ROYAL MAFIA: BRITANNIA WAIVES THE RULES
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.
Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth, The value of her land holding alone is £17,600,000,000,000
(Stolen by her despotic forefathers and using freemason judges today to steal mens land and properties in family courts
right across the globe)
BBC 'fawns' in coverage of royals
Royal parasites pathological obsession with haughty titles
(There is something seriously disturbing about their inbred lunacy promoted by their dodgy rags)
Israeli embassy and freemason godfather the Dukey Kent are neighbours
Harry's freemason next door neighbours in Kensington Palace
Jewish charities attend Prince Charles’ 70th birthday party at Buckingham Palace
The Truth About The So Called British “Royal Family”: They are ALL Jews!
EXPOSED: All the Queen’s Agents and Corporations that Control the World
The royal parasites fighting over power grab (The whole rotten archaic system they operate
for their own self enrichment is only fit for the nearest scrap heap)
Royal Family Secrets Exposed 2016 (VIDEO)
Royal parasite's death will trigger massive wave of fake news royalist bullshit(VIDEO)
British royals even use psychiatric gulags for their own family(VIDEO)
The grotesque horrors of Britain's royal mafia and its global tentacles of masonic power and control
The Power behind the Throne (VIDEO)
REMEMBRANCE DAY FACADE (VIDEO)
VIP homopaedo ring operating out of Buckingham Palace and Balmoral Castle
Noel Edmonds claims the royal parasite and Margaret Thatcher conspired to cover up Jimmy Savile’s child abuse
Royal parasites behind global spying at GCHQ and MI5(VIDEO)
British royal parasites and their none to cosy relationship with GCHQ
VIP homopaedo ring 'abused teenage boy INSIDE Buckingham Palace and Balmoral Castle'
ALL THE QUEEN'S FORCES AND ALL THE QUEEN'S MEN
BRITISH ROYAL DESPOTIC HISTORY
Royal parasite's legal mafia thugs try to keep his political interfering secret
World's most expensive homes revealed: Buckingham Palace is top of the property ladder at more than £1billion - beating mansions in India, Los Angeles, New York and France
The Most Powerful Woman in the World
Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
The name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha came to the British Royal Parasites in 1840
Media finally admit Queen is BY FAR the richest person in the world (so why don't the RICH LISTS
Royal mafia and their meaningless titles to make themselves LOOK important when they are NOT
How the richest despot on the planet avoids scrutiny of her vast riches, SHE hides them
behind a facade of the STATE and CROWN
The dodges that push the richest despot on the planet down the trillionaire list
Prince William Taking Two Huge Steps To Become The "Masonic Christ"!
Is The British Royal Family Secretly Jewish?
A Jewish King And Queen Of England? It's Possible
Why is the British royal family named Windsor so damn important?
The "Jewish" Conspiracy is British Imperialism
The Occult Reason For The Royal Wedding
The Royal family and the freemasons
|Hypocritical royals pointing the finger away from their bullying regime
MORE ROYALIST BULLSHIT HERE
Prince William accuses Facebook of putting 'profits before values' as he slams social media giants for
being 'on the back foot' in fight against fake news, privacy and cyber-bullying
Forgetting about Britain's political mafia and Herr Majesty's government his grandmother rules over whose AUSTERITY via the DWP is bullying victims
into early graves, Herr Majesty's Courts where divorcing men are persecuted and stripped
bare to the point of suicide, Herr Majesty's prisons where suicide is rampant, Herr Majesty's Revenue and Customs who push
persecuted victims to suicide as they strip them bare? All overseen by her loyal lord lieutenant top freemason the Dukey Kent
|Bizarre eating habits of the royal chimps
|The usual suspects push the royalist bullshit
How less than six scumbags can create a wall of royalist bullshit that
brainwashes the sheeple into showing deference to a fascist regime. North Korea can't compete
with the level of propaganda flooding Britain's streets suggesting this regime has got some
sort of fount of goodness. WHEN IT HAS NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|Daily Depress and their rabid royalist bullshit
OUR favourite royals? OUR? They dont talk for the vast majority of the British
public who now see the gutter rags as an arm of the royal propaganda machine with
less than six lackeys flooding UK streets with endless propaganda and bullshit.
