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. SHAKING A FEW HANDS IS NOT 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)
Brainwashed kids primed to shout 'You're the best Queen ever'
(Schools and their head teachers have a disgusting habit of bussing children from schools to see the royal parasite, pre-purchased flags forced into their hands
and told to wave it when she appears. The same ploy was used with the Hitler youth)(VIDEO)
Regular feature of Britain's royalist gutter rags feigning danger to the royal parasites
(and the need for HER to have a massive machine gun presence outside her palaces while her judges steal property
from the peasants without any form of protection now they have stripped the ability of the peasants
to defend themselves)
Royal parasites £14bn property portfolio has had more than 100 evictions over management of housing
(Ex-crown estate home has rent raised by 7% in a year)
Harmsworth's gutter rag mixes celebrity pictures with talentless royal non-entities to make them appear more glamorous
Royal parasites throughout their life feign working to justify their massive benefit scams into the billions with
the full backing of her sordid rags
(The old biddy claims she can plant a tree herself)
BBC 'fawns' in coverage of royals
The Operation Paget inquiry report into the allegation of conspiracy to murder Princess Diana
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)
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
|The royals empire crumbling
| Randy Andy on Spitting Image (Nearly 30 years ago) VIDEO
|Epstein's Housekeeper Reveals All About Prince Andrew VIDEO
|Andrew scandal deepens, Meghan ‘sets record straight’ VIDEO
|Randy Andy escapades only the tip of a brutal murderous royalist regime
|Royal parasite doesn't give a FUCK
|One down but a few more royal parasites to go
|Epstein victims' lawyer: Prince Andrew should give texts and emails to police and answer questions VIDEO
It's NOT my hand honest
|Prince Andrew: The Epstein scandal has become a 'major disruption VIDEO
|UK's vile royalist rags turn on their controllers
|Britain's dirty filthy royalist rags desert the sinking ship
| Prince Andrew’s excuses ‘don’t wash with ordinary people’ VIDEO
|Randy Andy and his masonic minder. Should these creepy Dukes be allowed near children???? VIDEO
The royals loyal lord lieutenant the freemason godfather Dukey Kent and the black arts that operate in secret to remove
any irritant to the royals. But after Epstein's suicide (erm murder) should they be allowed near children?
|Even the usual royalist gutter rags think he's as guilty as hell
|Prince Andrew's Cringeworthy BBC Epstein Interview Part 1 VIDEO
|Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein FULL INTERVIEW - BBC Newsnight VIDEO
|Andy with topless teenager (but it wasn't me my lord)
|Latest Prince Andrew and his ties with paedo Jeffrey Epstein VIDEO
|Royal Spin Machine For Prince Andrew's Epstein Scandal VIDEO
|Randy Andy 'it was not something that was becoming of a member of the royal family'? VIDEO
|How many men accused of rape of an under age girl could get away with this utter bullshit?
|Randy Andy breaks silence on Epstein scandal in interview with Emily Maitlis on BBC Newsnight on Saturday VIDEO
|Epstein's Sex Slave Slams Prince Andrew VIDEO
|How the royalist judeo masonic 'Rule of Law' operates
|When the UK's vile gutter rags speak with ONE royalist tongue
|Claims Royals 'pressured' U.S. network to drop Epstein story VIDEO
As activists we know exactly how the royals and their hired masonic thugs pressure
anyone who dares question their vile regime. Ask any man facing divorce and her
hired judicial mafia pressure those men so much they commit suicide en masse.
There are UK political psychiatric gulags full of victims who dared challenge their massive abuse of power.
|Epstein: ABC leak puts heat back on Prince Andrew VIDEO
|The Foul Truth About The British Royal Family VIDEO
Yet glorified by the fawning tabloid mafia like millionaires Jonathan Harmsworth (Daily Mail), Rupert Murdoch (Times and Sun),
The Barclay Brothers (Telegraph about to be sold) and Richard Desmond(Express now sold). These few creepy bastards
control most of the British print media and responsible for the vast bulk of the royalist bullshit emblazoned
across every newspaper shop and line streets with their discarded gutter rags.
|Gutter rags hid Epstein story while journo's were threatened by the royal parasites VIDEO
Crossing paths with the royals will trigger persecution from their hired freemason thugs and orders from their loyal lord Lieutenant
and the number one global terrorist godfather the Dukey Kent and their thug lawyer mafia lackeys.
|Royal Parasite Visits Royal Masonic School in 1955 VIDEO
|New Doc Slams Prince Andrew For Epstein Orgy VIDEO
|Prince Andrew And Epstein VIDEO
|The Royal Family And Epstein VIDEO
|Young royals split as cracks appear in the firm
|Daily Rat's gross underestimate of the royal parasites worth in "Right Royal Robbery"
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Queen's £100m a year windfall: Green energy earnings of the Royal Family are set to be boosted by an auction for the biggest offshore windpower development in the world
Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth, The value of her land holding alone is £17,600,000,000,000
Much much more on the thieving parasitic paedo royals
Daily Rat suggests it is exposing the royals when the estimate of their REAL worth isn't even close.
They quote their estimate of her worth from way back to 2001 at £1.15 billion which fails to include
the MASSIVE £17.6 trillion land ownership
Where did Princess Margaret get £20m and how about the Queen mother's £70m legacy? In his controversial new book, MP Norman Baker examines the family's finances as he accuses the Windsors of Right Royal Robbery
The British Royal Family is the original Coronation Street – a long-running soap opera with the occasional real coronation thrown in. Its members have become celebrities, like upmarket film stars, attracting often fawning coverage.
So it’s easy to feel that we know the Windsors and that, in some ways, they are just like us. Yet the truth is that the disconnect between the Royals and the public is vast, not least in terms of the extraordinary fortunes they have quietly amassed for themselves.
Some Royal wealth is conspicuous. Take Balmoral Castle and Sandringham House, for example: both were bought with public funds and qualify for taxpayer support when they are used for official business. They remain the Queen’s private property, all the same.
Less obvious are the breathtaking tax breaks, the lavish state subsidies and an all-encompassing secrecy that hides the Windsors’ gluttonous excesses.
Along with parlour games and practical jokes, it seems there are few things they enjoy more behind closed doors than looking after the pennies, certain in the knowledge that they will rapidly turn into pounds, and many millions of them.
As a former MP and current member of the Privy Council, I thought I knew a good deal about the inner workings of the Royal Family, but even I have been shocked by what I have discovered in the course of researching my new book.
The reality is best summed up by Prince Charles himself, when he said: ‘I think it of absolute importance that the monarch should have a degree of financial independence from the State… I am not prepared to take on the position of sovereign of this country on any other basis.’
Which is to say that the State should provide him with copious amounts of public money, free from taxation – or other irritations such as accountability.
We as citizens should worry that our future king has subscribed to a view familiar to autocrats down the ages, one more in line with the practices of his ancestor Henry VIII than a modern democracy.
Guess who pays for coins the Queen gives away?
There is even a scheme to offload most of the costs of the Maundy money the Queen hands out every year.
This ceremony, held on the day before Good Friday, is inspired by the actions of Jesus in washing the feet of the poor. By the 18th Century, British monarchs had decided that handing out specially minted coins was preferable to washing feet.
The Royal Household pays face value for the coins that the Queen distributes, which, given that the coins in question are pennies is hardly going to break the bank. The taxpayer, however, pays for the full cost of the specialist minting, which will not be cheap. Talk about a good deal.
In 2002, I asked the Treasury for the cost of manufacturing the coins, but was unconvincingly told that this was commercially sensitive.
Just how much money have the Windsors accumulated? Regular attempts to nail down the private wealth of the Queen and her family are rebuffed by courtiers who argue that these are private matters. I take a different view: if their wealth has in part been created by unique tax breaks to the disadvantage of the public purse, or from simple exploitation of public money, then the Windsor millions are very much a public concern.
In 2001 this newspaper calculated that the Queen was worth £1.15 billion, excluding those items held in trust for the nation by the Crown, with her investment portfolio valued at £500 million. Her stamp collection alone was put at £100 million. It is a safe bet to assume her wealth has increased substantially since then. Exact figures are hard to come by, however, and no wonder: the Royal Family likes it like that. The highly unusual way they treat legacies is a good example. Wills are public documents, as everyone knows. Indeed, they have always been open for inspection in this country as an essential safeguard to prevent theft and malpractice.
Ever since 1911, however, the Royals have been allowed to ‘seal’ selected wills – or declare them private – in the interests of upholding the dignity of the Crown.
The catalyst was the death of Prince Francis, brother of George V’s wife Queen Mary, in 1910. Prince Francis’s will had scandalously left prized family jewels to his mistress, the Countess of Kilmorey, with whom he was rumoured to have had a child. The Royal Family responded in characteristic fashion: they hushed it up.
Queen Mary persuaded a judge to ban public access to the will and the countess was paid £10,000 – around £700,000 today – to return the jewels. A precedent was set and today, Royal wills are locked up in a metal safe behind an iron cage in Somerset House.
The power to seal wills is certainly useful for those wishing to avoid awkward questions.
In May 2002, I asked the then Prime Minister Tony Blair to publish the Queen Mother’s will after her death earlier that year. He refused, referring to ‘the longstanding convention’ that Royal wills are private.
The will of the Queen’s sister, Princess Margaret, who also died in 2002, was similarly ruled out of bounds. Why, we might wonder? Is the Royal Family pathologically wedded to secrecy or would it have been embarrassing to reveal just how much money was sloshing around?
Although the details of Margaret’s will remain inaccessible to this day, it was eventually estimated that the Queen’s sister had left an estate of some £7.6 million – having previously disposed of £12 million of assets to her family, including her house on the Caribbean island of Mustique, to minimise death duties. Where did the heavy-spending Princess get £20 million? The Royal Family is not inclined to tell us.
A dizzying array of freebies... that can all be kept secret
The Committee on Standards in Public Life has set out a series of tests for those holding a public position.
MPs rightly have a tight code of conduct when it comes to accepting gifts, for example, and Ministers a yet more onerous one.
But the Royal Family seems to have exempted itself.
There is a culture of accepting freebies and exploiting the Royal name for personal gain, which clearly violates the requirements of some of the tests applied to others in public office.
Instead of acting with financial integrity, there are some in the family who seem to use their status as a way of enriching themselves.
Royal supporters will argue that the Windsors receive this largesse in a private capacity.
But individuals employed in public roles elsewhere are required to declare private activities where this might affect their public roles.
Councillors, for instance, have to withdraw from discussions on planning matters if the application being considered may affect their private position.
Members of Parliament are required to register any income from whatever source above a low threshold, whether or not it has any obvious connection with their parliamentary activities.
But the Royal Family can accept any free holiday, free use of a castle, the use of a private jet, a luxury car or designer clothes... all without any requirement even to record these gifts (although official gifts are recorded).
