The Queen has received a £5million rise in funds she receives from the taxpayer to carry out her official duties.

The Sovereign Grant, which covers the running costs of the Queen’s Household, replaces the Civil List and is up 16 per cent on 2012.

It has been set at £36.1million for the 2013/14 financial year.

The figure has increased from the £31million allocated during the previous 12 months which included £1million to cover the extra costs of the Diamond Jubilee.

The Sovereign Grant replaces the old funding system of the Civil List and grants-in-aid and came into full effect at the start of the new financial year which began yesterday.

It also covers the maintenance of the royal palaces in England and the cost of royal travel for official engagements in the UK and overseas tours.

Under the new grant the Queen receives 15% of the profits from the Crown Estate, but from funds two years in arrears.

The Crown Estate’s 2011/12 accounts revealed profits of £240.2million and the final figure for the grant was rounded up to £36.1million – very close to the estimated amount – by the Royal Trustees in December.

Royal accounts released last year showed the cost to the taxpayer of supporting the monarchy rose marginally during 2011/12.

The Queen’s official expenditure increased from £32.1million in 2010/11 to £32.3million in 2011/12.

Around £10million is spent on the salaries of the Queen’s staff, from footmen to chefs in the royal kitchen – but wages have been frozen for a number of years.

The figure for official expenditure does not include the cost of providing security and police protection for members of the monarchy.

A Buckingham Palace spokesman stressed that the £36.1million sovereign grant awarded for this financial year was 15 per cent less in real terms than the royal household’s expenditure five years ago.

He said during this period the household reduced its expenditure in line with reductions in funding.

Because of this, key building and conservation works were postponed, resulting in a maintenance backlog.

The spokesman said the majority of the grant would therefore be spent on addressing the backlog of property works which need to be undertaken across the occupied royal palaces.

He added: ‘Such works will see the funds spent in the real economy creating work and opportunities.’

The money pays for the maintenance of Buckingham Palace, St James’s Palace, Clarence House, Marlborough House Mews.

It is also used for the upkeep of parts of Kensington Palace, Windsor Castle and the buildings in the Home and Great Parks at Windsor, and Hampton Court Mews and Paddocks.

Source

21st Century Wire says… Top news story on the BBC and most UK mainstream media outlets last week was that the Queen of England, who turns 87 next month, caught a stomach bug but was released from royal King Edward VII hospital smiling and well.

Note that this is the very same royal hospital which produced a dead administrative worker before Christmas 2012, one Jacintha Saldanha, the alleged victim of a prank Australian radio prank. It was revealed that innocent Jacintha was not the main subject of the Aussie radio prank as she merely passed the phone over to someone else on staff, and was not ‘traumatised’ or depressed – as the press campaigned to the public, further fueling speculation that she was ‘suicided’ (killed) in order to send a message to public not to meddle in royal life, or to fulfill some other unknown purpose. Was it really a suicide? What was her motive? Will we ever know? 

Upon the Queen’s release, a photograph of her next to her nurse reveals – and proves, what many have speculated over the years, that there is in fact a secretive satanic and masonic culture which operates in and around Britain’s Royal Family. Notice the belt buckle of the Queen’s medical minder in the photo below, adorned with the symbol of the 5 tipped star pentagram along with the masonic compass.

Now we can understand the Masonic compass, as its a private, ‘Masonic’ hospital, but why is the occult pentagram? What does it mean? Look…

A closer look reveals the belt buckle of the royal hospital staff. Not so secret.

Does anyone else find this strange?

How much more proof do we need that the our planetary elite are hiding some hidden agenda from the world’s public who ultimately empower them? It seems that the royals are heavily affiliated with secret societies that the rest of the general public know very little about, and that, surely, things understood only in secret by ruling elites cannot advance ‘democracy’ in the 21st century.

 Source

The family of the nurse who committed suicide after taking the Duchess of Cambridge hoax call has been denied legal aid for her inquest.

Relatives of Jacintha Saldanha fear that they won’t discover the full circumstances surrounding her death without lawyers present to challenge hospital chiefs, The Independent reports.

Saldanha was found dead by colleagues after answering a joke call from two Australian DJs while the Duchess of Cambridge was staying at the King Edward VII Hospital.

“The family is of the view they are being deprived their only opportunity to be assisted in a one-day or half-day hearing – the only hearing into what was a very tragic case,” their lawyer John Cooper, QC, who has been working pro bono, said.

“The Saldanha family believe the case will require some pressing questions of the hospital which the Coroner cannot ask.

“The family will be facing well-equipped parties. It is argued that families don’t need legal representation in Coroner’s courts because they are not adversarial, but that ignores the fact that other parties are represented because they can afford it

“The family believe there are questions to be asked about the hospital protocols that led to Mrs Saldanha being put in that job on that night.”

