I am not at all a fan of the more than left-leaning Guardian which has been a useful tool for more than one deep-state stitch-up, most significantly that of Julian Assange. However, I feel that this is a very good article worthy of reposting, which sets forth some of the key concerns which many of us living in the UK possess.
Prince Charles on a visit to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in 2014. Photograph: REUTERS
Elizabeth II has been on the throne for 70 years, as I am sure you have heard. She is 96 years old. There’s no delicate way of putting this, so let us be blunt: she will not reign over us for much longer. She will be succeeded by a man who has proudly announced his readiness to break the conventions controlling the behaviour of the head of state. Because there is no prospect of parliament jumping a generation and passing the crown to his son, no one can stop the forward march of Charles III taking the throne.
The design flaw in all systems of hereditary power is that they eventually throw up a duffer. Monarchy “indiscriminately admits every species of character to the same authority” Thomas Paine wrote in 1791. The reign of Charles III will be such a neurotic experience because we will have a monarch who doesn’t accept that his authority has nothing to do with his ability and everything to do with an accident of birth.
Elizabeth II’s modesty has made many support what Helen Mirren called “queenism” rather than “monarchism”, and wish “we could have a queen without the rest of the royal family”.
She does her job and stays out of politics. In the 20th century, there were good reasons to behave with restraint. Elizabeth II only came to the throne because parliament had deposed her uncle, Edward VIII. The House of Windsor survived, but all around it war and revolution had destroyed the Habsburgs, Romanovs and Hohenzollerns. Caution, as much as personal preference, demanded that she be careful.
Times change and aristocrats are no longer frightened. There will be no sense of caution about Charles III: only a sense of entitlement. Without self-consciousness, he denounced young people with ideas above their station in 2003. “What is wrong with everyone nowadays? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities? People seem to think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability. This is the result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically and socially engineered to contradict the lessons of history.”
He showed no awareness that he was the beneficiary of, if not genetic engineering, for any half-competent engineer could produce a better product, a genetic fluke. In his mind he will be a self-made monarch who will succeed to the throne on merit rather than by luck.
The first decade of the 21st century saw what we used to call the establishment begin to realise that Charles was a hard prince to house train. Mark Bolland, a former courtier, said he “routinely meddled in political issues and wrote sometimes in extreme terms to ministers, MPs and others in positions of political power”. Aides to the then Labour administration said that if he carried on opposing government policy “sooner or later there will be real constitutional trouble”.
Heirs to the throne are often in conflict with monarchs because there is little else for them to do than hang around waiting for the king or queen to die. The Queen doesn’t moan. Her son does. The Queen doesn’t politick. He can’t help himself. You could, if not forgive, then at least understand Prince Charles’s behaviour when he was decades away from getting a proper job. He had to pass the time, after all. The excuse doesn’t wash today, as there is no evidence that he has calmed down now that his coronation is in sight.
Once opportunists are in power, they can blow around like bin bags in the wind
Like their counterparts in politics, the courtier journalists who surround royalty have picked a degraded way to earn a living. I read their books out of duty rather than pleasure because I know there will be nuggets of truth in the slurry. To maintain access, they must be faithful transcribers of their masters’ unintentionally revealing musings. The story they bring from Clarence House is of a presumptuous prince, whose conviction that the rules don’t apply to him leaves him closer to Boris Johnson than his mother.
Robert Jobson’s all but officially endorsed biography from 2018 describes a future king who expects to “lead as monarch, not just follow”. One “close source” said that Charles III “will want a seat at the table, not just to be briefed or rubber-stamping the decisions after they are taken”. A raucously divided country, with a border in the Irish Sea and a separatist government in Scotland, will soon have a puffed-up monarch adding his demands to the unstable mix. Will elected politicians put him in his place? Can they? As Johnson has shown, the old conventions of public life are flimsy protections. Once narcissists are in power, they blow around like bin bags in the wind.
