potential to eradicate investigative reporting in Britain.
For the first time, judges will be able to impose exemplary damages against newspapers, most of which can barely afford to fight legal actions anyway.
Even more insidiously, judges will be able to order a newspaper to pay any claimant’s costs — even if he or she loses their claim.
Moreover, I am convinced that the MPs’ expenses scandal would never have come to light had this Royal Charter been in place, for no newspaper could have afforded the legal costs if all the MPs affected had gone to court.
Under the new system, the rich and powerful will be able to claim back protections they have not enjoyed for three centuries.
The Privy Council’s involvement in this disreputable attack on the Press should come as no surprise. It lies at the heart of the British culture of secrecy. It is accountable neither to public nor Parliament.
There is no conceivable justification for the continuing existence of this morally bankrupt body, which has been complicit in many of the worst crimes the British state has committed since World War II.
Royals told: open archives on family ties to Nazi regime
Buckingham Palace has been urged to disclose documents that would finally reveal the truth about the relationship between the royal family and the Nazi regime of the 1930s.
The Sun’s decision to publish footage of the Queen at six or seven years old performing a Nazi salute, held in the royal archives and hitherto unavailable for public viewing, has triggered concerns that the palace has for years sought to suppress the release of damaging material confirming the links between leading royals and the Third Reich.
Unlike the National Archives, the royal archives, which are known to contain large volumes of correspondence between members of the royal family and Nazi politicians and aristocrats, are not compelled to release material on a regular basis. Now, as that relationship becomes the subject of global debate, historians and MPs have called for the archives to be opened up so that the correspondence can be put into context.
“The royal family can’t suppress their own history for ever,” said Karina Urbach of the Institute of Historical Research at the University of London. “This is censorship. Censorship is not a democratic value. They have to face their past. I’m coming from a country, Germany, where we all have to face our past.”
The Sun was subjected to a backlash on social media, after publishing 80-year-old home movie footage from the grounds of Balmoral Castle, in which a laughing Elizabeth, her mother, Prince Edward (later Edward VIII) and Princess Margaret, were shown making Nazi salutes. Barbara Keeley, Labour MP for Worsley and Eccles South, retweeted a message that read: “Hey @TheSun, if you want to stir up some moral outrage about a misjudgement in history, look a bit closer to home.”
Many expressed incredulity that the paper had published the actions of a child. But the managing editor, Stig Abell, defended publication. “It is an important and interesting issue, the extent to which the British aristocracy – notably Edward VIII, in this case – in the 1930s, were sympathetic towards fascism,” he said. The paper declined to comment on how it acquired the footage. Legal experts suggested a police investigation was unlikely, especially given the collapse of recent cases in which Sun reporters walked free after being accused of paying public officials for information.
“On the face of it, this information has been obtained legitimately and used in accordance with what the newspaper feels is appropriate interest,” said John Cooper, QC.
“It’s really a question not so much on the law but whether it’s in the public interest for this material to find its way into a newspaper. The public interest in this document being produced is nothing to do with the royal family but how startling it is that in 1933 people were so naive about the evils of Nazism.”
Urbach, author of Go-Betweens for Hitler, a new book about the relationship between the royals and the Nazis, has spent years trying to gain access to documents relating to Nazi Germany held in the royal archives. She described the archives, in Windsor Castle’s Round Tower, as “a beautiful place to work but not if you want to work on 20th-century material … you don’t get any access to anything political after 1918”.
She described seeing shelves of boxes containing material relating to the 1930s that no one is allowed to research. She suggested that much of the archives’ interwar material no longer existed.
“We know that after ’45 there was a big cleanup operation,” Urbach said. “The royals were very worried about correspondence resurfacing and so it was destroyed.”
Helen McCarthy, a historian of modern Britain at Queen Mary University of London, echoed Urbach’s comments, tweeting that “if Royal Archives were more accessible & welcoming to researchers, ‘shock’ discoveries like Sun’s front page could be put in better context”.
Historian Alex von Tunzelmann suggested on Twitter that the lack of access to the royal archives for historians and the public “is profoundly undemocratic. We need much greater access. We need to be grown up about it. The history of this country belongs to the public”.
Paul Flynn, Labour MP for Newport West, a member of parliament’s influential political and constitutional reform committee and a prominent supporter of the recent release of Prince Charles’s confidential memos to politicians, said the royal family needed to allow full access to its archives, including those relating to Germany in the 1930s.
