by craig on May 24
The row over Prince Charles in Canada reminded me of the role of the Royal Family in personifying those timeless traditions which comprise the spine of British culture. One of these great Royal traditions, which has continued right down to the present generations, is buggering the valet.
31 May should be a national holiday in celebration of this great tradition. We should call it Bugger the Valet day. On 31 May 1810 Ernest Duke of Cumberland, fifth son of George III, was buggering his valet Neale. While Cumberland was fully engaged, another servant named Sellis impertinently entered the room. Naturally the Duke, having ordered Sellis to wait and be spoken to, took out his sword and ran Sellis through seven times. Sellis remained impertinent, and even after being stabbed the first time, had the temerity to grab a candlestick and hit the Duke hard on the face, inflicting a disfiguring wound. This of course is described in official histories (and I see on Wikipedia) as having been received in the Napoleonic Wars.
Over the years, seven journalists were imprisoned for publishing an account of Sellis’ death. The Duke failed to pay Neale the money he had promised him to lie that Sellis had attacked the Duke, and subsequently Neale talked rather a lot. The first journalist imprisoned, Henry White, died of disease contracted in prison. Henry White deserves to be remembered.
Cumberland was to marry a woman very widely believed across the German speaking world to be herself a murderess, Princess Frederica of Mecklenburg Strelitz, whose two earlier husbands had died, the second particularly unexpectedly and conveniently.
During the reign of King William IV, Cumberland was second in line to the throne after Victoria. Victoria’s widowed mother, the Duchess of Kent, was shagging her Private Secretary, Sir John Conroy. Actually every summer in Victoria’s teens they did their shagging in Townley House, which I can see now from my study window.
Ten months of the year they lived in Kensington Palace, and Conroy put Victoria into seclusion. Conroy was hated – he was far too middle class to be shagging a Duchess. There was a successful film by that awful far right “Lord” Julian Fellowes a few years ago called The Young Victoria. Conroy was portrayed as a caricature villain, and conventional historians have accepted the monarchist line that his seclusion of Victoria was to maximize his own influence of control.
What Conroy himself said, and is almost never published, was that he was keeping Victoria under very close guard because he was terrified she would be poisoned or otherwise murdered by the heir to the throne, her uncle Cumberland, and his wife. Where this is ever mentioned by historians, it is to ridicule it as a crazy pretext.
In fact Cumberland was a murderer, and Frederica very probably was too. Conroy was absolutely right to protect Victoria from Cumberland. What the establishment would not admit then or now was that there was a very real reason for Conroy to apprehend this danger. Ernest Duke of Cumberland had killed Sellis. His wife Frederica was reputed throughout Europe to have poisoned her second husband in order to marry Ernest and gain the possibility of becoming Queen of England. Only Victoria stood between them and the throne, in an age of high mortality.
When William IV died, Victoria became Queen but as a female could not inherit the other Kingdom of Hanover. Cumberland therefore became King Ernest of Hanover. He abolished parliament and persecuted those regarded as liberal, including the Brothers Grimm who he dismissed from their University posts.
Ahh, our beloved Royal family! Remember – 31 May is Bugger the Valet Day.
Benjamin Herman, 79, has been charged with three counts of indecent assault and one of attempted indecent assault on the child while working at Buckingham Palace
A trusted former aide to Prince Philip and Princess Anne will face court next week accused of sexually assaulting a girl of 12 while he was working for the Royal Family in the early 70s.
Ex-Marine Benjamin Herman, 79, has been charged with three counts of indecent assault and one of attempted indecent assault on the child when he was Philip’s equerry – or personal attendant – at Buckingham Palace.
The Lieutenant-Colonel later went on to become Princess Anne’s private secretary, before returning to the military.
Detectives at Scotland Yard are believed to have examined the prince’s official diaries covering the two-year period from January 1972 to January 1974, when the attacks are alleged to have taken place.
They have also taken statements from former palace staff but it is not known if officers have quizzed Philip or any other members of the Royal Family about the claims.
The alleged victim, who is now in her 50s, came forward in the wake of the Jimmy Savile child abuse scandal.
Herman is due to appear before Wimbledon magistrates in South London on Monday.
Tonight he said he intended to fight the allegations. When asked to comment he looked shocked and added: “I don’t talk to the press.”
But when asked whether he planned to deny the charges, he replied sharply “of course” before climbing into his car.
Earlier in the day Herman – a grandfather – left his £600,000 home in Hook, Hampshire, wearing smart chinos, desert boots and a blue and white checked shirt before heading to the town’s train station nearby.
He had been on bail since he was arrested 18 months ago after voluntarily attending a police station.
Today a Crown Prosecution Service spokesman confirmed he faced three counts of indecent assault on a girl and one of attempted indecent assault.
Herman was Philip’s equerry from 1971 to 1974, during which time he shadowed the royal at the Palace and on public and private engagements.
He became head of Princess Anne’s household when she married in 1974, with reports at the time claiming she had picked him to be her private secretary herself from her father’s staff. He returned to the Marines two years later.
During his career he served with 40 Commando, Royal Marines, and was made Military Assistant and Aide-de-Camp to the Commandant General Royal Marines.
At the time of the alleged offences Herman lived at Windsor, Berkshire, but also had a base at Wellington Barracks, near the Palace.
Former social services official claims he warned Department of Health of Westminster paedophile network but was told that he was “probably wasting [his] time”
A former social services official has said his warnings about the threat of a Westminster-based paedophile network were ignored because “there were too many of them over there”.
David Tombs, who ran Hereford and Worcester social services, said he warned the government after the arrest of paedophile Peter Righton in 1992.
Two inquiries have been launched into historical claims of child abuse.
Tim Yeo MP, a junior health minister in the early 1990s, said he was “staggered” by the claims.
He added that he was “not aware” of a culture of child sex abuse during his time as a health minister, and said he was puzzled as to why Mr Tombs did not take his concerns further at the time and speak to his local MP.
Mr Tombs, who in charge of social services in his area for 20 years, claims that when Righton was arrested in 1992, he became aware of information through the police investigation that suggested a paedophilic network was operating.
He said what he learned would have been of “national concern” and told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “It was coming across to me at the time that there were names there that were linked into the establishment, if you like.
“I had no particular names, but that was the impression I was getting.”
He said when he alerted Department of Health representatives, he was told by civil servants that he was “probably wasting [his] time” because there were “too many of them over there”.
Asked what he thought was meant by the word “them”, Mr Tombs said “those within Parliament and government in Whitehall”.
Mr Tombs said: “I went to the Department (of Health) because I was concerned that some of the names that came from the police investigation in Evesham related to people in my own authority and it seemed to me that there was a serious issue that would have been of national concern.
“It was coming across to me at the time that there were names there that were linked into the establishment if you like, and I had no particular names, but that was the impression I was getting. And I felt that the Government needed to be alert to it and I wanted to raise awareness of this with people who were much closer to policy making that I was.
“I went and saw senior officials in the Department of Health.
“I was drawing to their attention that this was a major problem, one which had not been recognised in the way that we now do recognise it and that it needed attention and it needed Government attention as much as local authority attention.
“I was thinking in terms of paedophile behaviour of the sort that was being revealed as a consequence of the Peter Righton arrest.
“I was disappointed because I was told that I was probably wasting my time, that there were – and the words used were along these lines – that there were too many of them over there. Now, I was talking about paedophilia. I was in the Department of Health and the ‘over there’ to me indicated, although the words weren’t used, within Parliament or within Government and Whitehall.
“I was angry. I was furious. It seemed to me that the one place I should be able to come to, to alert the nation to this issue, was the Department of Health.
“And it didn’t look as if I was going to get any kind of response. And that’s perhaps one of the reasons why I am so pleased that now that there are some nationally recognised figures being prosecuted.
“The Government is taking the matter seriously. But this is 24-25 years later on from when I was expressing my concern.”
But Mr Yeo said he found Mr Tombs’ claims “incredible”.
He told the Today programme: “I think it’s incredible, the idea that any remotely credible evidence had been shown to a civil servant at the Department of Health would have been ignored and received the comment that it apparently was.
“There was no culture of child sex abuse that I was aware of either in Whitehall or in Parliament,” he added. “The whole thing is extraordinary.”
Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres of land, one sixth of the earth’s non ocean surface.
She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries, and who owns countries that are not her own domestic territory. This land ownership is separate from her role as head of state and is different from other monarchies where no such claim is made – Norway, Belgium, Denmark etc.
The value of her land holding. £17,600,000,000,000 (approx).
This makes her the richest individual on earth. However, there is no way easily to value her real estate. There is no current market in the land of entire countries. At a rough estimate of $5,000 an acre, and based on the sale of Alaska to the USA by the Tsar, and of Louisiana to the USA by France, the Queen’s land holding is worth a notional $33,000,000,000,000 (Thirty three trillion dollars or about £17,600,000,000,000). Her holding is based on the laws of the countries she owns and her land title is valid in all the countries she owns. Her main holdings are Canada, the 2nd largest country on earth, with 2,467 million acres, Australia, the 7th largest country on earth with 1,900 million acres, the Papua New Guinea with114 million acres, New Zealand with 66 million acres and the UK with 60 million acres.