FEW believe that fiction anymore.
|Remembering a war or an excuse for more royalist bullshit?
|Why do the royal mafia spend so much time mourning the war dead? VIDEO
|Who exactly are the Windsors? - Webster Tarpley VIDEO
|Our Oath Should Be to the People Not the Queen – Abolish the Monarchy
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Tommy Sheridan on why "Austerity is Just a Fancy Name for Class War"
By Tommy Sheridan 16 October 2018
My plan today was to write a column supporting the honourable, overdue and courageous Equal Pay strike action planned by thousands of Glasgow City Council employees next Tuesday and Wednesday, 23rd & 24th October.
That action will be the subject of my next opinion piece now. For I simply couldn’t stand anymore of the Royal Family pomp and ceremony being force fed down our throats by an ever more compliant and subservient mainstream media without indicating some form of protest immediately.
It was Prince Harry and Meghan getting married in May, Princess Eugene (who?) and Jack (who?) getting married on Saturday and today, 15th October, we have the aforementioned Prince Harry and his Royal wife announcing the arrival of another Royal baby next spring. Now I have nothing against weddings and children being born. Weddings are usually splendid occasions with much joy, laughter and tears while the birth of children is the most magical moment in any parent’s life. Both those joyous events do however come at a cost. Weddings cost over £17,000 on average while raising children is an ever-increasing expense.
Unless, of course, you are part of the Windsor family in Britain, no matter how slight or distant the link. And therein is the problem. Every time there is a Royal wedding or new baby the cost to the taxpayer to support these rich benefit recipients rises. The hard austerity pressed public had to stump up £2.25 million for the marriage of a Royal nobody at the weekend and £1.25 million for the Harry and Meghan shindig in May.
I heard the BBC’s Royal brown nose, Nicholas Newton Henshall Witchell, (I kid you not that is his name) bemoan on breakfast news this morning that poor Meghan would have to take things a bit easier from now on as her and Harry were about to embark on a world tour which would include a “gruelling” 22 hour flight to Australia followed by a “tough itinerary of events”. ‘Gruelling’ and ‘tough’ are not adjectives I would attach to First Class travel with first class service, first class food and first class seats that transform into beds at the push of a button. Of course, it will be a ‘gruelling’ experience choosing which films to watch during the flight in between meals and liquid refreshments.
And imagine having to exit the flight into chauffeur driven cars and being whisked to your 5-star hotel room without even getting to experience the delight of jostling with everyone to rescue your luggage from the arrivals carousel and waiting in a long queue at passport control? Then the endurance required dealing with the pampering and luxury lavished on them during the tour would surely test the toughness of any mere mortal.
The difference between a truly independent mainstream media and the slavish puppet of the rich and powerful that we have is the bold Nicholas should have been on the morning breakfast show lambasting the cost to the taxpayer of the two recent weddings, the cost to the taxpayer of the luxury tour and the cost to the taxpayer of another Royal baby to feed and fawn over rather than expressing concern about a ‘gruelling’ flight and ‘tough’ all expenses paid trip.
The Royals receive the best biggest benefits deal in Britain. They cost the ordinary taxpayer in excess of £345 million a year in grants, travel costs, security provision and lost revenues from the Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy of Cornwall which should go to the public purse but instead pours into the Royal purses.
The obedience and timidity of state-run media in places like North Korea is often bemoaned by flunky pundits in BBC or ITV studios but the irony is these outlets are every bit as timid and obedient as those in alleged dictatorships.
Whenever I hear politicians or campaigners call for ‘us’, the public, to get tough with the ‘scroungers in society’ I cheer to the rafters. I concur. I agree. I second that plan of action, overdue as it is. For I too want to get tough with the ‘scroungers’. I want to abolish the Royal Family and all their inherited perks and privileges. I have nothing against them personally but I despise them as an institution. I believe they epitomise the inherent class snobbery, inequality of wealth and stench of upper-class entitlement which pervades and pollutes the British Establishment. The idea that certain children are born to become Dukes, Duchesses, Lords, Ladies, Princesses, Princes, Kings or Queens is quite simply outrageous. The very existence of the Royal Family is an insult to our intelligence, never mind the cost to subsidise them in their obscene luxury.
I well remember the dilemma I faced in 1999 after winning election to the re-called Scottish Parliament, re-called after a 300 year absence. I wasn’t aware that to take up my seat as a representative for the people of Glasgow I first had to swear an oath to the bloody Queen. I have been a believer in and advocate of democracy all my adult life. That means Royalty and vested privilege is alien to me. How could I possibly declare an oath to an institution I abhor and do not believe in? The relevant Section of the Scotland Act 1998 was very specific:
"Under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998, Sections 84(1) and 84(2), a person who is returned as a member of the Scottish Parliament cannot take part in parliamentary proceedings until he or she has taken the oath of allegiance or made a solemn affirmation."