“It was a very interesting part of our history, when we had a future king who was flirting with the Nazis and the Blackshirts, and we need to know the truth of it,” Flynn said. “We need more openness. The royals have great influence still. Charles is still the most important lobbyist in the land.”
The Sun’s decision to publish the 17 seconds of footage, thought to have been shot in 1933 or 1934, has served as an unwelcome reminder for the royal family of its past links to the Nazis. The Queen, then aged six or seven, joins her mother, then Duchess of York, and her uncle Edward, the Prince of Wales, in raising an arm in salute as she plays alongside her younger sister, Princess Margaret. Her mother then raises her arm in the style of a Nazi salute and, after glancing towards her mother, the Queen copies the gesture. Prince Edward is also seen raising his arm.
Edward, who abdicated to marry the American socialite Wallis Simpson, faced numerous accusations of being a Nazi sympathiser. The couple were photographed meeting Hitler in Munich in October 1937.
A palace spokesman said: “It is disappointing that film, shot eight decades ago and apparently from Her Majesty’s personal family archive, has been obtained and exploited in this manner.”
As it's claimed he nearly became godfather to Harry, how the predatory DJ wormed his way into the very heart of Palace life.
Staff at St James’s Palace could hear Jimmy Savile approaching long before they saw him. The jangling of his gold chains and a trailing cloud of cigar smoke announced his arrival.
Just as with the psychiatric hospitals and prisons where he preyed on the vulnerable, the serial paedophile also had a licence to roam in the Prince of Wales’s London base.
After inveigling himself into Charles’s life as a mentor and adviser, Savile was granted unprecedented access across all the royal palaces upstairs and downstairs.
The DJ was not just at ease with the Queen’s family, but every bit at home with her servants, too.
‘He was in and out of Buckingham Palace,’ recalls a footman. ‘He would often ask if there was any gossip about the royals, and when you look back, maybe he was building up information which would be useful to him if he ever needed leverage. Lots of people were taken in by his fame, which he used to get people to open up to him. I never heard tales of any sexual abuse, but it was perfectly normal to see him with an arm round the young housemaids and other female servants.
‘We were all taken in by him, and thinking back on it now is frightening.’
Indeed it is. This week an uncomfortable spotlight has been shone on those royal links Savile so assiduously cultivated, thanks to the devastating new play, An Audience With Jimmy Savile, in which the broadcaster is chillingly brought to life by the impressionist Alistair McGowan.
The play chooses to highlight the connections between Savile and Charles, and the way the Prince was deluded by the TV presenter’s phoney man-of-the-people bonhomie.
But Savile did not confine himself to one royal. Prince Andrew was called on to help in an episode of Jim’ll Fix It when an eight-year-old girl asked to visit a warship.
The Naval officer Prince was her host on his minehunter, HMS Cottesmore. Princess Anne was similarly obliging on another episode of the Saturday night programme, while Prince Philip was leant on to help a fundraising drive for the National Spinal Injuries Centre at Stoke Mandeville hospital in Buckinghamshire.
Savile persuaded the Duke of Edinburgh’s office to send a letter signed by Philip, thanking a millionaire businessman for offering his services to the unit, even though the help had not yet been secured. The letter sealed the deal.
No royal was safe from his sinister embrace.
Even the Queen couldn’t resist his charm — or so he liked to claim — telling one interviewer: ‘She thinks I’m odd.’ Savile, of course, meant odd in an amusing way, but perhaps the Queen was simply being perceptive.
Quite how much she knew of his traipsing around with her domestic staff is not clear. But on one occasion in the late 1980s, he turned up at a drunken Christmas party where apparently punches were thrown.
It didn’t involve Savile, but he later went to bizarre lengths to deny he had been there, threatening a journalist with violence if he dared report it. However, it was the patronage of Prince Charles which was to provide him with his passport to the royal household, and to weasel his way into the circle of one royal after another.
Savile was so close to Charles that not only did he advise on the appointment of a senior aide, but also sacked another figure because, I was told, the Prince didn’t have the stomach to do it himself.
Astriking indication of Savile’s reach — and the Prince’s questionable judgment — came in 1990 when Charles asked him for advice before choosing Major-General Sir Christopher Airy to be his private secretary. Savile and Charles then met Airy before he was offered the post.
Around that time, Savile took it upon himself to deliver the coup de grace to another prominent aide who had fallen under royal disapproval. Princess Diana insisted to me that Savile did the firing because ‘my husband couldn’t bear to’.
Unlike Charles, Diana was suspicious of Savile, the only man the Prince permitted to smoke in his home. ‘She was wary because she worked out that he was using the royals for his own publicity,’ the Princess’s former bodyguard Ken Wharfe tells me.