Greenish readers who believe that interventions from an ecological King Charles would be welcome should look at where his environmentalism comes from and where it leads. Charles’s widely unread Harmony: A New Way of Looking at the World is another book worth forcing yourself to plod through. It sets out an obscurantist vision that is so reactionary it opposes all aspects of modernity from the scientific revolution on. Hence his fondness for the dictatorial petro-monarchies of the Gulf. They may cause devastating environmental damage but at least they are free from the democratic constraints the Enlightenment put on European royals. Hence the belief in quack “alternative” medicines, the damage to health they bring notwithstanding.
His wide-eyed mysticism takes him far from the Anglicanism of his mother. One can only pity the archbishop of Canterbury when the next supreme governor of the Church of England explains how he has found the ”sacred geometry” of the orbit of Mercury sits “within the orbit of the Earth in such a proportion that it fits exactly over the pentagon at the heart of the five-pointed star”.
When dominant prime ministers or CEOs retire after only a decade of achievement, their successors struggle to repeat their success. How much harder will it be to follow 70 years of a reign that even republicans concede has been an accomplished performance? The more so when an accident of birth has thrown up a silly, vain, zealous and fatally unself-conscious monarch, who, to use his own anti-meritocratic notions against him, doesn’t know his place. In other words, the UK is heading for a smash-up. Après ma’am, le déluge.
Here is a bit of background information about Charles, the Prince of Wales which adds to my own and others’ concerns.
Firstly, Prince Charle’s close relationship with Klaus Schwab and the WEF has been and continues to be a grave concern. This is particularly so since royals are required to be impartial and not permitted to show favour to a particular political party or agenda. Yet, it was Charles himself who launched the WEF’s Great Reset.
Today, through HRH’s Sustainable Markets Initiative and the World Economic Forum, The Prince of Wales launched a new global initiative, The Great Reset.
Many children look up to athletic stars or fictional heroes as role models, but for the United Kingdom's Prince Charles, there was no need: His hero was the flesh-and-blood Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma, his father's uncle, the last viceroy of India and first sea lord of the British Navy.
Furthermore, while the dazzling resume and dashing persona made a powerful early impression, the two royals eventually developed a relationship that went far deeper on a personal level, as Lord Mountbatten became arguably the most influential figure in the life of the heir to the British throne.
Lord Mountbatten was a frequent presence in Charles' childhood
There is also Prince Charles’ former very close relationship with predatory sex offender, Sir Jimmy Savile.
Rather than reinventing the wheel, I am going to replicate here an excellent article by Brendan Tuberville published by Patrick Henningsen’s 21st Century Wire which provides a very good overview of why we should be concerned with Prince Charles’ accession to the throne.
Fresh on the heels of the fallout from revelations regarding former BBC entertainer Jimmy Savile and his unbelievably sickening and innumerable instances of child molestation as well as the “look the other way” approach taken by the BBC…
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…
Sir Jim was a good friend of Charles, dubbed a ‘mentor’ to him, by Princess Diana.
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.
According to biographer Catherine Mayer, Prince Charles ‘trusted Jimmy Savile on everything from marriage guidance to checking speeches.’
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 ofa 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.
Savile’s Cottage in Glencoe, where he hosted Charles for private dining.
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.Some have 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 this partial 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.
✦✦✦
According to Rowan Deacon, producer of the Netflix documentary, 'Jimmy Savile: A British Horror Story', “Prince Charles trusted and respected Jimmy Savile.”
The reasons why Jimmy Savile’s crimes were unpunished in his lifetime -- undetected is the wrong word, since many people knew -- are so deeply woven into the fabric of British culture they are hard to extract, and the situation may still be as kind to potential predators. Netflix’s new two-part documentary, Jimmy Savile:A British Horror Story, does not tell us why he got away with sexually abusing so many children. It may even, though obliviously, be an extension of that same culture that made people think Savile was a valuable public figure, even if -- no, because -- he talked drivel all his life. He never said anything meaningful. He had nothing meaningful to say. I spent two hours with him fifteen years ago in Leeds and he was a dullard, grandiose and jangling in the costume that impersonated a soul. He emitted patter, not speech, as you do if you are a psychopath and other people are unknowable. But the camera was always on him. It still is, with different emphasis.