Saldanha, who was 46, left husband Benedict Barboza, 49, son Junal, 17, and daughter Lisha, 14.

Legal aid for inquests is only granted in special circumstances, such as if there is a wider public interest or if a relative is called to give evidence.

The inquest is being heard by Dr Fiona Wilcox and was adjourned until March 26.

Source  

Also see: Prank nurse ‘critical of hospital’ in one of three suicide notes

Keith Vaz and the Silence of the Saldanha Family

Death of a nurse: ‘I am devastated by the loss of my beloved wife’

The fact that the corporate media aren’t subjecting the alleged ‘suicide’ of Jacintha Saldanha to serious scrutiny should tell us that they are colluding in concealing a crime; just as they did in the aftermath of Princess Diana’s supposed ‘accident’.

The facts surrounding Jacintha Saldanha’s death simply don’t add up to ‘suicide’.

She was mother of two from a close-knit family, a highly regarded nurse working at a top-notch hospital and, most importantly, a devout Catholic too.   

Roman Catholicism frowns upon suicide.

What’s more Jacintha Saldanha did nothing more than pass on a phone call from two Australian DJ’s pretending to be British Royalty. What she did was hardly a crime, and certainly nothing to feel so guilty about as to commit suicide.

Moreover, in the aftermath of the prank call she expressed no undue distress over the incident. She wasn’t reprimanded by hospital managers and she didn’t even mention it to close family and friends. Yet at the scene of her alleged suicide she left not one but THREE suicide notes, one of which was reportedly critical of her colleagues.

Was this meant to silence any untoward questions from them with the burden of implied guilt?

Her family have already been effectively prevented from appearing before the media by establishment flunkey Keith Vaz.

So we have to ask: who would benefit from Jacintha Saldanha’s alleged ‘suicide’?

The only real beneficiaries, if one can call it that would be the next heirs to the British throne. In so far as it would deter others from trying to embarrass them or at least do anything involving them without prior approval.

The implied threat to journalists and news editors is clear: ignoring these ‘guidelines’ could have fatal consequences.

Now we are not saying that the members of the Royal House of Windsor ordered Jacintha’s death. More likely, it was elements within the British establishment with a vested interest in the continuation of the Royal House of Windsor that did so. In a similar way, although using different mode of operation, as they once did with Princess Diana.

Prank nurse ‘critical of hospital’ in one of three suicide notes

Megan Levy – Brisbane Times Dec 14, 2012

An apparent suicide note left by a nurse at the centre of the royal hoax phone call was critical of staff at the London hospital where she worked, according to a report.

Jacintha Saldanha, 46, was found dead at staff quarters near King Edward VII hospital in central London, just days after taking a prank phone call from 2Day FM radio presenters Mel Greig and Michael Christian.

A coronial hearing into the mother-of-two’s death was told in London on Thursday morning (local time) that investigators found three apparent suicide notes, handwritten by Ms Saldanha.

One of those notes was addressed to her employers at the hospital and “contains criticism of staff there”, The Guardian reported, adding that it had received the information from two separate sources.

Another note dealt with the hoax call made by the two Sydney radio presenters, who posed as the Queen and Prince Charles in the prank call, while the final letter detailed Ms Saldanha’s requests for her funeral, the newspaper reported.

Two of the notes were found in the apartment where Ms Saldanha died and one in her belongings, and police have given Ms Saldanha’s family typed copies of the letters, The Guardian said.

Scotland Yard is investigating a number of emails which the inquest heard were relevant to the nurse’s death.

Detective Chief Inspector James Harman told Coroner Fiona Wilcox that police were investigating whether telephone calls made to and from Ms Saldanha’s phone in the days before her death could throw any light on her death, however the details of those emails and phone calls were not released at the brief hearing in London.

A spokeswoman for the King Edward VII hospital told The Guardian that no one in senior management knew the contents of the letters left by Ms Saldanha.

She said the hospital management “were very clear that there were no disciplinary issues in this matter”.

Both the nurses involved had been offered “full support” and “it was made clear they were victims of a cruel journalistic trick,” she told the newspaper.

The hospital has offered bereavement counselling for the family in Bristol, which they have decided to take up.

Ms Saldanha was found dead in her apartment three days after the DJs made the prank call.

She took the initial call and put it through to a colleague on the ward where the Duchess of Cambridge was being treated for morning sickness, who gave out information about her condition.

The hearing overnight heard that Scotland Yard detectives would be in contact with New South Wales police to interview witnesses and “put the best evidence before you” about the circumstances of the death.

The London inquest has been adjourned until March 26 next year.