In my view, as a basic step, each member of the Royal Family should be required to register anything worth in excess of £150 unless it is genuinely from close friends or family.
They should also be required to register gifts in kind with a value greater than the £150 limit, where there is a public aspect to this, such as clothes lent to be worn on official engagements.
We have a right to know who is buying favour with those who comprise one leg of our constitutional structure, namely the monarchy, and they should have a duty to make that information public, just as others in public office have to.
If Margaret’s fortune raises eyebrows, the Queen Mother’s reputed £70 million legacy raises serious questions. Take the case of the valuable jewellery that she had supposedly given to her grandchildren back in 1993. This was more than seven years before she passed away, which meant that no death duties were payable.
All these items were found in one of her cupboards after her death, which might be construed as deception, yet the Inland Revenue decided to let it go. So where did the Queen Mother’s £70 million come from? Perhaps part of the answer to the mystery can be found in a 1942 windfall, when she was left a large hoard of jewels by an heiress to the McEwan brewing fortune, a collection known as the Greville inheritance. Was this hoard given to her personally or as consort to George VI? Did the jewels truly belong to her, or to the State? And why were no death duties paid on the £70 million? It could be, of course, that there is nothing untoward in these wills. If so, why seal them?
The Windsors have almost complete exemption from the Freedom of Information Act, too, and special protection from the National Archives at Kew.
The National Archives are releasing ever more of our historical documents as the years go by, and from earlier and earlier. But some stay locked up beyond 30 years and it is no surprise that the biggest proportion of these relate to Royal matters. When I visited Kew, I found there were 3,629 closed files on the Royal Family.
There was no fooling the Royal Family on April Fools’ Day in 2012. Far from it. Because this was the day the Sovereign Grant Act came into force, sweeping away the long-established Civil List and replacing it with a remarkably generous new source of public funding.
The figures speak for themselves. Between 2001 and 2010, the old Civil List had been set at £7.9 million annually. In 2011, it grew to £13.7 million.
But then, in 2012, the first year of the Sovereign Grant, financial support to the Royals more than doubled to £31 million, and this was just the start of a cash bonanza.
In the most recent financial year, 2018-2019, the Sovereign Grant payout to the Royal Family reached a staggering £82.8 million.
This method of paying for our monarch and her family was not merely novel, it overturned more than 250 years of a settled scheme.
In 1760, on ascending the throne, George III did a deal with the government: he would surrender land across Britain to the nation in return for money from the government to support him and his lifestyle.
As part of the deal the government would take over responsibility for funding the Armed Forces, the secret service, the judiciary and other public functions.
Over the years, however, some Royals – especially Prince Charles – have looked with envy at the performance of this land and property, which is today known as the Crown Estates. They have seen it prosper and have started to regret George III’s arrangement. If only the clock could be turned back…
Successive governments of all colours resisted this suggestion until, that is, George Osborne became Chancellor and agreed that the Civil List should be replaced by a scheme whereby a percentage of the profits of the Crown Estates went to the Royals.
Still raking it in from Windsor fire scheme
Windsor Castle required major restoration after the fire in 1992 and it was agreed that, to fund it, Buckingham Palace would open its doors to tourists for a few weeks every year.
It was a neat solution that avoided spending public money and allowed a peek inside the Palace for those who wanted to pay for the privilege.
And it was successful. In the five years from 1993, £25.9 million had already been raised towards a total repair bill for Windsor Castle of £36 million. But hang on – more than 20 years later, in 2019, the doors of Buckingham Palace are still open and money is still flowing in. The restoration of Windsor was paid for long ago, so what is happening to the money now?
It transpires that it was diverted to pay for the restoration of art works in the Royal Collection. A worthwhile cause, maybe, but the public might have expected this money instead to be used to keep down Royal calls upon the national purse.
After all, it is public money that is footing the entire bill for a no-expense-spared £359 million revamp of the Palace (a scheme waved through the Commons by a small group of MPs who took just 13 minutes to approve the plan in 2016.)
This was initially set at 15 per cent, but has subsequently been upped to a munificent 25 per cent.
For the icing on the cake, a hugely beneficial condition was inserted. If in the unlikely event the Crown Estates’ income fell one year, the Royals would continue to be paid the same money as the previous year. Which is to say that their cut would never actually go down.
The abolition of the Civil List has proved hugely profitable for the Royals.
In July this year – to take just one example – the Crown Estates, which holds the rights to the seabeds across Britain, announced an auction for the biggest offshore windpower development in the world.
This will provide a bumper windfall of hundreds of millions for the Queen, a vast sum that, before George Osborne’s disastrous intervention, would have gone back to the Treasury.
It is not as if the Royals are cheap to run. They demand expensive security, for a start, even for minor Royals who most people have barely heard of. Then there are the official properties – way in excess of what is needed to sustain a constitutional monarchy.
The State supports not just Buckingham Palace but also St James’s Palace, Clarence House, Marlborough House Mews, Kensington Palace, Windsor Castle, Frogmore House and Hampton Court Mews, to name but a few.
In total, the taxpayer pays for more than 100 Royal buildings.
Meanwhile, the public purse funds the whole sprawling network of 99 Lords Lieutenant (not to mention hundreds more deputies) who act as the Queen’s representatives.
Of course, if Charles really wants to recreate the position before 1760, that would require the monarch once again to personally fund not only the expenses of the Royal Family but also the salaries and pensions of Ministers, judges and civil servants, and the costs of the Armed Forces and secret services, too.
It was to lose that heavy burden that George III agreed to a new arrangement. But the current heir would appear to be interested only in the beneficial side of the equation that would enrich the Royals, not the one that would entail liabilities.
The Duchy of Cornwall and its companion piece, the Duchy of Lancaster, were not surrendered as part of the 1760 deal entered into between George III and Parliament as they were regarded as insignificant at the time.
In total, the taxpayer pays for more than 100 Royal buildings (pictured, one of those funded by the state - St James's Palace in London)
These two vast estates are still effectively controlled by the Royal Family – and today they are hugely profitable.
The first of these, the Duchy of Lancaster, comprises well over 40,000 acres, including highly valuable swathes of land such as the Savoy Estate off the Strand in London, ten castles and land in several counties across England.
Money derived from the Duchy goes straight to the monarch, as it has done for well over 500 years.
Not shy to claim EU handouts
Like any large landowner, the Royals have benefited hugely from the operation of the Common Agricultural Policy, the rules of which reward the mere possession of land.
An analysis by Greenpeace in 2016 revealed that the Queen was one of the top recipients of EU money, with her Sandringham farmland alone coining in £557,707 that year, with a similar sum every year.
On top of that, the Royals have been keen to look for other public money sources they can tap into, including applying to the Forestry Commission for a grant of £300,000 for fencing work.
The Duchy of Cornwall, which dates from 1337, owns a third of Dartmoor National Park, about 160 miles of coastline, lots of rivers and riverbeds, and residential and commercial properties galore.
This includes highly valuable London sites such as the Oval cricket ground in South London. Its profits go to the Prince of Wales, as do many ancient privileges.
Prince Charles has the right to scavenge shipwrecks and to catch Royal fish, including whales, porpoise, grampuses and sturgeon.
He has the right to wine from every ship that lands in Cornwall and the seizure and confiscation of enemy ships in times of war.
As recently as 1973, Charles received his feudal dues of a hundred silver shillings and a pound of peppercorn from the Mayor of Launceston.
From the village of Stoke Climsland, the Duke – which is to say Charles – received a daily bounty of a salmon spear (an instrument used to catch the fish) and a bundle of firewood while he was in residence locally, a bow made of alder from Truro, a pair of white gloves from the village of Trevalga and a pair of greyhounds from the manor of Elerky in Veryan. A cottager near Constantine baked a lamprey pie with raisins in lieu of rent.
Some of these ancient privileges have very modern advantages. Under the right to create mines, for example, the Duchy registered in 2012 extraction rights for tungsten and iridium, a rare and valuable metal used in modern technology.
The right to foreshore gives a nice steady income from tourists parking on some Cornish beaches, or from surf schools that have been established. There are other advantages, too. The Crown was given exemption from the 1967 Leasehold Reform Act, which was then also claimed by the ‘private estate’ that is the Duchy of Cornwall. That means that tenants of the Duchy do not have the automatic right – unlike just about everybody else – to buy their property outright or secure a lease extension.
Prince Charles (pictured) has the right to scavenge shipwrecks and to catch Royal fish, including whales, porpoise, grampuses and sturgeon
And when a company located in either the Duchy of Cornwall or Lancaster is dissolved, its assets are transferred not to the Treasury, as would be normal, but directly to the Queen or Prince Charles.
Most significant of all, however, is the cold hard cash. Prince Charles receives more than £21 million annually from the Duchy of Cornwall, which has net assets of more than £1 billion. The value of the Duchy of Lancaster, too, has ballooned and its holdings are now worth £533.8 million. Profits have grown from £12.9 million in 2012 to just over £20 million in 2018.
It is true that members of the Queen’s family, who used to receive money direct from the Civil List, now get their handouts from the Duchy of Lancaster’s income. But in every Royal cloud there is a silver lining.
The Queen claims these payments as a deductible expense, even though the rest of her family play no role in the Duchy. The result is to reduce significantly the tax bill she (voluntarily) pays.
But Scrooge-like with their staff
Nicholas Haslam, the interior designer and a friend of the Windsors, once said: ‘The Royals love to play at being poor… They turn each other on with their stinginess.’
At Christmas, some staff at Buckingham Palace are rewarded for their loyalty with gifts such as jam from the Palace shop. Recipients are advised to check the sell-by dates.
The Queen gets a discount on items that are not selling well, or are close to the end of their shelf life.
The staff who fought hard for hours to save valuable artworks and artefacts from the devastating fire at Windsor Castle in 1992 were offered nothing more substantial by way of thanks than a free tour. Most declined.
Although it is termed a ‘private estate’, the Duchy escapes paying any corporation tax, an example of the Royals alternating between private and public status according to what benefits them in any given circumstance.
Given that the Duchy of Lancaster has its own government Minister, it seems clear to me that it is, in fact, a public asset, not a private one, and the profits it generates should go not to the monarch but straight into the public purse. For the monarch to keep them is Royal robbery.
If, on the other hand, it is argued that it is indeed genuinely private, then it should be subject to the same rules as any other private estate, notably in terms of taxation. The Royal Family should not have it both ways, but the problem is it seems they can and do.
Another giant wheeze is the exemption from inheritance tax for bequests from a king or queen to the heir who succeeds them.