She is the world’s largest landowner by a significant margin. The next largest landowner is the Russian state, with an overall ownership of 4,219 million acres, and a direct ownership comparable with the Queen’s land holding of 2,447 million acres. The 3rd largest landowner is the Chinese state, which claims all of Chinese land, about 2,365 million acres. The 4th largest landowner on earth is the Federal Government of the United States, which owns about one third of the land of the USA, 760 million acres. The fifth largest landowner on earth is the King of Saudi Arabia with 553 million acres
|Queen Elizabeth II||6,600 million acres|
|King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia||553 million acres|
|King Bhumibol of Thailand||126 million acres|
|King Mohammed IV of Morocco||113 million acres|
|Sultan Quaboos of Oman||76 million acres|
Queen is given an inflation-busting pay rise: Her Majesty to receive 22% increase over next two years after being reduced to her ‘last MILLION’
‘The Queen is set to receive an inflation-busting 22 per cent ‘pay rise’ over two years, according to new official figures.
The monarch is said to be ‘down to her last £1 million’, leaving her vulnerable to ‘unexpected costs’, a report has said.
She is now expected to be given £37.9 million in 2014-15 to run her Household and conduct official engagements, up from £31 million in 2012-13.
The figures were released yesterday by the National Audit Office which has, for the first time, been allowed to examine all aspects of the Queen’s funding as Head of State.’
Archived material details how gold bars plundered from Czechoslovakia were sold on behalf of Germany’s central bank in 1939
A TOP-level cover-up was ordered to hide close links between Prince Charles and paedo Jimmy Savile, we can reveal today. The full truth has been uncovered following a seven-month battle by the Daily Star Sunday. Read more Savile said that he had first been introduced to the royal family in 1966 by (known paedophile) Lord Louis Mountbatten, the uncle and mentor of Prince Charles. Mountbatten was Commandant General of the Royal Marines and arranged for the disc jockey to become the first civilian to be awarded the Marines’ Green Beret. It was one of a many ‘honourees’ that Savile would be awarded in the years that followed. Savile said: Coming from Lord Louis, who was the favourite uncle of Prince Philip, that was quite something. So obviously I hooked up with the Prince – what was good enough for Lord Louis was good enough for him. But what was ‘what’? Mountbatten was killed when a bomb exploded on his boat in Ireland in 1979 – a murder officially blamed on the Provisional IRA… Greg Hallett names both Mountbatten and Philip as paedophiles. Of course, you don’t just take one person’s word for that, but my own sources which have proved to be so accurate about Savile and others told me the same nearly 15 years ago with the addition that they were both Satanists. This is no surprise given that the British royal family, like all the royal bloodlines of Europe and further afield, are founded on Satanism and the manipulation of occult knowledge for deeply malevolent ends in league with the ‘dark suit’ expressions of the bloodlines in politics, banking, corporations and media. SOURCE The following is from the Help Free the Earth website: Philip’s uncle – George Mountbatten – became his surrogate father and legal guardian. George Mountbatten kept a scandalous collection of child pornography that he bound into volumes and emblazoned with the family crest. Most disturbing were pictures of family orgies and beastiality in which children and animals were sexual participants. The question is – was George’s adopted son Philip a participant? George Mountbatten’s porn collection now resides at the British Museum where it is kept in a hidden repository of artefacts deemed pornographic and unfit for public viewing. It is a well known fact that child victims of sexual predators commonly identify with their abusers and grow up to become sexual predators themselves. We also know that Savile was a predatory paedophile and part of a satanic ring as evidenced by the MSM’sDaily Express: JIMMY SAVILE beat and raped a 12-year-old girl during a secret satanic ritual in a hospital. The perverted star wore a hooded robe and mask as he abused the terrified victim in a candle-lit basement. He also chanted “Hail Satan” in Latin as other paedophile devil worshippers joined in and assaulted the girl at Stoke Mandeville Hospital in Buckinghamshire. The attack, which happened in 1975, shines a sinister new light on the former DJ’s 54-year reign of terror. Savile, who died aged 84 in October 2011, is now Britain’s worst sex offender after police revealed he preyed on at least 450 victims aged eight to 47.
More and more questions are now emerging in regards to the connection between Savile and British Royalty, most notably Prince Charles. At least, more questions should be emerging. Unfortunately, however, the British mainstream media is deeming Prince Charles and the rest of his ilk in positions of power and perceived genetic royalty as if they are beyond reproach. This approach is typical and to be expected, yet it is also highly ironic considering the fact that such is the same position the mainstream media took with the allegations against Jimmy Savile for so many years. As a result of the Savile affair, mainstream outlets, particularly the BBC, now have a lot of egg on their faces in the areas of credibility and respect. In short, any connections placing Prince Charles in an uncompromising position regarding his connections with Savile or his potential for sharing a penchant for unnatural relationships with children is being completely ignored if not officially covered up. Although Prince Charles’ friendship with Jimmy Savile, allegedly begun when the two met in the 1970s during the course of working with children’s wheelchair sports charities, is now well-known, the extent to which the Prince and the Pedophile were connected appears to go much deeper than the mainstream media reports let on. Of course, the two having come in contact at a “charity” event for the disabled is not too far-fetched, even if it is being reported by corporate outlets. After all, using children’s “charities” as a hunting ground and a cover for his true motives was a notorious method used by Savile who actually lived in children’s homes and hospitals so as to be closer to his victims. This method is by no means specific to Savile, however, as many other sexual predators and pedophiles know exactly what areas of society to be involved in and what careers to pursue in order to gain access to their victims. Jerry Sandusky stands as a perfect example. Clarence House, Prince Charles’ spokesman, declined comment on much of the relationship between Savile and Charles, only claiming that the relationship was mostly a result of their “shared interest in supporting disability charities.” Supporting charities, indeed. Of course, Savile was doing much more than “supporting disability charities.” That is, unless one places serial child rape in a much different category than the average person might. Indeed, one would not be judged out of place to question whether or not untold numbers of sexually assaulted children thoroughly cancels out any financial “support” that may have been given in the past. Apparently, in the view of British royalty, it does not. In fact, child molester Savile has enjoyed an unbelievable level of access to the Royal Family for the past 40 years. For instance, in the late 1980s, Savile was said to have acted as a type of marriage counselor between Charles and Diana, visiting their residence several times. At these visits, Dickie Arbiter, who took care of media relations for the Prince and Princess between 1988 and 2000 stated that, at these visits, Savile’s behavior was uncouth to say the very least. Arbiter stated:
He would walk into the office and do the rounds of the young ladies taking their hands and rubbing his lips all the way up their arms if they were wearing short sleeves. If it was summer [and their arms were bare] his bottom lip would curl out and he would run it up their arms. This was at St James’s Palace. The women were in their mid to late 20s doing typing and secretarial work.
Not only that, but Savile was brought in to the private marital affairs of the Royals once again in order to help the Duchess of York, Sarah Ferguson, in matters which were not disclosed to the public. Savile later claimed he was brought in to help “Fergie” keep her profile down. Obviously, the relationship forged between Charles and Savile went far beyond two men who merely performed charity work for the same organizations. This can be evidenced by the fact that, in 1990, Charles even consulted Savile for advice on the appointment of a senior aide for himself and Princess Diana. The relationship between Charles and Savile, particularly Savile’s access to the Royal Family’s affairs and the respect which was afforded Savile in this regard, has confused many onlookers. After all, Savile was nothing more than a BBC presenter and disc jockey who was well past his prime. Not to mention the fact that Savile was well known as an uncontrollable freak, although many were under the impression that Savile’s television persona was merely part of his schtick. Yet the clues to the Prince’s friendship with the Pedophile might have more to do with similar interests in entertainment than a mere happenstance relationship. Although the evidence which connects Prince Charles to pedophilia is nowhere near as documented as that of Jimmy Savile, a trail of information certainly seems to be leading in that direction. At this point, it should be mentioned that, although the official line is that Savile and Charles met in the 1970s as part of the coincidence of mutual charity work, Savile himself has stated that he was friends with the Royal family “for a million years.” In fact, it was reported that Savile actually stated he was introduced to the Royals in 1966 by Lord Mountbatten, a known pedophile and sexual pervert. In addition to Mountbatten, however, Greg Hallett, in his book Hitler Was A British Agent, also names Prince Philip as a pedophile. In reference to how he became introduced and ingratiated with the Royal family, Savile stated,
Coming from Lord Louis, who was the favourite uncle of Prince Philip, that was quite something. So obviously I hooked up with the Prince – what was good enough for Lord Louis was good enough for him.
So, already, we have Savile, a notorious pedophile linked to other individuals of the Royal Family named as pedophiles as well. Prince Philip, of course, is Prince Charles’ father. Lord Mountbatten is largely considered Charles’ mentor. Savile was indeed close to British Royals as well as other elites for many years. It seems his qualification for such high connections were mainly due to his ability to obtain children for the twisted appetites of those considered beyond reproach for the mainstream media and, unfortunately, the general public. Savile himself seemed to hint at this possibility in an interview conducted with Esquire where he stated, “The thing about me is I get things done and I work deep cover.” Savile’s ridiculous television show (created for the sole purpose of enhancing his access to children) was thus appropriately named, Jim’ll Fix It. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the public were completely unaware as to what he was fixing and who he was fixing it for. Essentially, it is clear that Jimmy Savile was a procurer of children not only for himself but also for wealthy pedophiles all across the world, particularly in Britain. Even Savile’s own nephew has recently gone public with information tying Savile to a network of pedophiles and sick sexual parties where children were repeatedly raped. Guy Marsden, Savile’s nephew, also stated that the parties were attended by household names in show business. However, as is being widely reported in the news, Savile’s escapades of pedophilia were by no means limited to parties with the elite of entertainment. Many of his attacks on children took place in the halls of the hospitals and charities he helped fund and operate, even residing in his own personal room at two of these institutions. At this point, it is worth noting that Savile and Prince Charles are open “supporters” of the same charities.
