Editor’s Note:
This seems a good way to begin the year that will define the decade. The first report is what ‘The Brotherhood’ of Reprobate Felons governing the NWO wants all of us to believe. The reports that follow are closer to the truth. Nevertheless, a more complete telling of the tale is in my book: Cain’s Creed, The Cult of Rome. There you will find the history that explains why the dragons and cross are so proudly displayed on the City’s Coat of Arms. – oz
One’s In The Money!
Why Prince Charles’s secret 20-year campaign
could make him the richest king in history
By Geoffrey Levy; Mail Online
Last updated at 11:20 PM on 31st December 2010
George Osborne made his first Budget speech to the Commons unleashing the biggest public spending cuts in living memory, he slipped in a brief – and almost unnoticed – passage about the financing of the Royal Family. The Chancellor said he intended to scrap the Civil List system that has been in place since 1760 – and that to most people has worked pretty well – and replace it with a new one. To the uninitiated, this sounded like a welcome piece of computer-age modernisation. But, in fact, it is the very opposite.
Far from bringing the royal finances into the 21st century, the Chancellor is winding the clock back more than 251 years and re-establishing the system that existed before 1760s… For the next three years, as things stand, the Queen’s annual payment has been frozen by the Government at £30 million. But from 2013, the Civil List will be scrapped and the monarchy will be financed by what’s been titled the Sovereign Support Grant – comprising a share of the profits made by the Crown Estate, a vast £6.6 billion property empire where the profits go to the Treasury. Initially, that share of the Crown Estate’s profits was to be 15 per cent, but not surprisingly it’s now being negotiated down… For Charles, the Chancellor’s announcement was the culmination of a personal campaign he has waged for more than 20 years… Charles, whose extravagance has even been criticised by the Queen, wasn’t playing things by halves. His original proposal, presented to the Thatcher government (only to see it refused), was that the entire income from the Crown Estates should revert to the sovereign, just as it did before George III was forced to strike a deal with ministers. The Estate’s income is immense: £211million last year and it is expected to rise to a whopping £450million by 2020. It was already approaching £60million – no small sum – when, as Charles’ official biographer Jonathan Dimbleby put it back in 1994, he ‘floated the notion’ after ‘his back-of-an-envelope calculations (showed) it would more than match the total government expenditure on the monarchy’.
The prince not only wrote letters detailing his big idea, but also initiated talks with the Thatcher government. His view, as explained by one of his circle involved in the discussions, was that ‘it would have been enormously effective in making the household independent and vigorous, even better in terms of financial management and good for the standing of the monarchy as an autonomous institution’.
Quite so. And it would also have turned the future King Charles into probably the richest monarch in British history. This would have helped a man who has been criticized by his own mother for employing too many servants and taking too much equipment (his personal white leather loo seat, for example) whenever he travels.
To be fair to Charles, he understandably deplores the ‘cap in hand’ element that tends to characterise the negotiations that take place every ten years between palace advisers and Government over what is inevitably described in Left-wing newspapers as the Queen’s ‘pay rise’. ‘Charles sees it as a deeply unedifying spectacle that belittles the Royal Family,’ explains one of his circle. ‘He feels it is unseemly for the monarchy to have to go round with a begging bowl. He has always wanted to put an end to that.’ But the questions is, why has George Osborne apparently acceded to Charles’s demand, particularly at a time of national austerity? Did he simply succumb to the Prince’s concerted campaign? One close friend has said that he would be ‘hugely surprised’ if Osborne had not been in receipt of those urgent ‘black spider’ memos since becoming Shadow Chancellor under David Cameron in 2005.
Osborne is said to have been persuaded by the ‘cap in hand’ argument and, for his part, says the change in the way the royal family is funded is simply to ensure Chancellors who succeed him ‘will not have to return to the issue’. But there is also a deep suspicion in certain political quarters that Charles is intent on feathering the royal nest. There is concern, too, that reverting to the old system will destroy a process that serves to underline the crucial democratic principle that the monarchy exists only by the consent of the people. Even King George V’s keeper of the privy purse, Sir Frederick Ponsonby, declared in 1922 that it was ‘an essential part of the constitution that the sovereign should be dependent on Parliament for the Civil List and should not receive money direct from the crown lands’.