How ridiculous was this? A new, modern Parliament is to be established on the eve of the 21st century and the first requirement of everyone elected to it is to swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown? This made me angry. I examined the issue further only to find that our new Scottish Parliament was not just being trapped in the past with oaths of allegiance to the Crown it was actually to be more slavish towards the Crown than even the Westminster Parliament.
In Westminster, there is also a requirement to swear the oath and Sinn Fein MP’s refuse to do so as they are Irish republicans and do not recognise the authority of that institution. They, therefore, do not take up their seats and serve their constituents from the North of Ireland constituencies they were elected to serve. I considered such a refusal to swear the oath. I discussed it with my family and close political comrades. The consensus was it would be futile as I was the only socialist elected and those who voted for me expected me to go into Parliament to fight against low pay, poverty and cuts to public services.
Then I discovered the Sinn Fein option was effectively unavailable to Members of the Scottish Parliament. The ancient and outmoded allegiance to the Crown was even more immersed into the Scottish Parliament than the UK Parliament. For refusing to swear the oath didn’t mean you couldn’t take your seat it meant your seat was taken away from you completely:
"On being returned as members, all MSPs are required either to take the oath of allegiance or make the solemn affirmation before the Clerk at a meeting of the Parliament. The form of the oath is set out in the Promissory Oaths Act 1868, and the corresponding affirmation, which may be taken instead, is set out in the Oaths Act 1978. An MSP may not participate in any other proceedings of the Parliament until he or she has taken the oath or made the solemn affirmation. An MSP that does not do this, normally within a two month period of being returned as an MSP, will cease to be an MSP.”
What an incredibly backward step for the new Scottish Parliament to take. Each and every elected MSP had to swear the oath within 8 weeks of being elected or be removed:
"I (Member's Name), do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Her Heirs and Successors, according to Law."
As it happens over one-third of the first batch of MSPs elected to the new Parliament in 1999 made some form of protest at having to swear that oath. No wonder. Think about how pathetic it actually is. The first thing elected MSPs who reject the authority and legitimacy of the Crown have to do is lie. They have to lie in public.
An academic study of the new Parliament noted my personal protest as the most controversial as I firstly declared what I was about to say was said under protest as I owed my allegiance to no unelected Monarch but to the sovereign will of the people who elected me and then, inspired by the Black Power protest of athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Summer Olympic games in Mexico City, I raised my arm and clenched my fist while reciting the oath through gritted teeth. What a democratic abomination that a new and modern Parliament’s first act was to compel at least a third of those elected to lie in public. At least my protest is now a matter of public record:
“The socialist Tommy Sheridan undoubtedly staged the most controversial and provocative performance affirming only under protest and offering the clenched fist. He declared his allegiance to a Scottish democratic republic. In the end, one-third of Scotland's new representatives had their individual interpretation of the oath put on their records.”
Almost 50,000 people signed an online petition opposed to spending any public money on the Princess Eugene wedding at the weekend and popular support for the Royal Family has plummeted considerably in recent years from 77% who believed the UK would be worse off without the Royal Family in 1984 to only 51% who thought that in 2012.
The more people learn about the secrecy, corruption and dysfunctional nature at the heart of the Royal Family as an institution the more public support will seep away with the younger generation instinctively opposed to the grotesque privileges and inequality their very existence represents. The explosive revelation in the Paradise Papers leak last year that the Queen is effectively a tax dodger, no matter the pathetic excuses of her hired quislings, will further erode support and respect for the archaic body.
Even the supremely loyal aforementioned BBC Royal correspondent, Nicholas Newton Henshall Witchell, was forced to appear angry when faced with the news that the Queen’s private estate invested at least £10 million in offshore funds in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands to avoid being taxed, a fact that had never before been disclosed. He said:
“It is extraordinary and puzzling that her advisers could have felt that it was appropriate — for somebody whose reputation is based so much on setting a good example — to invest in these offshore funds.
“There will be meetings and questions being asked within Buckingham Palace this morning as the monarchy finds its reputation tarnished by association.”