Apparently, Prince Charles and the Pedophile did have some similar tastes, some of which were even reported by the mainstream media. In 1999, after the Prince accepted Savile’s invitation to a private meal at Savile’s home in Glencoe, Scotland, Savile had arranged for three women to parade around dressed in pinafores, a type of dress without sleeves and an open back that is often worn over other dresses. Interestingly enough, pinafores were often worn by children.After the dinner, Charles wrote Savile a Christmas Card with a note that read, “Jimmy, with affectionate greetings from Charles. Give my love to your ladies in Scotland.” Of course, the mainstream is certain that Charles is referring to the local women brought in for the Royal entertainment. However, unless the hired help made an exceptional impression upon the mind of Charles, one must wonder whether or not these particular ladies are the “ladies” to which Charles is referring in his Christmas note. After all, Savile’s Scottish cottage was also the scene of much child abuse as well. Later, Charles sent Savile a box of cigars and a pair of gold cufflinks on his 80th birthday along with another note that cryptically read, “Nobody will ever know what you have done for this country Jimmy. This is to go some way in thanking you for that.” Fortunately, many are now aware of what Jimmy has done for his country. Clearly, it would be best if they are given the full story along with it. This is not likely to happen, however, as global pedophile rings are generally made up of some of the most elite individuals the world over. This is particularly relevant when it comes to any questions regarding the behavior of the Royal Prince. At any moment when there is a chance that information might be leaked that would be damaging to the reputation of genetic royalty, the documents are sealed, the whistleblowers are dealt with, and the controversy covered up.Somehave even speculated that Princess Diana sealed her own fate after threatening to reveal networks of pedophilia within the Royal family. Indeed, Diana did speak of “dark forces” and members of an “organization” that were monitoring her shortly before her death.For instance, when it appeared that the so-called Black Spider Memos, a series of letters written by Charles to government ministers, would damage the perception of Charles’ impartiality if he were to become king, then memos were immediately blocked by the British government. Indeed, it would be extremely interesting to see the contents of the letters, since, in reality, the impartiality of the king is truly irrelevant in the grand scheme of British society and government.What is particularly interesting is that the letters are being blocked from release now, as the biggest pedophilia scandal in British history is unfolding – specifically, at a time when one of the main focal points of the scandal, Jimmy Savile, was a close friend of the Prince. Even more so, it comes at a time when British government officials are also being implicated in pedophilia networks. For those who may still be under the impression that pedophilia is a crime beyond the capabilities of British politicians, take a look at thispartial compilation of British politicians convicted of pedophilia in recent years.But, while the connections between Prince Charles and the Pedophile Jimmy Savile are themselves enough to make one wonder, the fact is that Savile is not the only relationship with a potential pedophile that Charles has maintained. As reported by the Digital Journal, the Right Reverend Peter Ball is the most senior member of the Church of England to be arrested for offenses against children. Ball was arrested on eight suspected cases of abuse against boys and young men ranging from ages 12 to 20 during the 1980s to 1990s. Ball, who was the former Bishop of Gloucester, resigned in 1993 after he was served with a police caution for “committing an act of gross indecency against a teenager.” Upon his resignation, Ball retired to Manor Lodge, “a wisteria-clad property owned by the Duchy of Cornwall.” Manor Lodge is a property of the Prince’s Duchy of Cornwall.In reference to his new living arrangements, Ball stated, “He (Prince Charles) has been wonderfully kind and allowed me to have a duchy house. The prince is a loyal friend. I have immense admiration for him, he has been through horrific times and is a great person.”Considering the connections and personal friendships maintained by Prince Charles, one must question whether or not Charles himself has had some experience in the underworld of pedophilia. At the very least, the Prince is the absolute worst judge of character who ever lived. What is also very interesting regarding the people named in these child sex scandals and the scope of the scandals themselves, is that the individuals who have been trying their best to bring this information to light have been ignored and derided for years on end. This has been the case whether the individuals were whistleblowers, researchers, or even victims themselves. For instance, while much of mainstream Britain has had quite a time laughing at David Icke, suddenly his claims do not seem so fantastic and funny after all. Indeed, it was Icke who mentioned the global cabal of pedophiles and even many of the participants in them by name many years ago. While his voice was scarcely heard above the laughter at the time, he is, at the very least, on the record as having exposed these networks early on.As for Icke’s remarks regarding the scandal today, he had this to say on November 7, 2012.
This guy, William Hague, the foreign Secretary, needs to be questioned on why that Welsh inquiry into the massive pedophilia in Welsh children’s homes was given the brief that it did and therefore stopped these kids from talking about what happened to them. And this is the big thing. If the police investigation does not knock on the door of Buckingham Palace over this whole Savile [case] and the wider implications that have followed then it’s a cover up. Because the British Royal family are fundamentally involved in this right to the top. Right up to the people like Prince Philip and all these other people . . . . . This man [Savile] was an aging sleazy disc jockey, right? And he had complete access to the British Royal family AND they used him as an official go-between [with] Prince Charles and Princess Diana when they were falling out in their marriage. And now it’s come out this week that he was advising Prince Charles on aids to employ. Why is this man so close or was so close to the British Royal Family? The answer to that will bring the British Royal family down.
Considering Icke’s accuracy in terms of information on this particular issue, perhaps it would be wise if those who heard him speak years ago might take him a little more serious the second time around. Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of three books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident. Turbeville has published over 175 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com. RELATED: JIMMY SAVILE – DOORMAN TO THE CESSPIT OF CHILD ABUSE
Military sources have claimed Diana’s driver, Henri Paul, was blinded with an intense flash of light forcing him to lose control of their Mercedes on an underpass after leaving the Ritz hotel.
An exhaustive inquiry in the French capital has confirmed the existence of CCTV records of the night Diana died in August 1997
The final, haunting photo of Princess Diana, taken on the night she died, shows her sitting with her boyfriend Dodi Fayed in the back of a Mercedes car as it roars away from the rear entrance of the Paris Ritz Hotel, heading for the couple’s secret love-nest near the Champs-Elysees.
Princess Diana looks back at pursuing paparazzi as Henri Paul (right) drives on to her fatal crash. Click to enlarge
Diana is twisting her head to peer out of the Mercedes’ rear window, anxiously looking to see if her car is being chased by the paparazzi who had besieged her and Dodi since their arrival in the French capital from a Mediterranean holiday eight hours earlier.
At the wheel is chauffeur Henri Paul. Dodi’s bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones is in the front passenger seat.
What happened over the next two minutes is central to a new probe by Scotland Yard into an astonishing claim from an SAS sniper, known as Soldier N, that members of his elite regiment assassinated Diana seconds after the Mercedes sped at 63mph into the notoriously dangerous Pont d’Alma road tunnel.
Many will dismiss Soldier N’s claims as yet another conspiracy theory. After all, millions of words have been written about Diana’s death at 12.20am on Sunday, August 31, 1997.
Two inquiries, by Scotland Yard and the French police, have found the deaths were a tragic accident
An official inquest, which ended five years ago, came to the same conclusion.
The world was led to believe the blame lay with the grossly negligent driving of an intoxicated Mr Paul and the pursuing paparazzi.
But — however unlikely they may seem at first glance — I am convinced there is something in Soldier N’s claims.
Ever since Diana’s death at the age of 36, I have investigated forensically the events that led up to the crash and what happened afterwards.
I have spoken to eye-witnesses, French and British intelligence officers, SAS soldiers and to friends of Diana and Dodi. And I have interviewed the Brittany-based parents of the 41-year-old chauffeur Henri Paul. They told me, with tears in their eyes, that their son was not a heavy drinker: his chosen potion was a bottle of beer or the occasional Ricard, a liquorice-flavoured aperitif.
The fact is that too many of these accounts suggest that Diana’s death was no accident.
Crucially, my investigations show that the paparazzi who supposedly hounded Diana to her death were not even in the Pont d’Alma tunnel at the time of the car crash.
They also reveal how a high-powered black motorbike — which did not belong to any of the paparazzi — shot past Diana’s Mercedes in the tunnel.
Eyewitnesses say its rider and pillion passenger deliberately caused the car to crash.
In addition, my inquiries unearthed the existence of a shadowy SAS unit that answers to MI6, as well as the names of two MI6 officers who were linked by a number of sources to Diana’s death.
Could the Establishment really have turned Henri Paul and the paparazzi into scapegoats? Could there have been a skilful cover-up by people in powerful places to hide exactly what did happen?
There is little doubt that Diana, recently divorced from Prince Charles, was a thorn in the side of the Royal Family. Her romance with Dodi, though only six weeks old, was serious.
The Princess had given her lover her ‘most precious possession’ — a pair of her deceased father’s cufflinks — and phoned friends, saying she had a ‘big surprise’ for them when she returned from Paris.