As Prince of Wales, Charles receives an independent income from the Duchy of Cornwall – a comforting £17.1million last year, before tax. As king, he would no longer get this, but instead receive the profits from the Duchy of Lancaster — yet another land and property portfolio (172,000 acres of land, estuaries and rivers, huge Stock Exchange and property investments, with the most valuable possession being the Manor of Savoy in London, an area between the Strand and the Embankment) held in trust for the royals.
The duchy provided the Queen with £13.2million last year (which she uses to cover the expenses of her immediate family who carry out royal duties, including her children Andrew, Edward and Anne). Her income from this source has risen by an impressive 125 per cent in the past ten years. But neither of the two duchies is more than a minnow compared to the vast Crown Estates, with assets ranging from Regent Street in London’s West End shopping area, Ascot racecourse and Windsor Great Park, 265,000 acres of farmland, as well as ownership of our national seabed stretching out 12 nautical miles around Britain. It was the huge wealth potential from this seabed beneath 7,700 miles of coastline that attracted attention to George Osborne’s proposal for the monarch to receive 15 per cent of the Crown Estate’s profits. Otherwise the new royal finance plans might have gone through unnoticed. For it’s no secret that the natural resources in our seabed are a goldmine that could hoist the Crown Estate’s income into the stratosphere.
That will certainly be the case if one development which Prince Charles has been pushing for with all his usual eco-enthusiasm — offshore wind farms — gets the go-ahead. Charles, a student and vociferous campaigner for renewable energy, is vehemently opposed to wind turbines being erected on land where, he says, they are a ‘horrendous blot on the landscape’. He refuses to have them on his Duchy of Cornwall estates. But he supports them being built offshore. And by a happy coincidence, any offshore wind farm will have to pay rent to the Crown Estates. At present there are 436 wind turbines around the UK’s coastline. By 2020, that number is predicted to rise to almost 7,000 and could push the Crown Estate’s present income to something approaching half a billion pounds a year — and rising. It’s quite a thought that Prince Charles originally wanted ALL of this money — as opposed to just 15 per cent — to pay for the upkeep of the monarchy. For he believes that turning back the clock to the old system — by which it is funded by the Crown Estate and not directly by the Government — would give the monarchy financial independence, as well as freedom from politicians.
But critics of his vision fear that, free from constraint by parliamentary control, he would be free to indulge himself by interfering in national issues instead of adhering to the crucial tradition of strict impartiality so coolly maintained by the Queen. Professor Robert Hazell, Professor of Government at University College London, says: ‘It seems a retrograde step. It would remove Parliament’s role in approving the size of the Civil List.’ Even by taking the proposed 15 per cent of the Crown Estate’s profits, the sums projected in the future are so large that no one — not even George Osborne — believes it is sustainable. At such a rate of growth, the royals’ income would more than double to around £67.6million in ten years — just at the same time as millions of subjects will have been forced into a decade of belt-tightening. There wouldn’t be too much ‘consent of the people’ in that.
Sensibly, Osborne — pressured by Lib Dems in the Coalition and aware of accusations of unfairness at a time of austerity everywhere else — has insisted on limits and has decided that the sums paid under the new system must be capped. Conversely, in the highly unlikely circumstance that the Crown Estate’s earnings might fall, there will also be a safety-net minimum payment. How high and how low these figures will be is yet to be decided, although I understand that talks between Government ministers and palace aides are already getting under way. But it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that a system that has existed for 251 years seems suddenly to have been replaced by something akin to chaos. One wouldn’t expect the Prince Charles to accept blame for this mess, even though the new payment system is his own personal victory. But you can bet on one thing — it won’t stop him writing those ‘black spider’ memos.
_____________________
_____________________
THE EMPIRE OF “THE CITY”An excerpt from the book by E.C. Knuth |
“The City” is an international financial oligarchy and is perhaps the most arbitrary and absolute form of government in the world. This international financial oligarchy uses the allegoric “Crown” as its symbol of power and has its headquarters in the ancient City of London, an area of 677 acres; which strangely in all the vast expanse of the 443,455 acres of Metropolitan London alone is not under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police, but has its own private force of about 2,000 men, while its night population is under 9,000.