The Queen is exempt from tax laws, exempt from Freedom of Information laws and gets to make voluntary contributions to the tax man despite being one of the richest people on the planet with an estimated wealth in excess of £67 billion. Her alleged contributions to society via business stimulation and tourism are vastly overstated and unproven with Chester Zoo, Stonehenge and the Roman Baths being much more successful tourist attractions and VisitBritain, the UK tourist agency, unable to find any evidence that the Royals stimulate tourism.
Some people suggest a ‘slimmed down’ Monarchy but I am not interested in an Atkins diet or Low-Carb programme for the Royals. I just want democracy to triumph and the Monarchy as an institution scrapped completely. I demand to live as a citizen not as a subject.
|Yes you FUCKING are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|Royals keen to charm Saudi Crown prince behind Khashoggi murder
|More gutter rag royalist bullshit
|The Truth about British Royals VIDEO
|Wall to wall royalist bullshit in the controlled gutter rags
|The ever expanding royals announce another scrounger to their long line of parasites
MORE ROYAL BULLSHIT HERE
Weddings, sprogs and birthdays always an excuse to push the royal mafia brand with gutter rags
only to happy to provide the massive promotional campaigns that surround a sinister regime who have
their loyal lord lieutenant freemason the Dukey Kent pulling all the secret society strings behind the scenes.
|Another royalist wedding makes for more royalist bullshit
It only takes a few of their MASONIC lackeys that control British
printing presses to flood
the streets of Britain with this utter bullshit and propaganda
|Daily Rat overdoses peasants on another royal parasitic wedding
|Royals want to rescue children at risk (More propaganda and bullshit)
AT RISK FROM WHAT? The paedo's that are rife within the British establishment
or into THEIR HANDS!!!!!!!!!!!
MORE IN THEIR BULLSHIT RAGS
|Thomas Markle likens the royals to a 'secretive Scientology cult'
|British Royals branded disgusting and inhumane
|You can tell a lot about a person by the friends they keep
|The lengths the royal parasites will go to protect their homopaedo pals
FULL ARTICLE HERE
And this from the homo leaning Gayrdian.
In March 1997, the prince wrote to Ball: “I can’t bear it that the frightful, terrifying man is
on the loose again and doing his worst.” He added: “I’ll see off this horrid man if he tries anything again.”
He occasionally sent the Ball brothers “small gifts of money” as well as arranging for a house to be purchased by the Duchy of Cornwall which was rented by the Balls between 1997 and 2011.
Prince Charles rued 'monstrous wrongs' against bishop later convicted of abuse
Child abuse inquiry hears prince told Peter Ball in 1995 ‘I wish I could do more’
Prince Charles told Peter Ball that “monstrous wrongs” had been done to the disgraced bishop and that he wished he could do more to help, the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse has heard.
The comments came in a letter sent by the Prince of Wales to Ball in February 1995, two years after the former bishop of Gloucester accepted a police caution relating to allegations of abuse and resigned his position in the church.
The prince also told the inquiry in a letter that he had been deceived over a long period of time “about the true nature” of Ball’s activities. But he denied he had sought to influence the outcome of police investigations.
In 2015, Ball was convicted of sexual offences against 18 young men and sentenced to 32 months in prison. An independent inquiry last year found that senior figures in the Church of England had engaged in collusion and cover-up over the case.
Extracts of correspondence between the prince and Ball were read to the inquiry on the final day of its investigation into the Church of England’s handling of the case.
In November 1993, after a police investigation ended in the caution and his resignation, Ball wrote to Prince Charles: “Life continues to be pretty nasty for me for it seems that my accusers still want to continue their malicious campaign. Luckily they are beginning to show some of their fraudulent plans.”
A letter from Prince Charles, dated 16 February 1995, said: “I wish I could do more. I feel so desperately strongly about the monstrous wrongs that have been done to you and the way you have been treated.”
He went on to say it was “appalling” that the archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, had “gone back on what he told me before Xmas that he was hoping to restore you to some form of ministry in the Church. I suspect you are absolutely right – it is due to fear of the media …
“If it is any consolation, the archbishop has written me a letter (between you and me) in which it is also clear that he is frightened of the press – what he calls ‘public perception’, which in fact, [is] perception of events and characters based entirely on lies, invention, speculation and sensation.”
The following year, the prince referred to efforts by the Duchy of Cornwall to buy a house that could be rented by Ball and his identical twin, Michael, also a bishop.
He wrote: “I pray the Duchy will be able to find something suitable for you both in due course, but it may take a little time to locate it! I long to see you both settled somewhere that suits you and gives you peace and tranquillity – and not too far from here so you can come over more easily.”