Dodi had slipped out of the Ritz Hotel, as Diana was having her hair done, to collect a jewel-encrusted ring adorned with the words ‘Tell Me Yes’ from a swanky Paris jeweller. It came from a collection of engagement rings.
Rumours were circulating, too, that the Princess was pregnant. Photographs of her in a leopard-print swimsuit, on holiday in the South of France 14 days earlier, show an unmistakable bump around her waistline.
And, as the Mail revealed after Diana’s death, she had visited — in the strictest secrecy — a leading London hospital for a pregnancy scan just before that photo was snapped.
To add to the disquiet, the mother of a future King of England and head of the Church of England was threatening to move abroad with her Muslim boyfriend and take the royal Princes, William and Harry, with her.
Dodi had bought an estate, once owned by film star Julie Andrews, by the beach in Malibu, California, and shown Diana a video of it. He told her the sumptuous house was where they would spend their married life.
Ostracised by the Royal Family and stripped of her HRH title, Diana was said to be excited by the prospect.
Dodi’s father, Mohamed Al Fayed, the multi-millionaire former owner of Harrods, insists Diana was pregnant by his son and preparing to tell the young Princes about her forthcoming marriage when she returned to Britain on September 1 — the day after the crash — before they went back to boarding school.
However far-fetched it sounds, all the Establishment concerns about Diana were genuine. But could this really have led to her assassination? And if so, how could it have been carried out?
These questions are partially answered by the compelling testimony of 14 independent eyewitnesses near the crash scene that night. They say Diana’s car was surrounded at the entrance to the Alma tunnel by a phalanx of cars and motorcycles, which sped after the Mercedes.
The assumption has always been that the cars and bikes were carrying the paparazzi. By the Monday morning after the crash, outside the Alma tunnel, a huge message had appeared. ‘Killer paparazzi’ had been sprayed in gold paint on the walls.
No one, to this day, knows who put it there — or why they were not stopped by the French authorities from doing so.
Yet the paparazzi following Diana did not reach the Pont d’Alma tunnel until at least one minute after the crash, so they cannot be to blame.
Indeed, two years later they were cleared of manslaughter charges after the French state prosecutor said there was ‘insufficient evidence’ of their involvement in Diana’s death.
What happened is that the paparazzi had been deceived. In a clever ploy devised by Henri Paul, the Ritz had placed a decoy Mercedes at the front of the hotel to confuse the photographers, which allowed the lovers to slip out of the back door into a similar car.
The last picture of Diana peering from the rear window was taken by a France-based photographer who had seen through the ruse and was standing on the pavement by the hotel’s rear entrance watching as the ‘real’ Mercedes sped off.
Yet that Mercedes was definitely being hotly pursued when in the tunnel. The independent witnesses insist it was being followed not only by the black motorbike, but by two speeding cars, a dark saloon and a white turbo Fiat Uno.
There is no evidence to link these cars or the motorcycle to the paparazzi who had been waiting at the Ritz.
The saloon tail-gated the Mercedes, which made the chauffeur — thinking, wrongly, he was being pursued by paparazzi — drive even faster and more erratically. Meanwhile, the Uno accelerated, clipping the side of the Mercedes to push it to one side.
This maneuver allowed the black motorbike to speed past Diana’s car, with its two riders wearing helmets that hid their faces.
Witnesses claim that when the bike was about 15ft in front of the car, there was a fierce flash of white light from the motorbike. The suggestion is that this came from a laser beam carried by the pillion passenger and directed at the car.
The witnesses’ view is that the flash of light blinded Henri Paul temporarily. It was followed by a loud bang as the limousine swerved violently before slamming into the 13th pillar in the tunnel and being reduced to a mass of wrecked metal.
One of those eyewitnesses, a French harbour pilot driving ahead of the Mercedes through the tunnel, watched the scene in his rear-view mirror.
Chillingly, he recalls the black motorbike stopping after the crash and one of the riders jumping off the bike before going to peer in the Mercedes window at the passengers.
The rider, who kept his helmet on, then turned to his compatriot on the bike and gave a gesture used informally in the military (where both arms are crossed over the body and then thrown out straight to each side) to indicate ‘mission accomplished’.
Afterwards, he climbed back on the motorcycle, which raced off out of the tunnel. The riders on the bike, and the vehicle itself, have never been identified.
The harbour pilot, whose wife was with him in the car, has described the horrifying scenario as resembling a ‘terrorist attack’.
So, who could have been driving the bike and the other vehicles that did follow Diana’s car into the Alma tunnel that night?
Could they really have been part of the plot to get rid of Diana and her lover — a plot orchestrated by MI6 or the SAS regiment, as the latest sensational claims suggest?
After Diana’s death, I received a nine-line note in the post containing the names of two MI6 men who have spent their entire careers working at the heart of the British Establishment, representing the Government as senior diplomats, whom I will call X and Y.
Written in blue felt-tip pen on a flimsy piece of paper ripped from an A4 exercise book, the note said: ‘If you are brave enough, dig deeper to learn about X and Y. Both MI6. Both were involved at the highest level in the murder of the Princess.’ It signed off with the words: ‘Good luck.’
Of course, an unsigned note does not provide firm evidence, or anything like it, that MI6 spies were operating in Paris that evening or were connected with Diana’s death.
Yet their names came up again when I received a call from a well-placed source within the intelligence services.
He named the same two men, X and Y, who had overseen the ‘Paris operation’ and said the crash was designed to frighten Diana into halting her romance with Dodi because he was considered an unsuitable partner.
‘We hoped to break her arm or cause a minor injury,’ said my informant. ‘The operation was also overseen by a top MI6 officer known as the tall man, who is now retired and living on the Continent. He admits it went wrong. No one in MI6 wanted Diana to be killed.’
And this week the men’s names were mentioned again, this time by Moscow intelligence.
According to the author of a new book, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, the SVR, knew that X and Y were in Paris on the night Diana died. And after the car crash the SVR set out to find out why.
Gennady Sokolov, whose book The Kremlin vs The Windsors will be published next year, told me this week: ‘Of course our people were following your agents.
They were senior MI6 officers operating secretly in Paris that night, without the knowledge of even French counter-intelligence. They left again after she was dead.
‘Her relationship and possible marriage to Dodi was deeply worrying to senior royals in Britain. The Princess’s phone was constantly listened to and she was followed all the time.
‘After the crash, public opinion was deliberately led astray. Scapegoats were created, such as the paparazzi and the drunk driver. There was a dance around Henri Paul, saying he was an alcohol addict, a virtual kamikaze, who helped to destroy them all. It is total nonsense.
‘From the very beginning, it was clear to me it was not just an accident. My sources in the SVR and other Russian secret services are sure it was a very English murder.
‘They have talked to me about an SAS squad called The Increment, which is attached to MI6, being involved in the assassination.
‘These guys work on the top level without leaving a single trace, and — perhaps — one was on the motorbike following Diana’s car.’ But why did none of this extraordinary story come out at the inquest into Diana’s death, which should have been the final word on it?
It’s true that 14 tunnel witnesses were at least allowed to appear or send their testimonies. But much of their vital information was completely submerged by the sheer volume of evidence presented over the six months of the hearing.
We heard that chauffeur Henri Paul and Dodi Fayed were killed instantly; that the sole survivor was the bodyguard Trevor Rees Jones, who suffered such devastating facial injuries he has no memory of events in the tunnel, and that with the pulmonary vein in her chest torn, Diana died nearly four hours later of heart failure and blood loss at Paris’s Pitie Salpetriere hospital.
But we also know that the inquest never unravelled the full truth. More than 170 important witnesses, including the doctor who embalmed Diana’s body (a process that camouflages pregnancy in post-mortem blood tests) were never called to the inquest.
One radiologist from Pitie Salpetriere hospital, who said that she had seen a small foetus of perhaps six to ten weeks in the Princess’s womb during an X-ray and a later sonogram of her body, was not questioned
Instead, she was allowed by the judge heading the inquest, Lord Justice Scott Baker, to send a statement giving her current address in America and no more details.
Crucially, the hearing was cruelly unfair to chauffeur Henri Paul, who was vilified from the beginning.
On the day after the crash, French authorities insisted that he was an alcoholic and ‘drunk as a pig’ when he left the Ritz that night to drive the lovers to Dodi’s Paris apartment near the Champs-Elysees.
It has since emerged that the blood tests on Paul’s body had not been completed when they made the announcement to journalists.
Furthermore, the chauffeur had passed an intensive medical examination for flying lessons three days before the crash — his liver showed no sign of alcohol abuse.
A string of witnesses at the Ritz say Paul drank two shots of his favourite Ricard at the bar before taking to the wheel, which was confirmed by bar receipts at the hotel.
However, after a shambolic mix- up over his blood samples (deliberate or otherwise), it was pronounced by a medical expert at the inquest that Paul had downed ten of the aperitifs, was twice over the British driving limit and three times over the French one, when he drove the Mercedes that night.
Today is the 16th anniversary of Diana’s death and there are bunches of fresh flowers on the gilded gates leading to her London home, Kensington Palace. The flowers to commemorate the Princess may be fewer now, but there are still as many questions into her death as ever.