For example, the Treasury is estimated to have lost out to the tune of between £20 million to £25 million on the death of the Queen Mother in March 2002. Tax-free gifts to her daughter included a priceless Fabergé egg collection, her string of racehorses and a valuable collection of paintings. Naturally, whatever is held in trust by the monarch but which belongs to the nation is exempted from death duties, and rightly so. This would include buildings such as Buckingham Palace and treasures such as the Crown Jewels and the Royal Collection. But why should inheritance tax not be applied to a monarch’s personal property, just as it is for every other person in the country? Why has it never been applied to private Royal possessions such as Balmoral and Sandringham?
There are those who believe that much of the Queen’s so-called private estate should be returned to the nation anyway.
Sandringham, Balmoral and the Osborne estate on the Isle of Wight were purchased by Queen Victoria from monies given to her by Parliament through the Civil List.
As a result of Albert’s regular pleadings of poverty they were given more than they needed to enable Victoria to carry out her constitutional duties, but then hung on to the cash and invested it in property.
Earlier this century, the public was rightly horrified when the grisly details of the abuse of expenses by MPs were uncovered.
Here were people in high office taking public money designed to support them in their job as elected representatives, and instead using it to provide duck houses, clear ivy off buildings, clean moats, buy luxurious furniture and the rest.
For the Royals to use Civil List money to buy and help amass a private property portfolio is no different: it is fiddling their expenses.
Abridged extract from … And What Do You Do? What The Royal Family Don’t Want You To Know, by Norman Baker, published by Biteback on Tuesday, priced £20. Offer price £16 (20 per cent discount) until November 12, 2019. To order, call 01603 648155 or go to mailshop.co.uk. FREE delivery on all orders – no minimum spend.
QUEEN'S £100M A YEAR WINDFARM WINDFALL
The Queen and Prince Charles could make more than £100 million a year from the huge expansion of offshore windfarms – thanks to a change in the way that the monarchy is funded.
The green energy earnings of the Royal Family are being significantly boosted by an auction, which formally began last week, for the biggest offshore windpower development in the world.
If they were still being paid by the long-established Civil List, the Royals would not have benefited. However, the then Chancellor George Osborne replaced it in 2012 with the Sovereign Grant.
Crucially, the deal gives the Queen 25 per cent of the profits from the Crown Estate, which owns the seabed within Britain’s territorial waters that extend almost 14 miles from the coast. The Crown Estate charges rent equal to two per cent of revenues for use of its seabeds for windfarms and collected £41 million last year. It will also collect ‘option fees’ each year from successful bidders for the five new highly lucrative concessions.
In a comprehensive examination of Royal finances, former Liberal Democrat Minister and Privy Counsellor Norman Baker describes in a new book how the abolition of the Civil List ‘has proved hugely profitable’ for the Queen.
He said that the windpower development ‘will provide a bumper windfall of hundreds of millions for the Queen, a vast sum that before George Osborne’s disastrous intervention would have gone back to the Treasury’. Serialised today in The Mail on Sunday, Mr Baker’s book also reveals:
Prince Charles is a vociferous campaigner for renewable energy sources but is opposed to turbines being erected on land – particularly near his own homes. He has described windfarms as a ‘horrendous blot on the landscape’ and has refused to have any built at his Highgrove estate in Gloucestershire or on the Duchy of Cornwall estate. He has, however, expressed enthusiasm for siting them offshore.
The auction of seabed licences is the first for ten years and is expected to be highly competitive as companies seek to develop projects in UK waters, the world’s biggest market for offshore wind.
The Mail on Sunday revealed in 2010 how the boost to Royal finances had quietly slipped through as part of that year’s Comprehensive Spending Review.
In what one source described last night as a ‘masterstroke’ by Prince Charles’s then closest adviser Sir Michael Peat, 250 years of history was overturned by scrapping the arrangement under which taxpayers’ money was been used to fund the Royals and pay for the upkeep of their palaces.
Industry experts believe if the Government’s wind energy target – to source a third of electricity from offshore wind by 2030 – is met, the Queen could collect more than £100 million annually. At present it sources eight per cent from wind. Over the past ten years the Crown Estate has returned a total of £2.8 billion to the Exchequer – including a record £343.5 million last year – which has been invested in public services.
As managers of the seabed around England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Crown Estate says it ‘works closely with industry and stakeholders to identify sites for sustainable development, awarding seabed rights for offshore renewable energy, as well as cables pipelines and marine aggregates’.
The level of the Sovereign Grant is reviewed every five years with the next review is in 2021. The Civil List financed the monarchy from the time of King George III. Under the new system, the Queen’s finances are subjected to the same detailed audit and examination by MPs as Whitehall departments to ensure that they provide ‘value for money’.
When the new rules were announced, Mr Osborne, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said the Monarch’s budget would rise and fall in line with the wider economy. Ministers can block any excessive rises in the Queen’s income and set aside reserves to protect members of the Royal Family from steep falls in their budget.
|Prince Andrew's Epstein PR Strategy And Carl Beech VIDEO
|Royal parasites sue the very gutter rags that prop up their evil fiefdom VIDEO
But they NEVER attack old Lizzie for fear of the repercussions. So is she personally condoning the attacks
on Meghan like she did with Diana? She has the power to call off the rottweilers who work at these vile rags?
So is their loyal lord lieutenant and freemason godfather the Dukey Kunt instructing their rags to attack?
|Royals involving themselves in mental health campaign VIDEO
Maybe they should ask their grandmother why HER hand picked FREEMASON judges are pushing men en masse
into early graves during divorce?
|Prince Andrew In Australia Backed Up By Fergie (SEEMINGLY ABOVE THE LAW) VIDEO
|Young royals now at war with their propaganda machine
Like Diana, Harry's moll gets bad press but NOT the Queen you can only surmise
the reason why she gets positive press but Meghan doesn't.
|Will FBI Probe Prince Andrew? VIDEO
|Outside Ghislaine Maxwell's London House: Epstein Procurer For Prince Andrew VIDEO
|London Epstein-Style Paedo Rings Protected By Police: Ex-Cop Jon Wedger VIDEO
|Royal Parasite Rigs Elections Around the World VIDEO
But what's much worse is that we usually don't even have a choice from her chosen political lackeys.
Elections are rigged even before the elections come round.
|No fun having predatory paedo's in the family?
|The Prince and the Paedophile: Epstein's Royal Scandal VIDEO
|Prince Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell next to fall? VIDEO
|How far are the UK's gutter rags prepared to lie to prop up the royal parasites?
|Epstein 'was a guest at Princess Beatrice's lavish £400,000 18th birthday party at Windsor Castle
|Prince Andrew Epstein Timeline v Royal Propaganda Machine VIDEO
|No shame as royal parasite's sprogs used as promotion tool
Every gutter rag that runs this story is a vile royalist rag run by a millionaire
|Brighton petition forcing council to remove all royal titles in its documents and proceedings because they are 'entirely non democratic and symbolic of the oppression of the general
public by the wealthy elite'
| John Lydon on the Sex Pistols attacking the Queen and the dangers that followed (from 1.29) VIDEO
|Prince Andrew allegations rocking the Royal family VIDEO
Brexshit and the closing down of parliament sanctioned by the Queen a convenient distraction
|Neither UK or USA cops will arrest these untouchable royal scum
|Virginia Roberts accuses Prince Andrew outside court on sex abuse VIDEO
|Royal parasite can't run away from his crimes
|Royal parasite issued a statement about Jeffrey Epstein VIDEO
|Royal parasites rant on about security risks but NOT when they are shagging underage sex slaves
|Epstein scandal: Where is Prince Andrew hiding? VIDEO
You can't dress up a fucking nasty turd it's still a fucking nasty turd
|Met's masonic run cops did NOT investigate claims of rape by mason Prince Andrew VIDEO
THESE FUCKERS THINK THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW
IF THERE IS ONE CASE WHERE FREEMASONS NEED ROOTED OUT OF THE POLICE IT IS THIS ONE
Channel 4 News can reveal that the Metropolitan Police began a review of "available evidence"
in 2015 after receiving a complaint over claims in court papers that a girl was "forced to have sex with Prince Andrew".
Channel 4 News also understands that lawyers for Virginia Roberts independently contacted the Metropolitan Police in 2016.
The Metropolitan Police said it “reviewed the available evidence” and decided that the matter “would not progress to a full investigation”.
It is not clear what constituted the available evidence.
The Met Police has refused to answer detailed questions about the allegations and whether they ever spoke to Epstein, his friend Ghislaine Maxwell, Prince Andrew or anyone from the Royal Household.
Prince Andrew has always denied “any form of sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts”.
|No justice for Epstein accusers as Queen denies ties – Galloway VIDEO
|BALMORAL BASH Prince Andrew ‘hosted paedo pal Jeffrey Epstein and young model at Balmoral’ as Duke finally breaks silence to say he’s ‘appalled’ at scandal
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Billionaire paedo Jeffrey Epstein and ex Ghislaine Maxwell pictured on pheasant shoot with Prince Andrew at Queen’s estate
(Has he been working for the royal parasites with his blackmail network and giving them and their masonic lackey
the Duke of Kent dirt on anyone in power?)
PRINCE Andrew hosted paedo pal Jeffrey Epstein and a young model at Balmoral, it was reported last night - as the Duke finally broke his silence over the scandal.
He's said to have personally welcomed the disgraced financier and his entourage - including a model in her 20s - to the castle in 1999.
Speaking anonymously, the woman told the Daily Mail how the party stayed overnight at the 52-bedroom royal estate.
They even spent the following day being entertained in the grounds in late summer or early autumn - when the Queen was likely to have been in residence.
The revelation came as Andrew, 59, finally addressed his friendship with sex beast Epstein - who hanged himself in his New York jail cell this month.
He said last night that he was "appalled" by the allegations of underage sex trafficking made against the shamed Wall Street tycoon.
In a statement, Buckingham Palace said: "The Duke of York has been appalled by the recent reports of Jeffrey Epstein's alleged crimes.
"His Royal Highness deplores the exploitation of any human being and the suggestion he would condone, participate in or encourage any such behaviour is abhorrent."
'HOUSE OF HORRORS'
That response followed the release of images showing Prince Andrew inside Epstein's £63million mansion in New York - dubbed the "House of Horrors" by some of his victims - nine years ago.
Footage obtained by The Mail On Sunday showed the Duke peering out of the front door of the sprawling home on Manhattan's East 71st Street - waving to a young woman as she leaves.
The video was filmed in 2010 - two years after Epstein had been convicted of sex with a child.
The Duke later quit his role as UK trade envoy after fallout from photos of him with the billionaire in Central Park from the same trip emerged.
'HE LOOKED TOTALLY AT EASE'
A source claimed to the Mail On Sunday that the footage was extremely concerning for the Prince.
They said: "When the Prince came to the door I was stunned. He looked totally at ease.
"He said a few words to the girl, who was very pretty, and then she walked off down the street in the direction of Central Park.
"If I hadn't known it was Prince Andrew, I would have thought he owned the place.