A British Horror Story does some useful things. It offers Meirion Jones, the former Newsnight reporter, the opportunity to explain how the BBC came to pull his exposé of Savile in favour of hagiography. Savile had died and the BBC could not broadcast, Jones was told, “just” the testimony of “the women”. It offers a woman who Savile abused as a girl in the chapel of Stoke Mandeville Hospital the opportunity to describe his attacks on her. She would wear three pairs of knickers and tampons -- though she was only eleven and did not menstruate -- into the chapel anteroom in which he so glibly assaulted her. It allows the journalists Lynn Barber and Andrew Neil the opportunity to revisit their interviews with Savile. None of the BBC and NHS workers who knew far more about Savile’s crimes than them offer themselves up for interview, however. I would have liked to see them.
As Tanya Gold’s subtitle for her review aptly states, Netflix’s posthumous continuation of the sexual abuser’s career will do nothing to protect a single child and thus the cover-up of the litany of Savile’s heinous crimes continues.
Survivors of child sexual abuse in care homes, including notorious Beechwood Children’s Home in Nottingham, have said that Savile’s caravan was often seen parked adjacent to the home and other facilities frequented by children.
This creepy clip of sex predator Jimmy Savile answering the question, “What do you do in your caravan?” is referenced in the video above:
I recently watched the documentary, Jimmy Savile: Untouchablewhich includes many harrowing stories of Savile’s abuse of young teenage girls through the BBC’s Top of the Pops and Jim Will Fix-it programmes, along with his deeply disturbing unfettered access to vulnerable people of all ages in hospitals, mental health facilities and even mortuaries. One of several notes I made whilst viewing the documentary was that according to former police detective and investigator, Mark Williams Thomas, it was Charles’ father, the Duke of Edinburgh who had asked Savile to help Princess Diana and Prince Charles with their ‘marital’ problems. In this context it is important to note that the Duke of Edinburgh was good friends with Lord Mountbatten, who mentored Charles.
In 2021 it was revealed by Lord Mountbatten’s daughter Lady Pamela Hicks that,
Prince Philip had to warn her father to curb his enthusiasm when knowledge of the Prince[‘s] relationship with the Queen become public. Lady Hicks, who was a bridesmaid at the Queen and Philip’s wedding, revealed the exchange in a conversation with her daughter, India, which has been aired for the first time in a new royal documentary.
The future Duke of Edinburgh was very concerned his uncle 'Dickie' Mountbatten might frighten off his royal bride, the future Queen, in the run-up to their engagement.
Lady Hicks told ITV's 'My Years With the Queen': "In fact cousin Philip had to tell him to back off.
"Because he was so over-enthusiastic.
"Phillip said Dickie just back of[f] a bit."
I haven’t watched that documentary but wonder what the basis of Prince Philip’s concerns regarding Mountbatten really were but assume it must have been his long rumoured predilection for young boys.
One of the best resources for information regarding paedophilia is Cathy Fox’s blog where you can find the compilation of links to source material colated as, Royal Pedo Links amongst many others. It’s a very deep dark, seemingly endless rabbit hole which one can quickly be drawn into when you begin to look.
The foregoing is a very brief summary of the deep concerns which myself and many others have regarding Charles’ accession to the throne.
For clarity, here is a screenshot of Reuter’s photo of Prince Charles standing at the WEF podium in 2020:
What are your thoughts about what is apparently a rendition of the Prince of Wales's feathers? ‘Tis interesting that the UN Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals rainbow lights of the three feathers are depicted as six strands each.
Edit:
This is a very interesting collection of some of Cathy Fox’s vast information which she has gathered documenting some key questions myself and many others have had about he who is now known as King Charles III.
Yuck. These people make me want to vomit forever. These are the kind of people that are doing this Covid fraud on the world. And I have nothing but disgust for them, including the Queen.
Yuck. These people make me want to vomit forever. These are the kind of people that are doing this Covid fraud on the world. And I have nothing but disgust for them, including the Queen.