The British Monarchy has been documented as being heavily embroiled in the occult right back to medieval times and beyond. It is in fact true to say that while innocent country people were being persecuted and falsely accused of devil worship and witchcraft, our beloved royalty was in turn playing host to Alchemists and magicians such as Francis Bacon and John Dee. Interestingly enough, John Dee, a magician and spy for Elizabeth the 1st signed his name as 007. Source -http://www.sirbacon.org/links/dblohseven.html. Now, do you really believe that one day the royals just turned round and said “Sod this Black magic lark, let’s worship God instead”? No, of course they didn’t. Remember that all important word Tradition; a belief, principle or way of acting which people in a particular society or group have continued to follow for a long time, or all of these beliefs, etc. in a particular society or group Make no mistake about this; our present monarch is just as evil and corrupt as all those who sat on the throne before her. A direct descendant of the Black Nobility, our Queen is also the grand patroness of freemasonry. Prince Phillip is also a Master Mason and has been since 1952. Most people perceive Masons as being middle aged, upper middle class businessmen who stand on one leg while given each other funny handshakes. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Freemasonry secret society is a global cult that requires its members to swear an oath of allegiance to the Masonic god Jahbuhlun AKA Baal AKA the Devil. http://www.whale.to/b/baal_h.html There are well over 600,000 freemasons in Britain today all supposedly loyal to the Queen. The British Government, Police Force, Judiciary, Secret Services and the Armed Forces are dominated by freemasons at the highest level. One of the most powerful factions of freemasonry is ‘The Knights of Malta’ who wear the Maltese cross around their necks, just like the one Prince Charles wore around his neck when he married the teenage Lady Diane Spencer. The Maltese cross can also be found on the British Coronation Crown… and on the uniform of the Nazi’s Furthermore, a symbol on Prince Charles’ Coat of Arms is that of The Order of the Garter. The Order of the Garter is the parent organization over Free Masonry worldwide. When a man becomes a 33rd Degree Mason, he swears allegiance to that organization, and thereby to Prince Charles. According to “The ‘Morals and Dogma’ of the Ancient and Accepted Rite of Freemasonry” written by Albert Pike (Grand Commander, Sovereign Pontiff of Universal Freemasonry, July 14, 1889) Lucifer is the GOD of Freemasonry (see page 321 of the 1942 edition). On page 819 you will find just one example of why there are so many people in Freemasonry who believe that it is natural to be a Christian and a Mason. “Masonry intentionally misleads the low degree initiates and hides the truth that the god of Freemasonry is Lucifer, except to those in the 30th and higher degrees. “The Blue Degrees are but the outer court or portico of the Temple. Part of the symbols are on display there to the Initiate, but he is intentionally misled by false interpretations. It is not intended that he shall understand them; but it is intended that he shall imagine he understands them”. Further proof of Lucifer worshipping amongst Freemason can be seen in how they measure the year. For instance the year 1998 (up until September) is according to freemasonry the year 5997 AL (that is 5997 anno Lucifer). http://reptoids.50megs.com/catalog.html However, it is actually the Duke of Kent who is the Royal Family’s most senior Masonic mason. The Duke of Kent also just so happened to live under the same roof as Princess Diana in Kensington Palace and her murder had all the hallmarks of a Masonic ritual sacrifice. The fact that the car crash happened in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel in Paris was no coincidence. Neither was it a coincidence that the car collided with the 13th pillar inside the tunnel. The tunnel and concrete pillar were specifically chosen and earmarked for the ideal place to sacrifice the Princess of Wales. I will explain how it was possible to ensure that her chauffer driven Mercedes careered into the 13thpillar in the article that I intend to write on Diana’s murder/sacrifice in the near future. Alternatively, you can research the subject yourself. A good place to start is with the SAS technique ‘the Boston brake manoeuvre’. To fully understand why the Pont de l’Alma tunnel was the ideal place you need to understand the mindset of the social elite and the importance that tradition, ritual, symbolism and numerology play in their lives. http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/13_33_freemason_sig.htm The illuminati bloodline (The 13 families, the Windsors, The Rockerfellers, The Rothschilds, etc) stems from a race known as the Merovigions who worshipped and still worship the goddess Semiramis, who was the wife of Nimrod and Queen of Babylon. Some Merovigion Kings were members of the Knights Templar (Freemasons) and practiced Kabbalistic ritual http://watch.pair.com/priory.html The higher initiates of Freemasons are heavily into reverse symbolism, or put another way; taking something good and re-presenting it so as ordinary people associate it with something evil and vice-versa. Two good examples are the Swastika and the Statue of Liberty. The Swastika is a peace symbol but it is associated with Hitler & the Third Reich thus it is viewed as being a sign of evil. Likewise, but in reverse, most people believe that the Statue of Liberty in New York is a symbol of liberty and freedom. This simply isn’t true. The Statue of Liberty is in fact a depiction of the Goddess Semiremis who is also known as The Goddess Diana. There is a mirror image of the Statue of Liberty on an island, in the river Seine in Paris that runs alongside the dual carriageway that leads into the Pont de l’Alma tunnel where Princess Diana was murdered. In her hand the statue holds the ‘eternal flame’ which is a classic symbol of the Babylonian Brotherhood (the illuminati). http://freemasonrywatch.org/statue_of_liberty.html The Eternal flame is also held in the hand of the statue of Prometheus outside of the Rockefeller Centre in New York and is used by the Brotherhood as a signature of their assassinations. For instance, a flame was placed on President John Kennedy’s grave at Arlington cemetery and the Freemasons erected an obelisk and flame in Dealey Place, close to the spot where he was murdered. So is it a coincidence then, that there is a replica of the Statue of Liberty flame placed on a black pentagram (http://symboldictionary.net/?p=1893) situated above the Pont de L’Alma tunnel in Paris where Diana died, as well as there being an urn and flame placed on the island where she is ‘buried’? After Semiremis AKA the Goddess Diana died, the Merovigions dug underground chambers just outside of Paris where they conducted their rituals/sacrifices to her. As Paris expanded with time these underground temples were incorporated into the city and many still survive today. The Pont de l’Alma tunnel was built on the site of one of these underground temples. The Goddess Diana was a Moon Goddess and Pont de l’Alma translates as ‘passage or bridge of the moon goddess’. Furthermore, amongst the many myths that surround the Goddess Diana you find a reoccurring theme of Lakes, Islands and Tree groves as place of worship. This is why an ultra exclusive, ultra secretive, glorified scout camp for Ex Presidents and powerful business men known as Bohemian Grove is held in a tree grove. Here, members dress up in hooded cloaks and make mock human sacrifice to a 40ft high Owl statue situated on an Island in the middle of a lake. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/bohemian-grove-where-the-rich-and-powerful-go-to-misbehave/2011/06/15/AGPV1sVH_blog.html This 40ft high statue of an Owl that ex US Presidents such as Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George Bush make mock sacrifice to, is a representation of Moloch, the God of child sacrifice ( Surely your beginning to catch on by now?). Like some other gods and demons found in the Bible, Moloch appears, as a Prince of Hell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch. Princess Diana had made it clear that when she died, she wished to be interned in the same small church as her Father, situated a short distance from Althorp, the Spencer Estate in Northamptonshire. However, Diana’s, brother who had refused to let her live in a cottage on the Althrop Estate when she was alive went against her wishes and had her buried on the Estate, on a tree grove island, on a lake. Coincidence? Well if it was, it was nowhere near the coincidence that was to follow. Following Diana’s burial, in a tree grove, on an island, on a lake, her brother, Earl Spencer claims to have had a dream in which he was told to put 4 black swans on the lake. When he mentioned this dream to his head grounds man the next day, the grounds man turned around and told Earl Spencer that they had, that very day been given as a gift, 4 Black swans. Now, if you believe Earl Spencer’s account, then you really are away with the fairies.. However, what Earl Spencer did neglect to mention is that Black swans are one of the most powerful symbols of the Black Occult. Freemasons at grass roots level often do a lot of good work for charity, but when you get to the higher levels, the society takes on a malevolent quality of which the vast majority of those on a lower level know nothing about. One researcher into Freemasonry, The Reverend John Lawrence wrote a book entitled Freemasonry: Is it a religion. His findings concluded that freemasonry is indeed a cult that worships a God which certainly isn’t the God of the Holy Bible. It’s safe to say that all of the Elites, without exception belong to a secret organisation such as the Freemasons, Skull and Bones, Ordo Templis Orientis, Rosicrucians and so on, and so on. All of these Secret Society’s indulge in Devil worship and child sacrifice. If further proof were needed of the Elite’s involvement in Devil worship you need look no further than the many Photographs capturing them making the sign of the Devil. The The following picture and accompanying text are both taken from the “Satanic Bible”: Horned Hand or The Mano Cornuto: This gesture is the Satanic salute, a sign of recognition between and allegiance of members of Satanism or other unholy groups. Now look at the pictures below. For clarification purposes the source of the information is from Stephen Knight and taken from here: http://www.whale.to/b/knight.html Interestingly enough he also says the following at the same link: “I have spoken to no less than fifty-seven long-standing Royal Arch Freemasons […] all but four lost their self-assurance and composure when I said, ‘What about Jah-Bul-On?’ Some, although they had previously told me they had been exalted to the Royal Arch, and therefore must have not only received the lecture on the name but also studied the passages and enacted the ritual relating to Jah-Bul-On, said they had never heard of it. In most cases the interviewees very rapidly brought the meeting to a close when I asked the question. Others laughed unconvincingly and extricated themselves from having to reply by jauntily saying such words as, ‘Oh, that old chestnut’, and passing quickly on to some other subject, normally going on the offensive with something like, ‘Why are you so interested in Freemasonry in particular? Why don’t you look into Christianity or something? Why do people always pick on Freemasonry?’ -thereby diverting the conversation from the course I had plotted. If I insisted on returning to Jah-Bul-On, almost invariably the interview would be unceremoniously terminated. Others said that although they had heard of the word, they did not know what it meant. To them it meant God, and previously erudite Freemasons, with a precise knowledge of every other aspect of Masonry we had discussed, suddenly became vague and claimed ignorance of this most central of all Freemasonic subjects. While professing an almost total lack of knowledge of Jah-Bul-On, several dismissed it as of no real importance”… While raising your points of which Jabba was raised first , I must say that I immediately picked up on your choice of words, “feel/know” which to me suggests there is an area of doubt in one of the points that you raise. I also noticed the dropped ‘h’ in your spelling where as Stephen Knight spells it JAHBULON, a derivative of: JAH = Jahweh, the God of the Hebrews. BUL = Baal, the ancient Canaanite fertility god associated with ‘licentious rites of imitative magic’. ON = Osiris, the Ancient Egyptian god of the underworld. With regards to you pointing out that the word was replaced in the 80′s, that would also make perfect sense in regards to a another reference into freemasonry a little further down the page which states: According to “The ‘Morals and Dogma’ of the Ancient and Accepted Rite of Freemasonry” written by Albert Pike (Grand Commander, Sovereign Pontiff of Universal Freemasonry, July 14, 1889) Lucifer is the GOD of Freemasonry (see page 321 of the 1942 edition). On page 819 you will find just one example of why there are so many people in Freemasonry who believe that it is natural to be a Christian and a Mason. “Masonry intentionally misleads the low degree initiates and hides the truth that the god of Freemasonry is Lucifer, except to those in the 30th and higher degrees. “The Blue Degrees are but the outer court or portico of the Temple. Part of the symbols are on display there to the Initiate, but he is intentionally misled by false interpretations. It is not intended that he shall understand them; but it is intended that he shall imagine he understands them” With reference to your point about the Knights of Malta not being the “most important degree by any means”, the article doesn’t make that claim. It does however say this about them : “One of the most powerful factions of freemasonry is ‘The Knights of Malta”… That not withstanding, the point being made was not principally so much to do with their seniority, but more to do with the fact that the Maltese Cross was also an adornment to the Nazi uniform.