This tiny area of a little over one square mile has in it the giant Bank of England, a privately owned institution; which as is further elaborated hereinafter is not subject to regulation by the British Parliament, and is in effect a sovereign world power. Within the City are located also the Stock Exchange and many institutions of world-wide scope. The City carries on its business of local government with a fanciful display of pompous medieval ceremony and with its officers attired in grotesque ancient costumes. Its voting power is vested in secret guilds with names of long extinct crafts such as the Mercers, Grocers, Fishmongers, Skinners, Vintners, etc. All this trivial pomp and absurdity and horse-play seems to serve very well to blind the eyes of the public to the big things going on behind the scenes; for the late Vincent Cartwright Vickers, once Deputy-Lieutenant of this City, a director of the great British armament firm of Vickers, Ltd., and a director of the Bank of England from 1910 to 1919, in his “Economic Tribulation” published 1940, lays the wars of the world on the door-step of the City.
That the British people and the British Parliament have little to say in the foreign affairs of the British Empire, and that the people of the British Empire must fight when International Finance and the City blow the trumpet, appears from the paean of praise of America by Andrew Carnegie, “Triumphant Democracy,” published in 1886 by that American super-industrialist and British newspaper publisher, in the following words: “My American readers may not be aware of the fact that, while in Britain an act of Parliament is necessary before works for a supply of water or a mile of railway can be constructed, six or seven men can plunge the nation into war, or, what is perhaps equally disastrous, commit it to entangling alliances without consulting Parliament at all. This is the most pernicious, palpable effect flowing from the monarchial theory, for these men do this in ‘the king’s Name,’ who is in theory still a real monarch, although in reality only a convenient puppet, to be used by the cabinet at pleasure to suit their own needs.”
Edwin J. Clapp, Professor of Economics at New York University, in his “Economic Aspects Of The War” published in 1915, developed the utterly boundless authority assumed by the “Crown” in its commands to the nations of the world through its “Order-in-Council,” used without restraint and without reference to existing usage or so-called International law, by making new International Law to fit any situation, as required.
The Balance of Power is a creation of this financial oligarchy and its purposes are as follows:
(1) To divide the nations of Europe into two antagonistic camps of nearly equal military weight, so as to retain for Britain itself the power to sway a decision either way.
(2) To make the leading and potentially most dangerous military power the particular prey of British suppression and to have the second strongest power on the other side. To subsidize the “Most Favored Nations” with financial investments, and to permit them to acquire political advantages under the beneficent protection of the Sea-Power, to the disadvantage and at the expense of the nations being suppressed.
(3) To subject the continent of Europe to the “Policy of Encirclement” so as to keep the nations of the continent in poverty and ineffectiveness, and thereby prevent the growth of sufficient commercial expansion and wealth to create a rival sea-power.
(4) To retain that complete control and hegemony over all the seas of the world, which was acquired by defeating the allied fleets of its only real rivals, France and Spain, in 1805; and which is artfully and subtly called “The Freedom of the Seas.”
(5) To shift this Balance of Power as required so as to be able to strike down friend or foe in the rapidly shifting scene of world power politics, in that inexorable ideology that demands that everything and anything must be sacrificed where the future welfare and expansion to the eventual destiny of the Empire are affected; that eventual destiny outlined by its proponents as the eventual control of All the lands, and All the peoples, of All the world.
The ideology of the British Empire has been outlined in the past by various British statesmen and specifically by Mr. Disraeli (Lord Beaconsfield). The modern version which has been broadened to include the United States as a principal in the British Empire was outlined by Cecil Rhodes about 1895 as follows: “Establish a secret society in order to have the whole continent of South America, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the islands of Cyprus and Candia, the islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan and, finally, the United States. In the end Great Britain is to establish a power so overwhelming that wars must cease and the Millenium be realized.”
The secret societies of the above plan apparently came to life immediately after the death of Mr. Rhodes in the Pilgrims of Great Britain, often used by British statesmen in recent years as a public sounding board; and the Pilgrims of the United States, the latter founded in New York City on January 13, 1903, and listed in directories of secret societies with no indication or purpose. Mr. Rhodes left a fortune of about $150,000,000.00 to the Rhodes Foundation, apparently largely directed towards the eventual intent of his ideology. One admitted purpose was “in creating in American students an attachment to the country from which they originally sprang . . .” It appears that organizations such as “Union Now,” subversive to the liberty and the Constitution of the United States of America, have a large sprinkling of Rhodes scholars among their staff.