"He looked so comfortable and relaxed as he stood there at the door.
"It was only as the girl walked off that he glanced around the door frame, almost as if to check no one was watching."
'CHIT-CHAT' WITH ANDREW
Recalling making "chit-chat" with the Prince during the 1999 Balmoral trip, the then-model said: "He was really nice.
"He was very polite. [He had his] guard up."
But the woman - who had been recruited to give sexual massages to perv Epstein - fears she may have been brought on the week-long UK trip with the intention of being "lent out" to one of Epstein's influential pals.
She added: "Why was I really there?
"Did [Epstein] really enjoy my company all that much or was I being prepped to end up being sent out like a gift to some people?"
She never found out what plans - if any - Epstein had for her at Balmoral as she went to bed early.
A spokesman for Prince Andrew declined to comment on the Balmoral visit.
The Prince has always vehemently denied any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein.
But Andrew has been haunted by a now-notorious photograph showing him with alleged Epstein sex-slave Virginia Roberts - who was just 17 at the time.
The snap - which also includes Epstein's alleged "madam", the British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell - shows the Prince grinning as he grasps her by her bare midriff.
It was taken in 2001 during another trip by Epstein and his entourage to the UK - during which Roberts alleged she had sex with the royal three times.
Those claims were thrown out by a US court in 2014 after a judge branded them "immaterial and impertinent".
Buckingham Palace said of the allegations: "Any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors is categorically untrue.
"It is emphatically denied that the Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts."
Last night, the woman who attended the Balmoral trip said the photo of Andrew with Roberts "sickened" her.
She also told how she travelled the world with billionaire Epstein during her year in his disturbing clan - going on about a dozen trips.
He paid for a place for her to live in New York rent-free - and later covered her college tuition fees.
She added: "We fooled around a bit. I never had intercourse with him."
Epstein is understood to have killed himself on August 10 - just 12 days after being removed from suicide watch.
He was placed on high alert after apparently trying to take his own life on July 23, shortly after he was denied bail ahead of his sex trafficking trial.
But less than a week after he was found with marks on his neck, prison officials determined he was no longer a threat to himself.
|Mountbatten “was a homosexual with a perversion for young boys”
FULL ARTICLE HERE
A KINCORA BOY ABUSED BY MOUNTBATTEN COMMITTED SUICIDE A FEW MONTHS LATER
Mountbatten with the queen
Mountbatten with Charles as a boy
'LOW MORALS' FBI claims that Lord Mountbatten ‘lusted after boys’ could overshadow 40th anniversary of his murder by IRA
IT was one of the darkest days of the Troubles.
Just before noon Prince Charles’s uncle Lord Louis Mountbatten was assassinated by the IRA, who detonated a bomb on his fishing boat off the southern Irish coast.
Four hours later, across the border in Ulster, 18 British soldiers were massacred by two IRA bombs at Warrenpoint.
But the 40th anniversary of that terrible day — August 27, 1979 — is likely to be overshadowed by shocking revelations about Earl Mountbatten.
Newly-released FBI files say the aristocrat was "bisexual" and sexually voracious.
The secret reports, compiled by the US agency over three decades including during World War Two, contain allegations that Mountbatten “was a homosexual with a perversion for young boys”.
The files claim Mountbatten, the former chief of defence staff, was “unfit to direct military operations” because of his sexual appetite.
The FBI files are featured in a book to be published this week which includes an interview with Ron Perks, the Earl’s driver in Malta in the late Forties.
He tells how one of Mountbatten’s favoured haunts was the Red House in Rabat, which was “an upmarket gay brothel used by naval officers”.
Gay Labour MP Tom Driberg, who died in 1976, nicknamed the Earl “Mountbottom”.
Mountbatten’s wife’s affairs are well known and he did once admit: “Edwina and I spent all our married life getting into other people’s beds.”
Rumours of Mountbatten’s bisexuality have been hinted at since his death but the Establishment closed ranks.
Now the FBI files uncovered by author Andrew Lownie are the first official confirmation the Earl — who will be played by Charles Dance in the latest Netflix series of The Crown — had relationships with men at a time when homosexuality was illegal.
The FBI’s dossier includes an interview in February 1944 with Elizabeth de la Poer Beresford, Baroness Decies, a friend of the Queen Mother.
Mountbatten was wartime Supreme Allied Commander in South East Asia at the time.
The Baroness told the head of the FBI’s New York field office, “Lord Mountbatten and his wife are considered persons of extremely low morals”.
The report adds: “She stated that Lord Louis Mountbatten was known to be a homosexual with a perversion for young boys.
“In Lady Decies’ opinion he is an unfit man to direct any sort of military operations because of this condition.
“She stated further that Lady Mountbatten was considered equally erratic”.
'YOUNG MEN FETISH'
FBI bureau chief EE Conroy wrote that the Baroness appeared to have no special motive in making her damning statement.
The Mountbattens: Their Lives, published on Thursday, includes an interview with Anthony Daly, rent boy to the famous in the Seventies.
Daly had a relationship with Tom Driberg and claims: “Tom said Mountbatten had something of a fetish for young men in military uniforms, with high boots, and beautiful boys in school uniform.”
From 1965 until his death Mountbatten was Regimental Colonel of the Lifeguards, a source of young men.
And an unnamed officer claimed that in the mid-1960s, around the time he took charge of the regiment, Mountbatten set up a young officer in a flat in London’s Belgravia.
Driberg’s biographer Francis Wheen says Mountbatten — who was also Admiral of the Fleet — tried to seduce a 17-year-old sailor. Wheen says the naval rating was lined up “to go on a picnic for two” with Mountbatten when he was visiting Malta.
Mountbatten became the focus of FBI interest again during the Suez Crisis and in 1957 a file referring to Mountbatten’s homosexuality was sent to the US Department of Justice. But many official memos referring to the Earl’s homosexuality have been redacted or destroyed.
One file from April-July 1956 was shredded two years ago, after Lownie requested the records.
Mountbatten’s wife Edwina came under scrutiny because of her close friendship with Krishna Menon, the Indian defence minister, and because she “had affairs with black men”.
In April 1957 the FBI produced a memo on allegations of an affair with singer Paul Robeson.
She also had an on-off relationship with West Indian pianist Leslie “Hutch” Hutchinson, who she is said to have given a jewelled penis sheath from Cartier.
Mountbatten’s youngest daughter Lady Pamela Hicks told how her father was devastated when Edwina took a lover but for decades he enjoyed a relationship with Yola Letellier, the young Frenchwoman who the film Gigi was based on.
Author Andrew Lownie says Mountbatten’s sexuality drove him to the top: “His sense of inadequacy in his private life found an outlet in his determination for public office.
|A KINCORA BOY ABUSED BY MOUNTBATTEN COMMITTED SUICIDE A FEW MONTHS LATER
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Joseph Mains, the Warden of Kincora Boys’ Home. Mains trafficked Kincora boys to Lord Louis
Mountbatten at Classiebawn Castle, Co. Sligo in the Republic of Ireland for sexual abuse.
It has long been rumoured in Britain that Lord Louis Mountbatten was a homopaedo.
A book due to go on sale next week has dug up impressive new evidence confirming what
Irish sources – including the Provisional IRA – have known for decades about his sexual predilections.
So impressive is the new evidence that mainstream British media outlets such as The Mail on Sunday,
The Sunday Times and The Sun are covering the story. The book contains sensational new information
about Kincora Boys’ Home in Belfast. Curiously, while the British media is happy to report on Mountbatten’s abuse
of boys generally, the sections in the book about Kincora are being ignored.
The book is called, The Mountbattens: their Lives & Loves, by Andrew Lownie. The author is a respected and serious historian who was once a Conservative Party Westminster election candidate. He is still friendly with many Tory MPs including one recently retired Cabinet minister. Lownie is also author of a book on Guy Burgess entitled Stalin’s Englishman which had many interesting Irish angles to it.
LOWNIE WAS DENIED ACCESS TO CERTAIN IRISH STATE FILES ON MOUNTBATTEN
During his research for his book, Lownie tried to gain access to certain State files including Garda files about Mountbatten. One senior Garda who is now dead told Village a number of years ago that he had heard disturbing rumours about Mountbatten sexual activities before he was killed.
Another Garda intelligence source says that he had heard stories that while he had been living in India, Mountbatten had access to a 14 year old boy.
If Garda Intelligence, led by Larry Wren, the Head of C3 during the 1970s, knew anything about Mountbatten’s predilections, or the presence of cars with Northern Ireland registration plates, and boys visiting his property at Classiebawn in the company of older men, he did nothing about any of it. The Gardai must have noted the registration plates. This means that the Gardai may have files for August 1977 which logged the car belonging to Joe Mains, the Warden of the notorious Kincora Boys’ Home who trafficked at least two boys to Classiebawn. If the logs still exist, will Garda Commissioner Drew Harris (ex-RUC and ex-PSNI link man to MI5) see to it that they are released and prove once and for all that an Anglo-Irish Vice Ring ring existed involving Joe Mains?
Will the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) in London which is probing the existence of VIP child sex abuse request Drew Harris and the Irish Government to release the relevant Garda security logs for August 1977, and indeed for all of the summers he stayed in Classiebawn?
If they no longer exist, were they destroyed under Wren’s watch and if so, why?
Mountbatten’s movements were of enormous importance to the Gardai in the 1970s. Typically, the first they would hear about his pending arrival in the country was a frantic call from MI5 in London to alert them that he had boarded the Hollyhead car ferry en route to Dublin. Mountbatten’s reputation inside the Garda was that he was reckless about his security. He often gave them a security headache. On one occasion he managed to disembark before the Gardai could reach the ferry and provide him with an escort. However, on this occasion his car broke down and they rushed to his aid inland. His vehicle was towed back to Garda HQ at the Phoenix Park in Dublin where it was repaired by the fleet service department. While the repairs were taken place, Mountbatten was given a tour of the HQ which had originally been built as a Royal Irish Constabulary complex. The Gardai who dealt with him found him to have been ‘a most charming man’.
THE FBI FILES ON MOUNTBATTEN
Lownie relies on declassified FBI files which reveal that Lord Mountbatten “was a homosexual with a lust for young boys”. The FBI dossier was compiled by American agents during WWII and the Suez Crisis. The Americans began compiling the Mountbatten file in February 1944, shortly after Mountbatten became Supreme Allied Commander of Southeast Asia. They kept adding to it over the next three decades.
The FBI interviewed Elizabeth de la Poer Beresford, Baroness Decies, who knew about Mountbatten’s predilections. According to the FBI file: “She states that in these circles Lord Louis Mountbatten and his wife are considered persons of extremely low morals”. Also that he “was known to be a homosexual with a perversion for young boys”. Her opinion of him was that he was “an unfit man to direct any sort of military operations because of this condition”. She stated further that “his wife Lady Mountbatten was considered equally erratic”.