Althorp looks its finest at this time of year. September sunshine adds lustre to a scene already rich in Arcadian grandeur: a scene unchanged since the time, 20-odd years ago, Diana, Princess of Wales, last laid eyes on it. She rests there now, on an island in the Round Oval lake. People come each year to visit and pay their respects, by the thousand. Or did. Althorp shut its doors yesterday and when they re-open next spring virtually all trace of the Spencers’ best-loved daughter will have disappeared. Remnants of that singular life, from toys, schoolbooks and scrawled notes in girlish hand down to the couture dresses she made famous, will have dispersed to leave merely a stone temple bearing her name, and an elegant column marking the place of her burial. Some historians would argue it’s time to dispose of the Diana cult. You’d have a hard time convincing the crowds at Althorp of that this week. Eager as ever to touch the hem of the most famous woman in the world, they queued with eager anticipation to view the exhibit known as “Diana: A Celebration”. It is a moving event. Her school tuck-box, toy typewriter, ballet shoes, and childhood photo album all depict, with epic simplicity, the days before she was famous.
The items touch the spectator unexpectedly – even after all this time. Centre-stage stands the Emanuel wedding dress that left the world gasping on July 29, 1981, its impact undiminished after three decades. At the other end of five rooms of exhibits is one visitors sometimes walk past without noticing: a wall filled, floor to ceiling, with books. These are the hundreds of bound volumes of condolence, collected in the wake of the events of August 31, 1997. They brim with signatures and messages. The sea of flowers outside Kensington Palace may have died long ago but here remains the evidence, in innumerable hands, of that outpouring of love and grief. This week the carpark at Althorp was crammed. Charles, the ninth Earl Spencer, mingled with the crowds, signing copies of the books he has written since his sister’s death. One, a slim, silk-bound copy of the incendiary address he delivered at her funeral, sells for £25 ($50). There were also plenty of other mementoes on offer and the tills rattled merrily – no hint Althorp’s Diana industry was about to shut for good. But it has. As the final coaches left the 20,000ha estate, the relics of Diana’s life were being packed up in preparation for their return to her sons, Princes William and Harry. First, they make a detour via America to earn their keep – but Britain will see them no more. In May the 49-year-old peer announced his exhibit “would close worldwide in August 2014″, explaining that under the terms of Diana’s will her possessions had to be returned to her sons when Harry reached his 30th birthday in September that year. But the commercial exploitation of “A Celebration” (industry insiders put the box-office gross over the years conservatively at £25million) and the fact only a relatively small percentage of the profits found its way to Diana’s charities, has angered some – including, it is said, William and Harry.
Prince Charles, heir to Dracula’s blood line
The Romanian tourist board is to use links between the British Royal family and Count Dracula to lure in UK tourists, it has emerged.
By Mike James in Berlin
The German people were only too pleased to see the back of the Saxe-Coburg family of imbeciles, exported to Britain as the royal family we now refer to as the “Windsors”. Only the deliberately ill-educated people of England would go down on all fours like fawning hounds and worship such a dim-witted brood of chicken-farm yokels as “royalty” and sacrifice the lives of their most cherished sons in futile wars against their own Teutonic cousins at the behest of the City of London, the Shylock master of the chinless wonders who continue to mesmerise the most hopelessly beguiled of my people with their nonsensical Thames Valley woo-woo, poo-you, iggy-wiggy-pabble-babble, BBC accents.
No serious English patriot who truly loves his own people should ignore the subtle nature in which the British Crown (the “UK Manifest”) has hypnotised almost every Briton into a state of knee-jerk servitude. Nor should we ignore the Crown’s role in assenting to every piece of legislation that has made of our nation a hunting ground for foreign predators and the evil machinations of European Union bureaucrats.
It is about time that my people desisted in their behaviour as children. It is my desire that the ordinary people of England recognise who they truly are: uniquely chosen and sovereign individuals empowered by God to re-take control of their own nation and be masters of their own house. The Hebrews, whom we, as Phoenicians (ancient sea-faring Britons), spawned and whose language derives from our HEBRIdeanancestors (who also devised the Sanskrit language of Aryan North India) were canny enough to advise us: “When I was a child, I spoke as a child. I understood as a child and I thought as a child. But when I became a man, I put away childish things.” (I Corinthians 13:11).
I have zero respect for those who boast academic excellence. I give not one toss for those who pass themselves off as “expert” talking heads on any of the British Crown’s newscasts. Those who shall lead and redeem my nation are currently the men and women who now find themselves penniless, disenfranchised, of low esteem, lacking in self-confidence, anguished, lonely, sad and disillusioned. Those of you who sit alone on park benches, unaware of the tears you shed for things of which you consider only fleeting losses; those of you who are unemployed or weary with the burden of age; those of you who have suffered the yoke of illegal taxation and the oppression of foreign impositions; those of you who sleep in damp bedsits attuned to an alarm clock that bespeaks the hour upon which you must rise to work for the wages of hunger ….. to all of you I say this:
You are true royalty. Every Englishman is a King, every Englishwoman a Queen. You were long Chosen before the foundations of this material world, but you know it not. You have the power to determine the course of your lives simply by loving one another and refusing to bow down to the alter of false gods, manifest in the form of consumer materialism, celebrity worship, monarchy, television, drugs, globalism and the soap opera of “parliamentary democracy”.
You are a self-governing people. Take control of your own lives: firstly by turning to God, who desperately cares that the English turn their backs upon the misery of both self-defeating capitalism and international socialism, and humbly seek a change of heart. Take control of your neighbourhoods. This is your territory and you owe fealty to your neighbour, regardless as to the colour of his skin, though you are the master or the mistress who draws a line in the sand. Then take your nation back. It is your birthright.
Do not pour scorn upon my words. You, who are denied access to everything for which your grandparents fought for and earned by the sweat of their brows, have been robbed. You, who have been told that you must suffer the guilt of the White Man’s Burden and feel beholden unto those who come begging from shores afar, have submitted to political correctness. You, who must carry the weight of taxation imposed by an illegal Crown system of government, itself in tow to foreigners in Brussels, must feed your children on a pittance. You, who live in abject poverty in pre-war tenements and struggle to survive on two or three part-time jobs, are slaves to a demonic and unnatural system of anti-human economics.
All of these things I too have experienced, though I was young and resilient. That my people continue to suffer is unconscionable to me. I shall not stand for it. Though I am abroad and, at the forbidding “advice” of the British Consulate in Germany, debarred as an exile from ever again returning to the land of my fathers, I love you. In the twenty-one years I have been residing in Germany, I have never truly laughed myself sick as I did when living and working in Durham, Lancashire, Dorset, Bristol, Oxford, Scotland, Yorkshire and London.
If God has a politically incorrect sense of humour – just read the Bible and laugh at what He says about the non-English – his favourite scriptwriters are Britons. For irrefutable evidence of the ancient British Celts having devised the celestial calendar light years before the so-called “dawn of civilisation” (as Zionist “historians” will have you believe), take a look at this. Everything our Darwinist, pro-abortion, “Out-Of-Africa”, anti-Celtic and Jewish-influenced teachers taught us actually turns out to be a pile of shite bigger than the biggest pile of shite since George Bush told Tony Blair, “Let’s go shit some stuff, buddy.”