The Pilgrims were founded in London July 24, 1902, four months after the death of Cecil Rhodes who had outlined an ideology of a secret society to work towards eventual British rule of all the world, and who had made particular provisions in his will designed to bring the United States among the countries “possessed by Great Britain.”
Sir Harry Brittain (high-ranking member of the Pilgrims) records that he was requested to come to New York in 1915 by the Chairman of the American Pilgrims “in order to give him a hand” in welcoming Lord Reading (Rufus Isaacs). The dinner in honor of Lord Reading took place at Sherry’s on October 1st, and was attended by 400 representative men prominent in the banking, commercial and political life of the United States.
The magic number of 400, once the symbol of reigning wealth and privilege, appears here in a new role. Men of millions here sway the destiny, the life or death of their fellow citizens, with an organization which is subversive to the spirit and the letter of the Constitution of the United States, an organization of which not one in one thousand of their fellow citizens has ever heard. The purpose of these men is completely interwoven with the dependence of their own invariably great fortunes on the operations of “The City,” citadel of International Finance. Not only do these men collectively exert a planned influence of immense weight in utter secrecy, but they operate with the support of the immense funds provided by Cecil Rhodes and Andrew Carnegie.
The late Robert M. LaFollette, Sr., in the course of a speech in the United States Senate in March, 1908, asserted that fewer than one hundred men control the great business interests of the country. His statement brought forth a nation-wide storm of denunciation and ridicule, and even today any similar statement is invariably derided as “crackpot.” Nevertheless, Senator LaFollette conclusively demonstrated a few days later from the Directory of Directors that through interlocking directorates actually less than one dozen men controlled the business of the country, that in the last analysis the houses of Rockefeller and Morgan were the real business kings of America.
______________________
______________________
Bank of England, City of London and The Queen
By Keelan Balderson February 13, 2009 In Economy, Editorials |
WideShut: Alternative News exposing the New World Order – http://wideshut.co.uk –
One of the greatest deceptions in modern times is that the quaint little old Queen of England has no power and her role is purely ceremonial and for tradition. The fact is her role has not changed at all; just most of the Royal Family’s evil plans for world empire were hatched a long time ago in the old world. The British empire is still going strong, her common ancestors are in control of the US and the new world order [1]. Now her majesty can sit back in her palace, relax and watch the world fall to bits, while the media paints a warm fuzzy picture of the family; who are in fact Nazi Germans.
The Queen is still Head of State and meets with important leaders from all around the world. One would assume they don’t talk about knitting or her pet corgis. Each day she receives documents and reports from Government ministers and Commonwealth officials. They must all be read and, if necessary, signed. So she is well aware of her country’s current affairs. She is also Head of the Armed Forces and is the only person that can declare war [2]. Of course she meets with the prime-minister first, but it is still her duty and only hers.
The Queen meets Mr and Mrs Obama [3]
On top of this she is Head of the Church of England. She appoints the archbishops and bishops; on what basis we can only imagine. In other words because she is the offspring of incestuous ancestors she is allowed to rule over people’s relationship with God, just like the Pharaohs. It’s there in writing. “Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”. If God really did grace her with this position it would be nice to see the contract.
You don’t get any more elite in social circles than the Queen. The rich and powerful are just begging to be blessed with her astronomically wealthy presence. Tradition or not, Queenie is no innocent in anything. S omebody that asks for an extra £44m allowance during recession does not care about their people.
So where does her power end and the Government’s begin? Well the Government puppets do all the dirty work and the Queen signs the papers for the Government. Although she has more power than the majority believe, there is an even bigger power above both of these puppets. You guessed it, the private banking [4] cartels that have a grip over the nation’s money [5]. The Queen is fine, she is the richest land owner in the world and the bankers will always keep it that way; they have her family to thank for where they are today. The rest of us are not so lucky.
The Rothschild [6] banking family is one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful family in the world; who rose to domination through the art of money changing. [The Love of] money is the root cause of all evil;
they are the route cause of all modern money!
Similar to Vatican City controlled by the Pope in Rome, there is an independent state within London, known as the City of London. It is the richest square mile in the world, and London’s financial sector, housing banks and financial institutions from all major countries. The Governors of the city are called The Crown (deceptively nothing to do with the Queen), comprised of 13 members headed up by the Lord Mayor of the city (not the regular London Mayor). Today Ian Luder (of German decent like the Queen) is the allusive Lord Mayor, yet there is very little written of him online and his Wikipedia page is virtually empty. That’s because he wields incomprehensible power for the elites by manipulation of the economy [5].