He was tolerated, however.
‘He would turn up unannounced at Kensington Palace,’ recalls Wharfe. ‘He would bamboozle the police on the gate and just breeze in. He would tell Diana he was on a mission “from the boss”, in other words her husband, but he just wanted to check up on her.’
He even arrived out of the blue during a walkabout the Princess was doing in Leeds. ‘He wasn’t meant to be there and we didn’t want him there, but there he was,’ says the ex-policeman. ‘He turned it into a Jimmy Savile visit. She was right to keep him at arm’s length.’ Later, Diana herself told me she had always found Savile ‘creepy’. She said that she had once recoiled from him when he went to greet her with a kiss to her hand, but had instead licked it.
When the infamous ‘Squidgygate’ tape was published in 1992, Savile’s name came up. In the conversation between the Princess and Lotus cars executive James Gilbey, Diana was recorded saying: ‘Jimmy Savile rang me up yesterday, and he said: “I’m just ringing up, my girl, to tell you His Nibs [Charles] has asked me to come to help out the redhead [Fergie], and I’m just letting you know so that you don’t find out through her or him. And I hope it’s all right by you.” And I said: “Jimmy, you do what you like.” ’
Diana explains to Gilbey that this was to do with the Duchess of York’s poor public image. Diana went on: ‘He said: “You can’t change a lame duck — or something — but I’ve got to talk to her ’cos that’s the boss’s orders and I’ve got to carry them out. But I want you to know that you’re my number one girl.’ The Princess then describes Savile as a ‘sort of mentor’ to Charles.
This week, the Mail’s Ephraim Hardcastle column suggested that in 1984 Charles had included Savile’s name on a list of potential godparents for Prince Harry.
The eccentric suggestion was said to have reduced Charles’s private secretary, Sir Edward Adeane, a stiff courtier of the tweed-and-tradition set, to a state of bemusement. He was found wandering in a dazed state at St James’s by a friend from the Lord Chamberlain’s office, who sat him down with a stiff drink.
Subsequently Adeane sought advice from Sir Alastair Aird, the Queen Mother’s comptroller. Aird assured him the matter would be ‘dealt with’.
Whether Diana would have countenanced Savile’s proximity to her son seems highly unlikely.
And, sure enough, when Harry’s godparents were announced, there was no mention of Savile. Instead the Prince and Princess had opted for reliability, choosing Prince Andrew, the painter Bryan Organ and the Berkshire landowner Gerald Ward. At that point, however, Savile was not the omnipresent figure he had become by the end of the decade.
‘Like the Fool in King Lear, he was allowed to say things to Prince Charles that other courtiers were not,’ Diana’s former private secretary Patrick Jephson told me.
On one occasion, Charles was getting tetchy because the royal train was running late. Savile, who was with him, asked: ‘What do you want me to do? Shoot the station master?’
He used the same easy familiarity to persuade staff to let him come and go as he pleased at St James’s Palace. Dickie Arbiter, who handled media relations for the Prince and Princess of Wales, said Savile’s presence was deeply uncomfortable.
‘He would walk into the office and do the rounds of the young ladies, taking their hands and rubbing his lips all the way up their arms if they were in short sleeves,’ he recalled. ‘His bottom lip would curl out and he would run it up their arms.’
And because Savile had the run of Stoke Mandeville, Broadmoor and other hospitals, Charles believed him to be an obvious person to tap for advice on Britain’s health authorities.
But health chiefs were said to have been ‘gobsmacked’ to arrive for a meeting at Highgrove to find Savile at the table. He apparently threatened the officials after the Prince left, saying making them unhappy could cost the officials a knighthood.
Savile was a guest at Charles’s 40th birthday party at Buckingham Palace in 1988, and at his 50th. When Charles received a gift of a box of Cohiba cigars from Fidel Castro, he passed them on to Savile.
Later still, on Savile’s 80th birthday, Charles despatched another box of cigars, together with a pair of gold cufflinks and a note that bizarrely read: ‘Nobody will ever know what you have done for this country Jimmy. This is to go some way in thanking you for that.’
Reading that again today in the light of Savile’s appalling sexual aggression, Charles must surely cringe with embarrassment.
You might argue that Savile took in the Establishment and the BBC with equal cunning. But there is something about the heir to the throne being so utterly gulled — and, in turn, giving Savile carte blanche to grease up to the rest of the Royal Family — that is truly disturbing.
No wonder the backers of An Audience With Jimmy Savile are making no plans for a royal command performance.