In March 1997, the prince wrote to Ball: “I can’t bear it that the frightful, terrifying man is on the loose again and doing his worst.” He added: “I’ll see off this horrid man if he tries anything again.”
In his submissions to the inquiry, the prince said he was “unable to shed any light on references … to a ‘horrid man’ or a ‘frightful and terrifying man’ after a gap of more than 20 years. However, he suspected it referred to people trying to discredit Ball.
He added that the letter to Ball needed to be read “in the context of my understanding at that time, namely that Peter Ball had been falsely accused of a single offence (the nature of which was unknown to me) … Events later demonstrated beyond any doubt, to my deep regret, that I, along with many others, had been misled.”
Charles was asked to submit a witness statement to the inquiry covering his friendship and correspondence with Ball. After protracted discussions between legal teams representing the prince and the inquiry, he submitted a letter.
In it he said he first became aware of Ball during the 1980s after hearing him preach, and found him to be “an interesting and engaging person”. From 1993 – the year Ball was cautioned by police – he invited Ball to to give holy communion at the prince’s home “from time to time”.
The pair corresponded, although contact was “normally instigated and driven” by Ball. The bishop told the prince he had been “involved in some form of ‘indiscretion’ which prompted his resignation”. Ball suggested that the complaint came from a single individual who bore a grudge.
According to the prince, the “true context and details” of the complaint did not come to his attention until Ball’s trial and conviction in 2015.
“As context, it seems important to say that in the 1980s and 1990s there was a presumption that people such as bishops could be taken at their word and, as a result of the high office they held, were worthy of trust and confidence … At the time there was a presumption on my part of good faith.”
The prince said he was not aware of the “significance or impact” of the police caution and was “not aware until recently that a caution in fact carries an acceptance of guilt”.
He occasionally sent the Ball brothers “small gifts of money” as well as arranging for a house to be purchased by the Duchy of Cornwall which was rented by the Balls between 1997 and 2011.
The letter said: “At no stage did I ever seek to influence the outcome of either the police investigations into Peter Ball and nor did I instruct or encourage my staff to do so.”
He said he had ceased contact with Ball once he was convicted in 2015. “It remains a source of deep personal regret that I was one of many who were deceived over a long period of time about the true nature of Mr Ball’s activities.”
The hearing continues.
|UK VILE gutter rags working for the royalist dollar
It only takes a few fucking morons with printing presses to brainwash the sheeple.
Desmond, Harmsworth, Murdoch and Barclay Brothers the usual suspects.
|The royalist propaganda starts early
|Royal parasite claims "I didn’t know bishop was a (HOMO)paedo"
FULL ARTICLE HERE
The Prince of Wales maintained a close friendship with a disgraced bishop because he did not understand that the clergyman’s caution for gross indecency involved an admission of guilt, he has told a public inquiry.
Prince Charles said that he maintained contact with Peter Ball for more than 20 years until his conviction in 2015 for sexually abusing more than a dozen victims. Ball had to resign his ministry in 1993 after a police investigation into his abuse of boys and young men led to him accepting a caution.
|Harmsworth's Daily Rat continues the relentless royalist bullshit
|RAF centenary fly by another excuse to promote the royals
Power dressing royals out in force
Royal sheeple in their droves show deference to their enslavers
|Harmsworth's lunatic rag claims Queen works????????
|"Kissing the royal arse" honours system are going to people on the committees handing them out
Tacky trinkets taken by those prepared to support a vile regime
|No shame as old royal bat uses Hollywood glamour to prop up the firm
Usual culprits at the royalist bullshit propaganda.
Harmsworth, Murdoch and Desmond.
|Harmsworth's Daily Rat promote royal sprogs shamelessly used to sell their parasitic brand
A brainwashed population with never ending royalist weddings, sprogs, birthdays and every other pathetic excuse
to promote a Britain run by a despotic regime. Only a few press mafia pumping out this bullshit giving the illusion
that they are important and popular when comments right across the internet say otherwise.
|Freemason fed royal parasites on parade
|Celebrities line up to kiss the royal arse once again
|No end to the endless royalist wedding bullshit
Harmsworth, Desmond, Murdoch and Simon Fox (Trinity Mirror) the main culprits
|All Roads Lead to the Queen VIDEO
|Israeli embassy and freemason godfather the Dukey Kent are neighbours
|The royalist browbeating of the peasants goes on unabated
It only needs a few press mafia to create a massive wall of royalist bullshit
that directly contradicts the opinions of the browbeaten peasantry.
|No end to the royalist bullshit
|Gutter press the lapdog for royalist propaganda
Royalist propaganda goes on unabated proving they only operate for one mob
|Kevin Maguire: Push a royal wedding in our face and the monarchy can’t complain when majority turn our backs
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Bigger crowds cheer the brass bands and trade union banners every July at the solidly working class Durham Miners’ Gala but, hey, royalty’s all ridiculous Ruritanian fantasy and that’s topped by exaggerated adulation.