I’ve been around, somewhat travelled. This I have learned: there exists on this planet no greater race of men and women than the English People. You are superlatively imperfect, maddeningly paradoxical, eminently nonsensical, infuriatingly obnoxious, fiercely independent, insanely empirical to the point of empirical insanity.
You are the Scum of the Earth. The vilest of the vile. You scare the crap out of me. But I love you, even to the point of tears.
Albeit from a park bench in Berlin.
By Jonthan Corke, Deborah Sherwood, Rick Lyons
A TOP-level cover-up was ordered to hide close links between Prince Charles and paedo Jimmy Savile, we can reveal today. The full truth has been uncovered following a seven-month battle by the Daily Star Sunday. A raft of documents was released last year showing former Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher’s dealings with Savile. But Whitehall mandarins ordered key paragraphs to be blanked out to save people’s blushes. We challenged that ruling under Freedom Of Information laws and were initially turned down. It was only after a further appeal, when we said it was in the public interest to expose what Thatcher and her officials were discussing, that the information was finally released last week. It shows Savile claimed Prince Charles had agreed to be a patron of one of his charities – and, crucially, last year someone in power had decided we shouldn’t know that fact, despite it being common knowledge that the Prince and weirdo Savile were pals. Officials at the National Archive, which houses the documents, last night blamed the Cabinet Office, under the control of Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood, for redacting the documents. The cover-up concerned Savile asking Prince Charles to be patron of his Stoke Mandeville appeal. The letter to Thatcher from one of her aides reads: “Even more encouraging, though again confidential at this stage, Jimmy Savile tells me that the Prince of Wales has agreed to be Patron of the Appeal.” The nugget was contained in a one page letter headed PRIME MINISTER dated March 6, 1980, and initialled G.V. The letter was part of a Savile file released under the 30-year rule by the National Archives at Kew, south-west London, last year. It included pervert Savile declaring his love for the former PM, showing how well connected he was to establishment figures. A National Archives official explained the Charles paragraph was excluded under sections 40 and 41. Section 40 refers to information that it would breach the Data Protection Act to reveal that that person would have a “legitimate expectation” that the information would remain private. Section 41 covers information that was given in confidence. Two documents in the dossier are still being covered up and will stay secret for 40 years after a ruling last October when claims about Savile began to emerge. One, misspelling Savile’s name, is described as “Letter from Jimmy Saville to Prime Minister (undated).” The other is “Telephone message from Jimmy Savile” dated February 5, 1980. Last night it was still unclear whose blushes were being spared by those sections remaining blanked out. Freedom of information campaigners have criticised officials for misusing the rules to keep information secret. Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign For Freedom Of Information, said: “They often use these sections to protect the identity of people who are actually players in the decision-making process who ought to be identified. “Sometimes people haven’t behaved properly and shouldn’t have any expectation of having their identity protected. If you persist, you can succeed in overturning these decisions.” Former Top Of The Pops presenter Savile was a fundraiser for Stoke Mandeville hospital in Buckinghamshire, where he also preyed on young patients. One paralysed woman said Savile abused her when she was 13 and recovering in the children’s ward in 1971. Nurses even warned youngsters “pretend to be asleep” when he visited. The hospital launched its own inquiry after a catalogue of attacks was revealed across the country, dating back to 1955. Savile was also allowed in and out of Charles’ residence St James’ Palace when he acted as a marriage guidance counsellor for Charles and Diana. Charles, who led tributes when Savile died, aged 84, in October 2011, had sent him cigars and gold cufflinks on his 80th birthday. A note with the gifts read: “Nobody will ever know what you have done for this country, Jimmy. This is to go some way in thanking you for that.” Last night, a spokeswoman for Charles said the redaction was nothing to do with his office. It was public knowledge that he was patron of that appeal, she said. And the Cabinet Office added: “As a result of the review of the FOI request, the Cabinet Office decided a small amount of information may be released. “The reason it was originally redacted is quoted in section 40 and 41. A review decided that a small extract could be released.”
BBC accused of provoking Christians with Mary Magdalene documentary
John Bingham – Telegraph.co.uk March 29, 2013
The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the former bishop of Rochester, said the programme, presented by Melvyn Bragg would be “hugely offensive” to devout Christians because it amounted to the “sexualisation of Christ”. He said it was all the more upsetting because it is being screened at midday on Good Friday – the moment the Bible says Jesus was put on the cross. Last night one Christian group issued an alert to its supporters urging them to contact the BBC’s complaints line. Lord Bragg, who describes himself as “no longer a believer”, argues that Mary’s close relationship with Jesus was effectively airbrushed out of the accepted Biblical account by “misogynist” Romans. He points to a series of ancient writings known as the Gnostic Gospels which were not included in the agreed list of books which became the New Testament. They include references to Mary being “kissed on the mouth” by Jesus, being his favourite and even, as one passage suggests, his wife. The suggestion that Mary had a sexual relationship with Jesus lies behind the storyline of the Hollywood film The Last Temptation of Christ, which provoked a scandal, and more recently the Da Vinci Code, the best-selling novel by Dan Brown. Writing in The Daily Telegraph last week, Lord Bragg said: “She was acknowledged by other disciples as his favourite and there is one taunting scrap of record which may well lead to the conclusion that she was his wife. “What then? What then for the celibacy which has led the organised Church into so many abuses and crimes and distorted lives?” But Bishop Nazir-Ali accused the corporation of deliberately causing offense to Christians and questioned whether other groups would be treated in the same way. The Pakistan-born cleric, who was the fist non white bishop in the Church of England, added that the programme could cause particular problems for Christians in Muslim countries where they are already facing persecution. He said: “This is going out at 12 o’clock on Good Friday which is exactly the time that Christians are thinking about Christ on the cross, this highly provocative stuff that really encourages a sexualisation of Christ with references to him being kissed on the mouth by Mary Magdalene and it refers to her being his wife. “I am concerned about the misuses of very obscure Gnostic gospels to impugne the integrity of the Bible. “It is highly provocative in terms of its content for Christians on Good Friday and it attempts to sexualize Christ in the most offensive way. “Biblical Christians are not given any kind of response to this. “They can say whatever they like on Good Friday and nobody it seems is going to put the Biblical point of view about who Mary was and what her relationship with Jesus was. “Why is the BBC doing this on Good Friday and why is it doing it in such a provocative way.” “There will be huge offence, here must be some way of putting the other point of view across.” Last night the group Christian Concern emailed its supporters urging them to contact the BBC’s complaints line and offering links to online complaint forms. Andrea Williams, director of Christian Concern, said: “Noon Good Friday is the precise time Christians are remembering Jesus’ crucifixion. “To air a programme which questions the purity of Christ is at best insensitive and at worst offensive. “Who is making such bewildering decisions in the BBC’s religious programming department? “A programme redressing the balance based on sound scholarship – rather than pseudo-scholarship popularised by Dan Brown novels – needs to broadcast.” Source
Cameron accused of betraying Christians: Astonishing Easter attack on the PM by former Archbishop of Canterbury
By wmw_admin on March 30, 2013
By Pamela Wade
Even when you’re the Queen of England, you don’t always get what you want. Back in 1997, looking even sadder, it must be said, than she did at Diana’s funeral a few months earlier, Queen Elizabeth said goodbye to the Royal Yacht Britannia. After 44 years, it was being decommissioned as an economic measure. But nowhere on its immaculate hull will you find the name “Britannia”. There are some things you’re just supposed to know. Coming up to its 60th anniversary in April, the ship is now permanently moored at Leith, near Edinburgh, open to commoners to nose all the way through it. Most visitors’ interest is focused, of course, on the private quarters of the Queen and other members of the Royal Family. Where else do you get to see the head of state’s actual bed? To be honest, it doesn’t look comfortable: a narrow single bed with one pillow, covered by an old-fashioned frilled bedspread. Beneath is linen frugally recycled from Queen Victoria’s time, but next door, the Duke of Edinburgh spurned the lace-edged pillow cases and foreign nonsense like duvets.
Though from the outside Britannia looks imposing, touring the inside gives a quite different impression and an insight into the Royals’ private lives because, as the Queen said, “Britannia is the one place where I can truly relax”. So it’s not smart, but comfortable like a country house, with squashy sofas in the state drawing room and personal items on display, such as the Duke’s driftwood collection. It was still, however, a Royal residence and the tour reveals a host of fascinating detail: the sailors (or “yachtsmen”) were given silent hand-signal instructions and if a Royal Personage passed by as they were engaged on some task, they had to play statues until the coast was clear. Even with 240 staff on board, there was so much double-duty that sometimes there could be 12 uniform changes required in a single day. The laundry, not surprisingly, ran full time, washing 600 shirts a day, on one occasion turning them all blue, it’s heart-warming to learn. The dining room took three hours to set for a state banquet, its walls hung with assorted gifts and mementos, including a greenstone mere from the people of Wanganui district, a ceremonial pig-killer from Papua New Guinea and a narwhal tusk. Eclectic furnishings continue into the officers’ recreation room, where wombat tennis was played using the ceiling fan, Nelson’s uniform button is framed on the wall, and a wooden monkey mysteriously changed location every day. It takes the best part of two hours to poke into every bit of the ship, read the history, look at all the photos and build up a feel for life on board and how treasured it was by not just the Queen, but the whole Royal Family. By the end, it’s easy to understand those tears.