The entries on the file by the Baroness were signed by EE Conroy, Head of the New York field office, who wrote that she “appears to have no special motive in making the above statements”.
Agents opened more files on Mountbatten after World War II when he became NATO commander of allied forces in the Mediterranean, then admiral of the fleet, and later chief of the defence staff.
The FBI has long been known to keep compromising material on high-profile figures, most famously Martin Luther King.
THE EVIDENCE OF RON PERKS
The book also describes how Mountbatten’s former chauffeur Ron Perks often drove him to “an upmarket gay brothel used by senior naval officers” called the Red House near Rabat in Malta.
THE PROVISIONAL IRA WAS AWARE MOUNTBATTEN WAS A PAEDOPHILE
The Provisional IRA knew that Mountbatten was a paedophile. This information played no part in their decision to target him. A plot was hatched to kill him in 1975 but it did not proceed. According to an IRA intelligence officer active at the time, “It was a better plan” than the one which went ahead in 1979. The earlier plot had been to shoot the Royal in his car when he emerged from his castle at Classiebawn, County Sligo. According to the IRA source, it would have avoided civilian casualties.
JOSEPH MAINS, THE MAN WHO TRAFFICKED BOYS TO CLASSIEBAWN
The man responsible for trafficking the boys to Classiebawn was Joseph Mains, the Warden of Kincora. Two of the boys referred to in Lownie’s book did not wish for their names to appear in print in connection with Mountbatten and Lownie has respected this. A third boy died in November 1977 and is also not named. Village is fully aware of all of their names and will respect the desire of the two living boys to remain anonymous. Village is also aware of some additional information which does not appear in the book. The most significant additional piece of information is about the boy who committed suicide. His name was Stephen Waring.
STEVEN WARING, THE BOY WHO COMMITTED SUICIDE
Mountbatten abused these boys during his summer vacations at Classiebawn in August of 1977. Mountbatten always visited his castle there in August. Steven Waring was in Kincora at the time. He committed suicide within a few months of the visit to Co. Sligo. He had escaped from Kincora and made it as far as Liverpool where he was captured and put back on the Belfast-Liverpool Monarch Ferry from which he plunged into the sea in November of 1977. Waring had been put in a part of the ship which should have prevented him from gaining access to the part of it from where he plunged to his death. A witness – a British solider – was reputed to have said that he was very drunk at the time of his fall. His body was never recovered. No autopsy has ever taken place. The RUC later concluded that his death was unconnected with the acknowledged wrongdoing at Kincora.
THE ABUSE OF ‘SEAN’
The abuse involving Steven Waring and his friend called ‘Sean’ by Lownie took place in a building adjacent to Classiebawn Castle.
Waring and ‘Sean’ knew they were being taken to the Republic of Ireland because Mains, who was sitting in the front of the vehicle, turned around and told them that they had crossed the Border.
While the mainstream British media is happy to report on the FBI files and the Ron Perk’s revelations, and much more besides, they have completely ignored the revelations on Kincora in the book. Equally, they have ignored the story of yet another boy who was ensnared in the wider Anglo-Irish Vice Ring of which Kincora was a part. (See the section on the third boy, ‘Amal’ in the section below.)
As Lownie describes it, ‘Sean’, ‘was 16 years old when he says he was driven from the Kincora Boys Home in Belfast to Classiebawn in the summer of 1977. As the men who had brought them waited outside, ‘Sean’ remembers being taken into a darkened room where he was joined by ‘a man who undressed me and then gave me oral sex. I was there about an hour. He spoke quietly and tried to make me feel comfortable. He was one of those men who wanted attention, wanted you to chase him . . . I think he felt some shame. He said very sadly, ‘I hate these feelings.’ He seemed a sad and lonely person. I think the darkened room was all about denial . . . He grabbed my hand and put it on his chest . . . I only recognised who he was when I saw on the news that Lord Mountbatten had been killed’.
Village has also spoken to ‘Sean’ who told us that he recalled noticing a ‘weird castle’ in the distance as they neared their final destination. This is in fact a very good description of what the building looks like as it is approached. He also recalls that Mountbatten had a butler with a toupee who attended upon them before Mountbatten took Waring away first. He also recalled that there was an oar hung on the wall of the room in which he was kept.
THE ABUSE OF ‘AMAL’
The third boy was 16 when he was abused. His name has also been withheld from Lownie’s book. He is simply referred to as ‘Amal’. He describes how he ‘remembers being brought to Mullaghmore during the summer of 1977. ‘Amal’ says he met Mountbatten four times that summer on a day trip from Belfast. Each time the encounter, lasting an hour, took place in a suite at a hotel by the harbour about 15 minutes from Classiebawn. ‘Amal’ remembered: He was very polite, very nice. I knew he was someone important. He asked if I wanted a drink or candy. He told me he liked dark-skinned people especially Sri Lankan people as they were very friendly and very good-looking. I remember he admired my smooth skin. We gave each other oral sex in a 69 position. He was very tender and I felt comfortable about it. It seemed very natural. I know that several other boys from Kincora were brought to him on other occasions’.
While ‘Amal’ was taken to Belfast and may indeed have visited Kincora, and certainly mixed with at least one Kincora boy, he was not a resident – certainly not a long term one – at the home.
STEVEN WARING’S TRIPS TO THE UK
The abuse Waring suffered in Co. Sligo was not the only abuse he suffered that summer. Village first reported the details of this trip in February 2018. The core parts of the story are repeated hereunder.
During the summer of 1977, Richard Kerr, another resident at Kincora, was summoned by Joe Mains and was told that Joss Cardwell, a senior figure in the vice ring, had called and wanted him and Waring to proceed down to Belfast Harbour.
Cardwell was Chairman of Belfast Corporation Welfare Committee and in overall charge of Kincora and other homes such as Williamson House in Belfast. He was also a key figure in the Anglo-Irish Vice Ring. The boys knew exactly what Cardwell’s ominous edict entailed for them: they would be going to England to be sexually abused. On this trip, Kerr would be delivered into the grubby hands of a TV star in London.
Kerr knew Caldwell as ‘Joseph’ Cardwell recalls how he wore a ‘funny’ hat and drove a blue minivan which he used to take boys out of Kincora. Some of these trips terminated at the Adelphi Hotel in Portrush where the boys were abused.
Stephen Waring and Richard Kerr boarded the ferry to Liverpool. In Liverpool they were met by Michael ‘A’. Kerr was familiar with him from Manchester where he had been abused at the Rembrandt Hotel. Michael ‘A’ was in the company of a man called Derek.
The group headed to a premises in Liverpool near Lime Street train station. By now it was well into the morning of the following day. The boys were ushered down a flight of steps into a basement with mattresses strewn across its floor. Approximately five others boys were being held. They were aged between 11 and 13. Kerr and Waring were kept with them for three or four hours.
Later that morning, Michael ‘A’ and Steven ‘J’ brought the two Kincora boys to the train station. The other – younger – boys did not travel with them.
Steven ‘J’ served the vice ring in a number of ways, one of which was to take salacious photographs of the boys ensnared in the vice-ring. Stephen ‘J’ also knew Joe Mains and Eric Witchell, he paedophile who ran Williamson House. Witchell was the first member of the A-IVR to have abused Kerr – while he was only 8 at Williamson House. During the 1970s Witchell resided in both Liverpool and Belfast. Witchell was later put in charge of Williamson House where Kerr resided before being sent to Kincora in 1975.
Witchell and Cardwell supplied boys from Williamson House to abusers favoured by the vice ring. Kerr was one of these boys. Village has the names of others. Some of them went on to commit suicide. (Steven Waring was not at Williamson House. The death of the boys from Williamson House are not to be confused with Waring’s death.)
On this trip, Kerr and Waring reached Manchester with their two escorts, alighting and switching to another train. They were confined inside a first-class compartment on the final leg of the journey – which would take them to London – and were abused by Michael ‘A’ and Steven ‘J’ en route. The abuse was perpetrated in a clandestine manner and was manual.
After they reached London, the boys were separated and Kerr was brought to the Wimpy Bar in Piccadilly Circus. Piccadilly was notorious for the presence of so-called Dilly boys, unfortunate urchins who had been groomed, bullied and manipulated into becoming male prostitutes. Kerr was escorted to the upstairs floor of the Wimpy Bar and placed behind a table. There were two men inside the Wimpy Bar who were running the Dilly Boys at the time. Kerr recalls that one of them was the late Jack Murry, a well-dressed Englishman Englishman who smoked cigars and wore glasses. He does not know who the second man was.
Later, Kerr was ordered to go back downstairs and delivered to a TV star who was waiting outside for him. The man, who was much taller than Kerr, beckoned him to follow and walked approximately two feet ahead of Kerr in case anyone saw them together.
Kerr and the TV star walked up to a very well known street. The man opened a door on street level with a key. The door led immediately to a flight of stairs. He was brought upstairs. The man had a small room on the left-hand side of the stairs. It was sparsely furnished. Kerr was then abused in a degrading manner.
The adult gave Kerr £20 and he was then ushered downstairs, put back on the street and told to find his own way back to the Wimpy Bar.
What the adult did not realise was that Kerr was seething with resentment at the men who abused him and had perfected the practice of memorising detail about his abusers. He sometimes even managed to take photographs away with him as proof of their identity. Some of the photographs were of cars with their registration plates clearly visible and are now in the possession of Village. On this occasion, although the room was barely lived in, he managed to remove an item which he has described to Village.
Kerr later recognised the man from a guest appearance on the then hugely popular ‘Minder’ TV show, one of the actor’s numerous TV appearances in hugely successful BBC and ITV programmes, some of which were made for children. Richard Kerr does not wish to reveal the identity of the TV star at this point in time.
WARING’S TRIP TO THE SOUTH OF ENGLAND AND THE ENCOUNTER WITH THE TV SUPERSTAR
On another trip Kerr and Waring were taken to the South of England where another TV star – a household name far better known than even Jimmy Saville at the time – came into the room and chose Waring and took him away for a number of hours. Waring came back downcast and dejected and did not speak about what had happened. This was characteristic of way he behaved after being abused.
THE UDA AND KINCORA
The IRA was not the only paramilitary organisation which knew about the Anglo-Irish Vice Ring of which Kincora was a part. The UDA had the home under surveillance. Please see ‘Her Majesty’s Hatchetman’ for a detailed analysis of this at: https://villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2019/02/her-majestys-hat…-of-pat-finucane/ ?.)