There’s a touch of Donald Trump Fake News in the aggrandized billing of royalty’s latest wedding as the world’s greatest since, well, the last one conveniently involving the groom’s brother and best man.
I’m not against Harry Wales and Meghan Markle. Indeed I send them my best wishes, as I do to everybody else who wed today (the others not charging us a small fortune, it should be noted).
And I desperately hope this is a happier fairy tale than the 1981 edition mis-sold by stand-in father of the bride Charles when poor Di proved a lamb to the slaughter.
But I am against an elitist monarchy and today we were in the silent uninterested majority – 66% or two-thirds of us according to pollster YouGov – who felt what BBC royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell diplomatically termed “polite indifference to it all”.
Street party-free swathes of Britain and bustling shops on a sunny Saturday told us far more about public enthusiasm, of the lack of it, for the establishment production than the fawning subjects who’d travel to watch the Queen order a flunkey to pick up a corgi’s poo.
If that in Windsor was the best the royals can do after months of North Korean propaganda, Harry Jong-un’s summit with his American darling hailed as an international moment of supreme importance, there’s hope yet for us republicans.
Leave me out of the monarchy myth when royalty performs a pernicious political purpose in adding a respectability gloss to unearned privilege and extreme inequality.
Look up to them and the subservient look down on themselves, Windsor as much a people’s event as Eton’s a people’s school or Claridge’s is a people’s hotel.
How mean not to feed the 1,200 “commoners” instructed to bring picnics as they stood in the grounds of Windsor Castle, unpaid TV extras denied even crumbs from the rich family’s table.
Don’t even get me started on the estimated £30m cost when the price alone of the bride’s £250,000 dress could’ve built two council houses.
I had a lovely day today, thank you, going on a Park Run then sitting in the garden before a family gathering.
Push a wedding in our face and the monarchy can’t complain the majority turn our backs.
|Strangeness Around The Royal Wedding VIDEO
|ROYAL WEDDING SPECIAL - Rule By Bloodline? VIDEO
|Gutter rags come out with outrageous claims about royal wedding boost
|Gutter rags overdose peasants on royalist BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!
|Royals new sprogs shamelessly used to sell their parasitic brand
It only takes a few millionaire GUTTER printing press owners to create the ILLUSION
of a royalist paradise instead of the real seedy conjob being made against Britain's unsuspecting sheeple.
MURDOCH, DESMOND, HARMSWORTH, BARCLAY BROTHERS the MAIN culprits.
|The murderous British establishment and their protection network VIDEO
|Harmsworth's Daily Rat's OTT coverage of latest royal parasite's sprog
Gutter rags and their printing press fascist owners the propaganda tool for the royal mafia
|Wall to wall royalist bullshit from the UK's GUTTER press
|One more royal sprog exposes massive disparity in a rare gutter press front page
|Desmond's rag having a royalist propaganda laugh
When psychopaths are in control of printing presses you get this utter bullshit
|The royal parasites fighting over power grab
|Royal wedding invites going out to the peasantry NOT
The royals don't have friends they have an entourage of freemasons who are called on
any time they want to make it look like they are popular. Gaddafi used the same trick
and look how he ended up.
|Royal parasite fears son Charles would DAMAGE monarchy if he became King
|The royal parasite's charity scams
|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
FULL ARTICLE HERE
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.
|TV presenter Ant has been going downhill since rubbing shoulders with the royal parasites
|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
FULL ARTICLE HERE
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.
|More fake royalist bullshit threats
|More royalist bullshit in the 'Kate and Meg' show
HER MAJESTY 14
HER MAJESTY 13
HER MAJESTY 12
HER MAJESTY 11
HER MAJESTY 10
HER MAJESTY 9
HER MAJESTY 8
HER MAJESTY 7
HER MAJESTY 6
HER MAJESTY 5
HER MAJESTY 4
HER MAJESTY 3
HER MAJESTY 2
HER MAJESTY 1