Elizabeth II and the missing Stone of Destiny “The proof of Elizabeth’s fraud is the fake stone sitting in Edinburgh castle right now for anyone to go see.” by Debra Siddons (for henrymakow.com) Truth-seekers often know Fritz Springmeier’s classic, Bloodlines of the Illuminati, and most people on Earth know Elizabeth Mountbatten (also known by criminal aliases Windsor and QE2). Unfortunately not many know about Elizabeth’s ancient bloodline and why, out of all the Illuminazis, hers is perhaps the most timely to consider at present. To start, Elizabeth Mountbatten, the woman claiming to be the queen of Britain, is, without doubt, descended from the ancient King David whose story many will know from the Bible. It’s too much to include here, but the true and verifiable genealogy of the British royals has been published in many books for over a hundred of years and is also widely available for viewing online. For reference: King David to “queen” Elizabeth. The “royal” family knows their own history full well, including that they and the British people are part of the “Lost” tribes of Israel (Ephraim.) However, they certainly don’t go out of their way to educate the “commoners” about these facts (quite the opposite really.) But, despite all the disinformation over the years, this ancient heritage of the British royal family is true and bullet-proof. Elizabeth’s great great grandmother, the legitimate queen Victoria, was so proud of her lineage that she had a large poster put up in Windsor castle, showing the family bloodline back to David. It is far too expansive a subject to discuss here, but knowing what became of all the “Lost” tribes of Israel helps to understand this overall subject and plenty of others. That information can be easily looked at here: Twelve Tribes of Israel. As a disclaimer, it should be stated and understood that the royal line of David has almost never produced good stewards to the people of Earth. This is stated clearly in the Bible and has been proven by history. Even David’s infamous son, king Solomon, is recorded as having turned to witchcraft and occultism by the end of his life, and many practitioners of the occult know of Solomon’s contributions to their “religion”. History is rife with other examples showing this ancient Israelite bloodline’s consistently despicable actions, including their working with other “black nobility”, such as the Rothschilds, to bring about the satanic New World Order. In the brilliant book by John Coleman called, The Conspirator’s Hierarchy: The Committee of 300, he states that, basically, Elizabeth (or whoever holds the British monarch) is at the top of the NWO-pyramid with only a small handful of evil peers. So, those that may have fallen for the disinfo that Elizabeth is just a figurehead should think again. Her and her family are far from just figureheads. The reason that Elizabeth and her family are of timely importance is because her power is probably the easiest to take away out of all the top Illuminati families, and taking her down would shake the NWO super-structure to its core. Then there is the “Stone of Destiny”, which very few people outside of Britain have ever heard of. The absolute shortest version of events is that it was the rock Jacob, the Biblical patriarch of Israel, used as a pillow when he slept in a cave outside Bethel and dreamed of angels ascending and descending to Heaven. Upon awakening from his sleep, Jacob anointed the Stone with oil and turned it into the seat, or Throne, of the Israelite people (not the modern-day Khazarian “Israelis”). History has now shown and proven that absolutely every single legitimate king or queen of Israel has been crowned sitting or standing upon this Stone/Throne. Every single one of them–except Elizabeth. In World War 2, when the Nazis were bombing London, it was not the crown jewels that were taken to safety; it was this Stone of Destiny. . To the great dismay of king George (and his daughter Elizabeth — now “QE2″), the Stone was taken from Westminster Abbey on Christmas Day of 1950 by a group of four Scottish nationalists, lead by a brave man named Ian Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton authored a book recounting the endeavor called, Taking of the Stone of Destiny. In it he wrote: “Privately we learned that he (George VI) had a superstitious fear that the loss portended the end of his dynasty.” After the four Scots took the real Stone of Destiny back to their homeland and hid it safely, they took a fake sandstone block that had been used to practice and train with, then wrapped it in a Scottish national flag before leaving it at the symbolic Arbroath Abbey in Scotland, where the English authorities found and retrieved it. The real Stone has not been seen publicly since 1950, but a valid picture of it prior to its removal from Wesminster Abbey, along with a film on the subject and a far more detailed account of the Stone’s true history, can be seen here: The Lia Fail – Stone of Destiny. Unfortunately the only pictures available are black and white, but many first-hand historical accounts all recorded the same thing, that the real Stone was a reddish/purplish type of porphyry rock. The similarly sized block of sandstone that was only acquired to practice on, not even made to look like a qualified replica and substitute for the real thing, is the “stone of destiny” now wrongly on display at Edinburgh castle, and this is a picture of it: fake stone in Edinburgh. So, anyone that had seen the real Stone would have immediately known this sandstone block was a fake, including both king George and his daughter Elizabeth. The linked pictures, alongside the aforementioned quote from George (of which there are others), all help prove the royals knew the returned stone was a fake. But it was Elizabeth’s actions surrounding her 1953 Coronation that really drove the point home. When her father George died, Elizabeth did everything she could to stop her Coronation from being televised, because she was terrified that people would see that the stone being used for her coronation was a fake. It was perfectly obvious to her, so she feared it would be obvious to everyone else too. Public demands forced her to relent, but a strict rule was passed that absolutely no close-ups could be shot. More recently, and because this information was pieced together by prolific researcher John Hill (who is now in prison because of his discoveries,) the fake sandstone that Elizabeth was “crowned” on has been sent to Scotland because Elizabeth wants to get rid of the evidence of her fraud. If she still had the real Stone of Destiny it would be under 24-hour armed guard, and would never be given to anyone else, but she doesn’t have it. For those interested in prophecy, the book of Ezekiel talks about these events, saying: 21:25 And thou, profane wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when inequity shall have an end, 21:26 Thus saith the Lord God; Remove the diadem (sovereignty), and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. 21:27 I will overturn (1st), overturn (2nd), overturn (3rd), it: and it shall be no more, overturned (4th) UNTIL he come whose Right it is; and I will give it him – Shiloh (Gen. 49:10). To understand all the details of the Stone’s full history, the reference link above will need to be looked at, but three of the overturns have already come and gone, and the fourth overturn began in 1950 when the Stone was taken from Elizabeth, but has not been completed yet. Overturn 1: From Jerusalem to Ireland (Hill of Tara) in 6th century BC. Overturn 2: From Ireland to Scotland (first Argyll, then Dunstaffnage) around 5th century AD. Overturn 3: From Scotland to England (London – Westminster Abbey) in 1296 AD. 4th and Final Overturn: Began when the Stone was taken from Westminster Abbey in 1950 AD. If you look again at Elizabeth’s royal genealogy, you will see that the valid and legitimate royal bloodline of David follows the path of the Stone perfectly, because ALL of the people/royals in that bloodline knew of the origins, prophecies, and great importance of the Stone of Destiny. If more people know about this, and start demanding answers with one voice, it could turn into a nightmarish scenario for Elizabeth, because it has the potential to drag her down and put her in prison for fraud, theft, and treason. “Off with her head!” People have spent a huge amount of time demanding Obama’s birth certificate, but Obama is just an interchangeable pawn, whereas Elizabeth is a major, life-long Illuminati figure, heading one of Earth’s most evil but influential families. Without access to Hawaii state records, we don’t really have bullet-proof evidence of Obama’s ineligibility. Fortunately for us, the proof of Elizabeth’s fraud is the fake stone sitting in Edinburgh castle right now for anyone to go see. So, please share this with everyone. :-) Because of the highly covered-up nature of this story, finding factual information on this subject is very difficult, which is why this is a must read for those with further interest: Stone of Destiny.
Police claim there is no family resemblance whatsoever.
A travelling family which has traipsed around Europe for almost two hundred years is at the centre of yet another child abduction storm today. Police have taken into protective custody ‘a ginger man’, thought to be around 29 years of age and answering to the nickname ‘Harry’.
The family is said to have started out with the frankly unbelievable name of ‘Saxe-Coburg & Gotha’, but has repeatedly changed its name across various national boundaries in order to disguise itself.
The Metropolitan Police has monitored the UK branch closely for some time. As recently as last month they made a botched attempt to snatch the ginger man, but only succeeded in holding a low-ranking clan member (under-employed by even their standards) at gunpoint for a few hours. “He asked if we knew who he was and what he was for – he just didn’t seem to have the faintest clue” a Police spokesperson explained later.
Fearing their surveillance might now have been discovered, Met Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe finally gave the go-ahead to pounce at a large government-funded home in The Mall today, where as well as Harry, what Sir Bernard described as ‘a nest of benefit scroungers’ was also unearthed.
“It was so obvious even a royalist could see this ginger man, who for operational reasons we’re just calling ‘Henry Wales’, wasn’t related to his ‘family’. We think they might have kept him on because he actually had a job and gave the family a veneer of respectability” said Hogan-Howe. “But it’s difficult to be certain: he could have been used to act like a dick, so the public would feel sorry for his carers and continue to throw money at them.”
Hogan-Howe explained that ‘one or two of the family may be in denial’ but that the rest were ‘clearly a bunch of consummate liars’. “Officers of the Metropolitan Police take lying very seriously”, insisted Hogan-Howe. “Whereas by comparison, this family were clearly just playing at it.”