As best Village can tell, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) in London has not displayed any interest in Lord Mountbatten, Eric Witchell or the Irish wing of the Anglo-Irish Vice Ring. While the notorious fraud Carl Beech has been granted rights at the inquiry, Richard Kerr has not. Time will tell if they now seek the Garda security logs for Classiebawn for August 1977 to see if Joe Mains’ vehicle or that of his UDA friends visited Classiebawn with teenage boys in their vehicles.
|Royal parasite inside paedo king's Manhattan mansion
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Royal parasite 'appalled' by Jeffrey Epstein's sex abuse claims
(But was one of his best pals just the same even after he was exposed)
BALMORAL BASH Prince Andrew ‘hosted paedo pal Jeffrey Epstein and young model at Balmoral’ as Duke finally breaks silence to say he’s ‘appalled’ at scandal
Did the freemasons under the orders of the Queen's loyal lord lieutenant the Dukey Kent carry out
the hit on Epstein inside jail??????????????
Prince Andrew is pictured inside paedophile Jeffrey Epstein's £63million mansion of depravity nine years ago... so how did he miss signs of the billionaire's sexual deviance?
Standing by the towering 15ft-high solid oak front door, Prince Andrew gives a nod and a cheery wave to the pretty brunette as she leaves the £63 million Manhattan mansion.
He appears entirely at ease but then, for a split second, glances around the door as if to check that no one had witnessed the brief encounter.
As well he might.
For these exclusive pictures come from a never-before-seen video of the Duke of York staying at the New York home of convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. And some of the other images caught on camera make for disturbing viewing.
The footage of the Duke of York – then the UK's Special Representative for International Trade – was taken less than an hour after Epstein, who had been convicted of sex with a child in 2008, left the house in the company of a young, shivering blonde woman.
The video was shot on December 6, 2010, during a visit by the Prince to Epstein's nine-storey 21,000 square foot mansion dubbed the 'House of Horrors' by many of his young victims.
By then Epstein – who took his own life last weekend – was on a child sex offender register, yet one observer told The Mail on Sunday that several of the women leaving and entering the home while Andrew was apparently inside 'looked very young indeed'.
The Duke has vehemently denied claims by Epstein's alleged 'sex slave' Virginia Roberts that she had sex with the Prince on three occasions, the first when she was 17 and once at the US millionaire's now-notorious 40-room mansion at 9 East 71st Street in Manhattan, the setting of these pictures.
Her allegations, submitted to a court in 2014, were later thrown out by a judge who ordered them to be struck from the record as 'immaterial and impertinent'.
Since Epstein's suicide last weekend as he faced further child sex trafficking charges, Buckingham Palace has repeated its denial of wrongdoing by the Prince.
'Any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors is categorically untrue. It is emphatically denied that the Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts,' it said.
'Any claim to the contrary is false and without foundation.'
The Queen also made a public show of support by allowing Prince Andrew to sit next to her as they were driven to a church service near Balmoral last Sunday.
However, these images are sure to raise fresh questions about the 59-year-old's judgment as they place him inside the private, inner sanctum of Epstein, who continued to abuse young girls even after a controversial 2008 plea deal that saw him serve just 13 months, much of it on day release.
'The Prince looked entirely at ease in Epstein's house,' a source told The Mail on Sunday last night.
'There were girls coming and going. One, who came out of the house with Epstein about an hour before Prince Andrew said goodbye to the brunette, was tiny and shivering.
'It was a particularly cold New York December day. What I remember most is the constant procession of girls and women going to and from the house.
'It was chilling to see. Everyone knew by that point that Epstein was a convicted paedophile, yet he was flaunting his lifestyle in plain sight.
'When the Prince came to the door I was stunned. He looked totally at ease. He said a few words to the girl, who was very pretty, and then she walked off down the street in the direction of Central Park.
'If I hadn't known it was Prince Andrew, I would have thought he owned the place. He looked so comfortable and relaxed as he stood there at the door.
'He didn't appear to have a concern in the world as he smiled and waved goodbye to the girl.
'It was only as the girl walked off that he glanced around the door frame, almost as if to check no one was watching.'
The video was taken less than 24 hours after the Prince was infamously photographed walking through Central Park with Epstein.
He had met the US businessman through Ghislaine Maxwell, the daughter of disgraced tycoon Robert Maxwell and a woman the FBI says is now of 'renewed interest' in its ongoing case into allegations made by scores of women that they were sexually abused by Epstein and his wealthy friends at homes in London, New Mexico, New York and the US Virgin Islands.
Ms Maxwell has repeatedly denied that she acted as a 'madam' for Epstein and has described Ms Roberts's claims as 'malicious lies'.
Epstein's New York home was as weird and twisted as the man himself. The entry foyer where Prince Andrew stood to wave off the brunette was decorated, according to an account by writer Vicky Ward in Vanity Fair magazine, with 'row upon row' of individually framed artificial eyeballs – imported from England.
The video footage shows the initials 'JE' in raised brass letters on the wall next to the front door.
What is not seen is the heating element that Epstein had installed beneath the concrete pavement to melt the New York winter snow.
On a wall in the hall was a bizarre portrait of former US President Bill Clinton in red heels and the infamous stained blue dress worn by Monica Lewinsky when she performed a sex act on him.
Nearby hung a giant painting of Epstein inside a prison surrounded by barbed wire and gun-toting guards.
The disgraced financier reportedly said the artwork was 'to remind me that I could go back to prison any time'.
A chandelier had a 'life-size female doll hanging from it, and one woman who claims to have been assaulted by Epstein said a bathroom had prosthetic breasts on the wall 'so he could play with the nipples as he took a bath'.
Dozens of photographs of Epstein with his famous friends, including Bill and Hillary Clinton, Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and filmmaker Woody Allen, were on display in his study beside a life-size stuffed tiger and a stuffed grey poodle.
One can only wonder how Andrew missed the procession of women or the signs of Epstein's sexual deviance.
Indeed, Epstein's 'pride and joy' was a large 'human chessboard' at the bottom of the main staircase which had customised figurines modelled on his female 'staff members wearing suggestive clothing'.
Then there was the life-size statue of a naked African warrior. Not to mention the 'leather room'.
When the FBI raided the house after Epstein was arrested last month, it reportedly found 'thousands' of indecent images of under-age women on computer hard drives locked in his office safe.
Others have claimed that Epstein had photographs and videos of his famous friends 'engaged in sex acts' which have now been seized by the FBI – prompting conspiracy theories that Epstein was murdered despite official autopsy results released on Friday stating definitively that the cause of death was suicide.
The video obtained by The Mail on Sunday is particularly shocking for the fact that – even two years after his 2008 child sex conviction – Epstein was seemingly flaunting his penchant for young women in plain view and in the middle of one of the busiest cities in the world.
The footage begins just before 2.30pm on December 6, 2010, as two security men leave Epstein's mansion and chat to another security man in a waiting Chrysler.
Epstein's black Bentley arrives in the street about 20 minutes later, shortly before a delivery man from Le Gourmet delivers a parcel.
Shortly after 3.10pm, an unidentified young woman in a red 'beanie' hat leaves the house. She heads in the direction of East 66th Street, where Epstein owned a flat and where, according to some alleged victims, he 'kept' young Eastern European girls as virtual prisoners.
About 25 minutes later, an older, professional-looking woman with blonde hair leaves the house.
One minute later, at 3.35pm, Epstein, wearing a thick white fur-lined winter coat, leaves his property, followed by a young-looking girl dressed in a flimsy grey top. She appears to be carrying his glasses.
In a deeply troubling scene, the blonde-haired woman – who barely reaches Epstein's shoulders – appears cold and shaking as she walks with the millionaire to his Bentley.
Epstein clambers into the back seat as the young woman stands on the street, seemingly being given instructions. An older passer-by glances at the incongruous-looking couple.
After around two minutes, the girl jogs back to the house when she stands on the front step and presses the doorbell, visibly shaking with cold.
It is opened by a professional-looking brunette woman closely resembling Sarah Kellen, Epstein's former assistant whom several alleged victims have dubbed a 'co-conspirator' in Epstein's crimes.
Kellen, who is now married to a US race-car driver called Brian Vickers, has never commented publicly about the Epstein case.
However, she appeared in court during a defamation suit brought by Ms Roberts against Ms Maxwell and 'pleaded the Fifth' when asked about her role in Epstein's sex trafficking scheme.
In America, invoking the Fifth Amendment is a legal term which means you do not have to give evidence that might incriminate you.
At 4.30pm, the door opens and a pretty brunette emerges. She pauses and turns back to the house where Prince Andrew can be seen at the door.
The pair chat for a few seconds before the woman walks away, leaving Andrew to glance up the street before closing the door.
Forty minutes later, as the light begins to fade, another young-looking dark-haired woman arrives at the house.
In an unpublished manuscript released in the US as part of a huge trove of documents related to a defamation suit brought by Ms Roberts against Ms Maxwell, which was subsequently settled, Ms Roberts talks about meeting Prince Andrew in Epstein's New York home.
She gives an account – supported by another alleged victim – of how the Prince sat on a sofa and posed with a Spitting Image puppet of himself.
'When Andrew cupped my breast with a doll made in his image I only giggled away,' she wrote in the book, described in court documents as a 'fictionalised' account of her life.
Last night, the source of the video said they had decided to go public with the footage to encourage further victims to come forward.
'I'm haunted by the shivering young girl who was with Epstein. What became of her?' asked the source. 'Now I'm reading everything that went on inside and know the full horrors of what went on, I'm wondering, was she a victim too?'
This weekend, Prince Andrew was relaxing in the sunshine in Spain on a holiday with his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson.
The source said: 'When the video was taken he looked like a man without a care in the world.
'You have to wonder if that's still the case.'
|Epstein: A freemason hit to protect the royals?
|Royal parasites on the take again
|Rich coming from this little privileged fucker
|Their Royal Highnesses are so FULL OF SHIT
|When UK's vile fascist gutter rags speak as ONE
Britain's gutter rags owned by only six millionaires provide the royal parasites
with a massive propaganda machine as if they are different when they all speak
with the same forked tongue. They forget the millions of children living in utter poverty
and the millions of children separated from their fathers protection who are destroyed by
the royal parasites masonic gangsters headed by the Dukey Kent in family courts.
While the gutter rags provide the god like status
for the sprogs they have no shame in using to push their monstrous agenda those same rags fail to show how vast
inequality starts right at the very heart of the royal parasites empire
that sees millions of children close to starvation to prop up the vile regime
that fleeces the peasants using every dirty trick in the book and to keep them
and their sprogs in the opulent lifestyle they think they deserve.
THAT IS NO CAUSE FOR CELEBRATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|David Cameron then Boris Johnson: Posh twat bullyboys still running Britain
|No coincidence these two are on the front cover of a nasty little rag
|Royal parasite Prince Andrew's humiliation as 'sex slave' files of paedo pal Epstein to be released
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Exposes how even America's judicial mafia threw out allegations against the prince because they were “immaterial and
impertinent to the central claim” against Epstein. On the orders of the royals loyal lord lieutenant and
head honcho of the global masonic mafia that has TOTAL control of the world's judiciary
The US Appeals Court's decision over the Jeffrey Epstein defamation case could prove embarrassing for a number of prominent and powerful people
Prince Andrew faces further embarrassment after a judge ruled that documents relating to an alleged “sex slave” can be released.