Ian Luder, Mayor of the private City of London
The City of London is not part of England or the United Kingdom. It is a privately owned corporation masquerading as a county – often talking heads on TV will even call it London PLC. It isn’t under the power of the Queen or the Government. Her majesty and the Prime Minister are subordinate to the Lord Mayor and have to listen to him and his delegates on financial decisions; that is why during the financial news [7] they always cut to “the City” for updates. If the Queen enters the Mayor’s city, she is met by him at the perimeter “Temple Bar” and must bow and ask permission to enter his private and sovereign state. He will dress in full regalia while she and her handlers dress in regular clothing. Get the idea? Even the old world Queen is a peasant to the new world order bankers. The city also has the pleasure of their own private police force, which is full of freemasons [8].
Along with the Rothschild family and their agents placed in various positions of financial power this secret mafia steer the world’s economy through the Bank of England with NM Rothschild & Sons and their web of private banks in all major nations. When an economic crash occurs it has most definitely been ordered from the City or across the pond by their associates at the Federal Reserve and Wall Street.
During a war you will never see the Vatican, City of London or Switzerland get attacked. On the grand chessboard these are considered neutral ground because it is where all the money flows. Without money to fund war, there is no war. Sitting somewhere in an ivory tower are the Rothschilds [6] laughing at our stupidity. This happens right beneath our own noses!
Evelyn Rothschild was in a New York hotel on 9/11 [9]
watching from his Ivory tower.
While the Queen and her Government have control over our every day lives, our increasingly fascist laws and the issues that seem to directly affect us, the Rothschild family, the Lord Mayor, the financial City of London and Wall Street privately operate our currency and financial affairs, the real controller of our lives. We are in economic collapse, now you know where to look.
Historically all British military colonies with white populations such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa were under the authority of the Queen and her Government. Whereas all other brown “slave” colonies such as India, Egypt, Bermuda, Malta, Singapore, Hong Kong, Gibraltar and the African nations were the private property of the Crown, which is the separate board of the City of London. These colonies were exploited for slave labor and trade, to make the cartels richer and more powerful.
During the development of this two tiered British Empire the BRITISH EAST INDIA COMPANY (BEIC) owned by the CROWN began making a fortune through the Opium trade. One of their strategies was to get the vast impoverished Chinese population addicted to opium to create a mass market for the crop, while they also milked their exports at the same time. It didn’t matter to the Crown that China outlawed the drug. They wanted money and money they got.
The Royal Family also wanted their greedy claws on the profits so joined their counterparts in the CITY and negotiated a tax on the opium farmers in there Indian colony. Thus huge amounts of opium were shipped from India at a tax to China and the Royal Family added an enormous amount of money to their every increasing pot. Slaves in India produced the opium and gave them a cut for nothing, and impoverished laborers in China bought it to smoke while picking tea leaves for export back to Britain. Next time you pick up a box of teabags with the endorsement stamp “By appointment to Her Majesty the Queen”, spare a second for our Chinese neighbors.
The British Empire fighting China during the opium wars [2].
Now this was the 19th Century, not modern times, but over the years the operation became more sophisticated and secretive. Whole banks were created to launder the money, shipping companies were made to help hide the contents, and the corrupt institutions that are based out of the City of London and extend all over the globe still interface for world control and financial rule. From Bush’s Union Banking Corporation in America laundering Hitler’s finances, to the controlled collapse of the world’s economy in order to pool our tangible wealth, the bankers have always operated above the law, the state and modern royals.
The British may have had an enormous military empire in all corners of the globe, but the Crown and the City of London had their own economic empire that rules to this day. And that Empire started with the Bank of England.
Bank of England:
Order of the House of Orange
Gordon Brown gave free reign to the Bank of England to set interest rates in 1997, since the crash he is calling for a New World Order for the economy; coincidence?
2 responses to “The Queen’s Crown, The Crown’s Prince & Other Fairy Tales”
And people wonder why Americans are seen as dumb. This is what actually counts as news today.
Hello! This is my 1st comment here so I just wanted to give a quick shout out and tell you I truly enjoy reading your blog. Can you recommend any other blogs/websites/forums that cover the same topics?