The US Appeals Court has said that 2,000 pages of papers from a defamation suit by Virginia Giuffre, who claims that billionaire businessman Jeffrey Epstein used her as a sex slave, can be made public.
The court said the documents contain potentially damaging information about sexual abuse by “prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister and other world leaders”.
In its 27-page ruling, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the public’s right of access to court papers overrode the privacy concerns of individuals.
The records will not be made public immediately, as mystery litigants have about two weeks to file a request for all 2nd Circuit judges to consider their arguments for keeping them sealed.
Prince Andrew was pictured with his arm around Virginia’s waist after Epstein, 66, flew her to London to meet the royal in 2001, when she was 17.
In 2015, Giuffre, previously known as Virginia Roberts, told a Florida court that Epstein forced her to have sex with Andrew while in London, New York and the Caribbean.
Prince Andrew, 59, has vehemently and consistently denied the claims.
A judge threw out her allegations against the prince because they were “immaterial and impertinent to the central claim” against Epstein.
Giuffre claimed she was used as a “sex slave” by Epstein, who was charged last week with trafficking girls as young as 14. He faces up to 40 years if convicted.
She alleged she had been “procured for sexual activities” by British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, 57, daughter of disgraced media tycoon Robert Maxwell.
Ms Maxwell was Epstein’s aide and also a friend of Prince Andrew.
The 2001 photo of Andrew with Giuffre was taken in Ghislaine’s London flat.
In 2015, Maxwell, also Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, called Giuffre a “liar” in an interview, leading the alleged sex slave to sue for defamation.
The case was later settled but around 2,000 documents were sealed.
On Saturday, the Mirror told how, in 2010, Andrew partied with Epstein at the billionaire’s New York mansion just weeks after the shamed businessman was released from a 13-month sentence for soliciting girls as young as 14 for sex.
The financier threw an “intimate dinner” party with the prince and director Woody Allen at his Manhattan townhouse, where the prince was allegedly treated like a “guest of honour”.
Andrew was also photographed deep in conversation with Epstein in Central Park after his release.
A Buckingham Palace spokesman said the prince, who previously holidayed with Epstein in Thailand and invited him to stay at Sandringham and Windsor Castle, had not seen his friend since the Central Park photo was taken.
He said: “The Duke of York has not visited any home of Mr Epstein or met with him since December 2010 when the photograph in Central Park was taken.”
|Sick bucket required for Hollywood actors forced to feign about getting to kiss the royal parasite's arse VIDEO
The gruesome twosome Barclay Brothers vile royalist rag at the promotion
NOT of the film
but the actors expected to tug the forelock for their royal highness's
|Murdoch's vile rag's regular feigning of threats to royal parasites
|No shame for the royals who are always using sprogs as a promotional tool for the firm
Multi-millionaire royal parasites sponging millions off the public to live in vast opulence
Just an ever expanding trail of parasites feeding off of a dumbed down population.
With no more than six well heeled press lackeys who can plaster this bullshit all over the streets
with their tacky fascist rags who back the trillionaire royals, the tory mass murdering scum and the homosexual deviants parading
down the streets of Britain as if it is something to be proud of. ALL of them operating together as a threat to heterosexual men and their
families, homes and bank balances.
|Royal parasites £14bn property portfolio has had more than 100 evictions over management of housing
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth, The value of her land holding alone is £17,600,000,000,000
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
NO MACHINE GUNS PROTECTING LIZZIE'S TENANTS FROM EVICTION
PLENTY OF MACHINE GUNS PROTECTING LIZZIE'S PALACES FROM EVICTION
MACHINE GUNS ARMED AND READY TO STOP LIZZIE BEING EVICTED
ONE LAW FOR HER AND HER EVER EXPANDING SPROGS AND ANOTHER FOR THE REST OF THE PEASANTS FACING HER VILE JUDGES AND COURTS WHO THIEVE
PROPERTY WITH IMPUNITY TO PROP UP A TYRANNICAL CROWN.
Crown estate faces tenants' anger over rent hikes, evictions and repair delays
Exclusive: Guardian finds Queen’s £14bn property portfolio has had more than 100 complaints over management of housing
Scores of complaints have been made about rented properties on royal land and tenants have faced more than 100 evictions, a Guardian investigation has found, prompting anger over how the Queen’s £14bn property portfolio is managed.
The crown estate, which helps bankroll the Queen by giving the monarch 25% of its profits, has sought to evict 113 tenants in the past five years so it can sell its homes for profit.
It comes after it has emerged on Tuesday that the taxpayer has footed a £2.4m bill to renovate Frogmore Cottage, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s official residence, according to royal accounts. While the royals have no direct oversight role in the crown estate’s dealings, Prince William and Prince Charles have both spoken before about the importance of ensuring good quality housing is available for all.
Figures obtained by the Guardian show that the crown estate has received more than 100 complaints about its residential properties in just two years, including grievances over rent hikes, leaks, delays in repairs and faulty electrical goods.
One evicted tenant accused the crown estate – which made £329m profit last year – of “greed”. The retired police officer, who said he was left thousands of pounds out of pocket after being evicted, told the Guardian: “The crown estate are custodians, they are not a bloody commercial estate agent. They are custodians and therefore they have a social duty to the public and their communities.”
An investigation using data obtained through Freedom of Information laws reveals that:
The crown estate has made £1.1bn selling off more than 700 residential and commercial properties since 2014, with one private firm subsequently hiking rent well above inflation.
More than a quarter of a million pounds has been banked by the crown estate in housing benefit from just seven hard-up tenants.
Four tenants have sued the crown estate for breach of contract, including one claim worth half a million pounds.
The disclosures will be uncomfortable for senior royals who have previously expressed their concern over the state of private rental properties. In March, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge visited dilapidated housing in Blackpool and saw rain leaking through the windows of a property and holes in the ceiling. The third-in-line to the throne later said during the visit: “There is a sadder side to Blackpool,” adding: “And we shouldn’t skirt around these issues.”
Prince Charles has also spoken out in the past in favour of affordable housing for low-paid workers. In 2003, he said in a speech that “the lack of affordable rural housing is one of the most important issues facing the countryside”.
But a catalogue of complaints to the crown estate since 2017 show that tenants of properties on land deriving profits for the royals have raised grievances about a host of topics.
They include complaints about leaks in properties, faulty lights, noise and homeless people sleeping in a bin store in winter months. Other complaints include: a tenant being chased for arrears, rent hikes, delays in repairs, a defective gas cooker, “large volumes of flies” at a resident’s home and there being no hot water in the taps or shower at a property.
The crown estate received 71 complaints about residential properties in 2017-18 and 38 in 2018-19. The crown estate said its records did not distinguish between whether a complaint was made by a tenant or visitor to a property.
Over the same period, the crown estate received more than 300 complaints about its property portfolio – including commercial and residential leases – but pointed out the figure included grievances about visitor attractions, such as Great Windsor Park.
The crown estate issued 113 “notices to quit” to residential tenants from 2014 to 2018, including 97 in rural properties, nine in Windsor and seven in central London.
Other figures also reveal that the crown estate gained more than a quarter of a million pounds in housing benefit from just seven tenants. People renting in Camden, Runnymede and Windsor and Maidenhead have let property on royal land using housing benefit paid directly to the crown estate.
Since 2014, £253,092 has been paid to the crown estate in housing benefit. The majority of the payments were for five tenants in Camden, north London.
The Guardian has also established that four tenants have sued the crown estate for breach of contract, including one claim worth half a million pounds concerning a breach of “repairing obligation” in central London.
Retired police officer Peter Franklyn, 65, was evicted from the three-bed home he shared with his then wife in Taunton, Somerset, in 2014.
He explained how he was forced to sell £6,000 worth of woodwork tools well below market value as there was no space for them in the smaller property the couple moved to. “To me, the crown are not a commercial property company and have a duty to preserve and utilise properties for the benefit of society,” he said.
The crown estate, which runs the monarchy’s land holdings, gives 25% of its profits to the Queen from funds two years in arrears as part of the sovereign grant – the remainder goes to the Treasury. The grant for 2018-19, which is linked to the crown estate’s profits in 2016-17, was £82.2m. It is set to rise to £85.7m in 2020-21.
The Queen has no role in managing the crown estate but its accounts state that “the sovereign is an important stakeholder as regards good constitutional management and the standards maintained by the crown estate in the undertaking of its business”. The chief executive officer and chairman of the crown estate meet the Queen yearly to report performance.
A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: “The crown estate is an independently run organisation. All profits are returned directly to the Treasury.”
A crown estate spokeswoman said: “We manage in excess of 9,000 leases across the country and we aim to maintain all our properties to high standard. We take customer feedback seriously and are thorough in recording all complaints – including minor issues – as part of continuing efforts to improve our service.”
In response to the eviction figures, the spokeswoman added: “The majority of all notices served were in 2014 as part of a rural residential sales programme. Although we worked hard to manage that process as well as possible for all those involved, we implemented a number of policies to help our tenants in any future sales, including … the opportunity to buy the property at market value; substantially increased notice periods – typically six months; rent deposits released early to assist with securing alternative accommodation; assistance and advice on locating new properties in the local area; flexibility to accommodate the specific circumstances of the individual.”
The spokeswoman said both commercial and residential properties are let at market rates, adding: “As we cannot borrow, we regularly sell both commercial and residential properties in order to raise capital to invest.”
|Multi-millionaire royal parasites sponging millions off the public to live in vast opulence
|The royal parasites that keep leeching off the public purse
Harry inherited millions when his mother was killed yet claims £2.4m for home renovations
|Peter Ball a royal parasite buddy and serial homopaedo bishop dies after he was released from prison
He was jailed in 2015 after pleading guilty to a string of offences against 18 teenage boys and young men
having served just 16 months.
In a written submission to the inquiry, the prince said he felt "deep personal regret" for trusting Ball
when initial reports of abuse emerged, years before he was jailed.
|Only psychopaths would call themselves "Their Royal Highnesses" and expect their masonic lackeys at the BBC
to report them as such
|Royalist bullshit, power dressing and grandiose psychopathic gestures
|Royal parasites can't wait to see old biddy gone
|Royals on about mental health
Maybe they should try living on the streets homeless and penniless
like the thousands of divorcing men SHAFTED in British courts his GRANDMOTHER controls with masonic judges and then he will
know what serious mental health issues are all about and NOT from the position of his luxurious mansions and palaces
paid for by the peasantry. Or is he playing the victim card to garner sympathy from the peasants shafted by his knowledge of how that
|A fiery interview with Duchess of York over taking money for access to Randy Andy VIDEO
|Haemophilia and Porphyria - Inbreed Royals and Tainted Blood VIDEO
|The lackeys paid peanuts to kiss the royal arse VIDEO
|Royal parasites now fighting over maximum propaganda space in their controlled tacky rags
Unashamed use of royal sprogs to promote their brand
|Rich List the ONLY time the gutter rags ignore the royals
|Royal parasite backed homopaedo pal
|When UK's gutter rags speak with ONE voice
|Stockholm syndrome: How the deluded UK slaves adore their enslavers VIDEO
|UK gutter rags a SINGLE royalist propaganda machine
Their output is ALL controlled by their creepy lord Lieutenant the Dukey Kent
despite the claims of being different with NO dissent as they are all royalist
ass kissers. Anything other than total support will see them shut down.
WALL TO WALL ROYALIST BULLSHIT FOR MONTHS TO COME PROMOTING THE FIRM USING THEIR SPROGS.
CLEAR PROOF WE ARE LIVING UNDER A FASCIST DICTATORSHIP USING PROPAGANDA.
|Royal sheeple out in force for new sprog
Royals use sprogs to promote the fascist firm. Another massive security bill that
could feed the homeless instead of protecting the royals endless breeding campaign
|Royal parasites behind a global satanic cult VIDEO
|Royal parasites require stasi style SS Secret Service to survive
|Murdoch rag promotes royalist spending like there is no tomorrow
Including the vast expense for security that the peasants are forced to cover
|Gutter rags having a laugh BOND???????
James Bond films have always been a promotion tool for the royal parasites
The queen then country bullshit and on Her Majesty's Secret Service.
|Royal parasites splitting or just another excuse to give their rags some more propaganda to rant about?
|Another feminist in the palace
|Royals at the feigning sympathy for the peasants again
Now lets go back to our publicly funded MANSION for dinner
Meanwhile the other nasty royalist rag reports on Dumb and Dumber
|Imprison the Royal Family and Abolish the Monarchy (from 2013)
FULL ARTICLE HERE
Execution of Louis XVI
As the world waits with bated breath for the emergence of the latest—and cutest—member of the British Royal Family, allow us to put forth a gentle reminder: In a just world, this innocent child would be going up for adoption, since its family would have been imprisoned for crimes against humanity.
The Royal Family is no better than a family of mobsters. It sucks its sustenance from the public coffers, enriching itself greatly at the expense of poor taxpaying citizens. It operates not as a meritocracy, but through strict nepotism and strategic alliances. And its strength is a rough measure of the lack of civilization in a particular culture. To be completely clear, we are not suggesting that people should "pay less attention" to the Royal Family, or that the UK should reduce the amount of money it spends on this obscene relic of a brutal monarchical past. We are suggesting that the Royal Family should, as an institution, be completely abolished, and that its remaining members be imprisoned and forced to work for the remainder of their lives to, in some token way, repay the public for all of these years of financial support. Perhaps by making license plates, or breaking rocks.
It is amusing to reflect upon the imperial past of England, and the inherent assumptions of racial and cultural superiority that fueled it, while also noting the fact that the UK still to this very day continues to offer slavish financial, political, and cultural support to a tiny family elite notable for nothing except the lineage of the particular person's vagina from which they slunk. The persistence of the Royal Family, and the worshipful attention that it draws from the British public, is the sort of primitive superstitious voodoo that puts to shame any of the animist rituals that the colonial British would have derided as uncivilized.
The Royal Family is more than an international embarrassment, though; it is a crime against the British public. It represents the taking of precious public resources for the most undemocratic, elitist, and unproductive use. It is akin to taxing the American public to support the Kardashian family. Currently, the British monarchy gets 15% of the annual revenues generated by the Crown Estate. (Not to be confused with the slew of luxurious private estates that they own.) That will be well over $50 million this year. There are 2.5 million unemployed people in the UK right now. It is not too presumptuous to suggest that they might be able to find more productive uses for that money.
It is often suggested that the Royal Family is "affordable" or a "bargain" for taxpayers, because their cost is minor compared to other costs, and besides, they help to "generate tourism." This is incorrect. Tourists would continue to go to the Tower of London and Buckingham Palace whether or not the Royal Family was being subsidized to the tune of tens of millions of dollars annually. Money from the public treasury spent on the Royal Family is a sunk cost, a charity payment to the world's most undeserving charity. The Royal Family does not "work" for that money. The Royal Family does not sit inside Buckingham Palace from 9-5 every day, posing for pictures with tourists for $25 a pop. And even if they were, we certainly wouldn't pay them $50 million a year for that. Six pounds thirty one pence per hour, maybe.
The Royal Family did not "work" to acquire its property. The Royal Family did not "work" to acquire its wealth. The Royal Family did not "work" to acquire its prestige. All of these things have been passed down to them, due to the accident of their birth, after being accumulated over hundreds of years during which the humble citizens of the UK were obligated to give these things to the monarchy, lest they lose their heads. Though European history is littered with the corpses of royalty, it is littered far more heavily with the corpses of all of the millions upon millions of regular people who toiled in the shadows of grand castles and died in poverty as their taxes paid for the members of one lucky family to live in opulence.
The Royal Family is a grotesque relic of a less civilized time. The only just thing for a member of the Royal Family to do is, at age 18, to renounce all the privileges of their position and spend the remainder of their natural life denouncing the institution of monarchy and working feverishly to repay the public treasury for the outrageous and undignified years of support they've received. Since all of the current members of the Royal Family have passed the age of majority without having performed this basic nod towards civility, they are in contempt of the public trust. Confiscate their wealth, sell off their possessions, lock them up for theft, and strike all appropriations for the Royal Family from the public budget. Auction off the crown jewels, use the money to buy gasoline, and burn the queen's home to ground during a grand national celebration of the birth of a new society in which the public's money is put to use for the public's own benefit, and fame is accorded to those who have earned it by doing something more than being born with the right last name.
For the sake of all that is holy, please allow this Royal Baby to grow up free of the clutches of this crime family, lest its innocence be lost.
|More Royalist bullshit from the usual suspects
Murdoch, Harmsworth, Barclay Brothers and Desmond's old rag
|Royal parasites in another all expenses paid trip to Morocco at the peasants expense
MORE BBC ROYALIST BULLSHIT HERE
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 THEIR FREEBY FOREIGN TRIPS, AND THEIR MASONIC SPOKESMEN HAVE THE
CHEEK TO CALL IT WORK.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have arrived in Morocco for their first official visit to north Africa.
The royal couple's three-day trip is aimed at strengthening the UK's links with Morocco - which is one of the few stable countries in the region.
Their visit will also focus on gender equality, with the pair discussing Morocco's attitudes towards women with British ambassador Thomas Reilly.
Mr Reilly said the issue is "close to their
royal highnesses' hearts ".
Prince Harry, 34, and Meghan, 37, touched down in Casablanca airport on Saturday evening, although flight delays meant they were two hours late for their welcoming ceremony.
They entered the airport's royal suite where they were offered the traditional welcome of milk and dates.
|British royal parasites and the GCHQ spies they use to keep their grasp on power
|A fascist dictatorship can ONLY survive with fascist propaganda
It only takes half a dozen scumbag lackeys for the royals to flood the streets with this bullshit
|Another dangerous idiot taken off the road
|Old royal parasites looking creepier than ever
| Can HM cops charge old HM royal phil? VIDEO
|Royal parasites reality kicks in as to what they really are
|There's a madman behind the wheel
|It's a miracle but ONLY if you're royal
|BANNED IN BRITAIN - Princess Diana - Unlawful Killing VIDEO
|No shortage of guns for the establishment
|Dishonorable to accept tacky trinkets from the royalist establishment
|Royal parasite FLAUNTS her golden piano during her suspect Christmas bullshit
|Britain's gutter rags nothing but a royalist propaganda machine
|Britain's tawdry royalist rags carrying her dubious propaganda
|Freemason mafia godfather arrives at Buckingham palace for royals nosh up
HE is NEVER very far away from the old royal bat's arse as the masonic shield
protects her FOR THE MOMENT from the peasants rising up.
|No more shooting wild animals for Harry like the rest of the murdering royal parasites
|Frankie Boyle rips into the royal parasites (from 4.20) VIDEO
|Harmsworth's Daily Rat propaganda tool for royal parasites at Christmas
|Royal parasite's homopaedo driver attacked boy, 10, at Buckingham Palace but died before being charged
FULL ARTICLE HERE
QUEEN MOTHERS MOST LOYAL SERVANT WILLIAM TALLON WAS A BULLYING HOMOSEXUAL PREDATOR
Ex-royal butler on sex charges (PULLED)
Royal aide quits after palace report
Homopaedo royal butler Paul Kidd boasted of royal connections
UK Judge lets perverts walk free (PULLED)
Why do the royals have so many homopaedo's working at their palaces? Easily blackmailed to keep their gobs shut?' and like Jimmy Savile and the MP Cyril Smith,
he died before he could be jailed. LEFT two of their other servants behind homopaedo abuse of boys.
Alwyn Stockdale assaulted the lad in the Royal Household quarters at Buckingham Palace Mews
A CHAUFFEUR to the Queen sexually abused a boy at his Buckingham Palace quarters.
Alwyn Stockdale also sexually assaulted a second young boy at a relative’s home. One lad was ten, the other under 14.
Retired Stockdale, 81, admitted the attacks, which took place in the 1970s.
But the paedophile died in hospital last week after prosecutors told police to charge him with crimes dating back to the 1970s.
It took 19 months for Met officers to trace Stockdale after a man in his 50s revealed the pervert assaulted him when he was ten.
At the time Stockdale lived in Royal Household quarters at Buckingham Palace Mews.
It is understood that when interviewed Stockdale, who later lived in a cottage on the Windsor estate, confessed to abusing the boy and another lad under 14.
He was to be charged with indecently assaulting one boy and three offences of gross indecency relating to the second.
However, Stockdale died of natural causes before being notified of the prosecution.
One of the boys was attacked at the West Yorkshire home of a relative who also worked as a royal servant. The family member was unaware of the crime.
The other is thought to have been abused at Stockdale’s Palace quarters.
A source said: “The victims are understandably upset that Stockdale will not face justice. They’ve lived with what he did all their adult lives.’
“There are questions over why it took so long for police to identify and get round to questioning Stockdale.
“Given his age, it was a race against time to bring him to justice.
“But like Jimmy Savile and the MP Cyril Smith, he died before that could happen.’’
Buckingham Palace refused to comment.
|Knives out at parasite palace
|Royal parasites vast consumption of UK's wealth
|Royal Babylon The Criminal Record of the British Monarchy VIDEO
|Daily Scar's OTT royalist bullshit about Harry's moll
|UK gutter rags main preoccupation is to turn parasites into heroes
|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