Source

Keith Vaz must be the most serially corrupt and discredited MP sitting in the House of Commons today.

The Saldanha family live in Bristol and Vaz is MP for Leicester East, so why is he the individual giving so much time and attention to the heartbroken Saldanha family.

The record shows that it is unlikely to be because of his selfless loving heart.

The fact that it was he, the ultimate establishment whore, who was parked on this tragic family after this extremely puzzling death should concern us all. 

Mrs Saldanha was a fully qualified and very experienced nurse and therefore, surely, a fairly tough cookie.

She was, we are told, a ‘devoutly’ Catholic mother of two. Apart from the fact that suicide is regarded as a very serious sin under Catholic doctrine, it beggars belief that she would have ended her life over a small incident wherein she simply passed a phone call on to someone else, an act for which, we are assured, she received no criticism whatsoever from the hospital management.

We have heard absolutely nothing from this family relating to this alleged suicide.

Not a word.

If they find it incredible that she would have done such a thing, such private thoughts have been kept out of the public domain.

Could there be any connection between the silence of the Saldanhas and the fact that Keith Vaz has ‘befriended’ them.

Hmmm.

Today Mr Vaz said, outside the inquest, that the Saldanha family are “grieving in their homes”.

No exposure to media.

I wonder who convinced them this would be a good idea.

The theatre surrounding this ‘suicide’ is so tightly controlled, it looks, to the nth degree, like a security services operation.

Yes, the serially compromised and utterly corrupt Keith Vaz is the perfect man for such an important placement.

When the answer to “who benefits?” from this whole affair is……..

……ONLY the British establishment…….

………we are in familiar territory and none of us can be blamed for suspecting the very worst.

Source  

Also see: Death of a nurse: ‘I am devastated by the loss of my beloved wife’

Coming from a stable home with two teenage children and close family ties, the nurse who is reported to have killed herself following a prank phone call does not seem the suicide type.

Hospital managers had not reprimanded Jacintha Saldanha after the call from two DJs posing as British royalty because, even though she was duped, she said absolutely nothing that could embarrass her patients.

(See a transcript of the phone call here)

So why did she commit “suicide”?

It doesn’t make sense. Or as one neighbour who lived close to her put it:

“I can’t help thinking there is more to this. It just doesn’t make sense when you have two children depending on you.”

Whatever the reason for Jacintha Saldanha’s death you can be sure her untimely end will deter others from trying to embarrass British royalty for the foreseeable future.

As the BBC puts it:

“Accused of having blood on their hands by furious listeners, the Australian DJs at the centre of the UK royal hospital hoax tragedy have been taken off air as the public backlash intensifies.” 

Emily Dugan, Andrew Buncombe – The Independent Dec 9, 2012

When Jacintha Saldanha’s husband made his daily phone calls home to their family in Mangalore last week, everything had seemed exactly as normal. He chatted to his mother about the usual things and there were no signs of the tragedy that was about to engulf them.

On Friday morning Mrs Saldanha, 46, was found dead after an apparent suicide and her husband, Benedict Barboza, had to make a very different phone call home.

The events that led to that moment have been all too public. Three days before she was found unconscious at staff accommodation near the King Edward VII’s Hospital in central London, the hard-working nurse had been on duty early in the morning and put through a telephone call from Australian radio DJs posing as the Queen and Prince Charles. The DJs went on to obtain personal information about the Duchess of Cambridge, who was being treated there for severe morning sickness and the ensuing furore about the hospital and the radio station led news bulletins around the world.

While the world chattered about the events, a silent, personal tragedy was unfolding. Even those closest to Mrs Saldanha did not see it coming. Carmine Barboza, the nurse’s mother-in-law, who lives in southern India, said her son had not mentioned the call or the controversy it had caused. “Benedict used to call every day but neither he or Jacintha said anything about what had happened. Everything seemed normal,” she told the Daijiworld.com website.

The exact reasons for Mrs Saldanha’s death are still little understood. A post-mortem to be held this week are likely to provide a medical explanation, but bigger questions remain over what might have caused her to take her own life.

Meanwhile, her husband, known to friends as Ben, and their two teenage children, Junal, 16, and Janice Lisha, 14, were at their home in Southmead, Bristol, yesterday, struggling to come to terms with the sudden loss of a wife and mother.

The 49-year-old hospital accountant posted on his Facebook page yesterday: “I am devastated with the tragic loss of my beloved wife Jacintha in tragic circumstances. She will be laid to rest in Shirva, India.”

The nurse’s sister, Cerolin D’Souza, told reporters that they were still waiting to receive detailed information. “We were wondering what happened, whether she met with an accident, when she was returning home from the hospital,” she said. When she spoke to her sister’s husband he was overcome with emotion. “When I asked what happened, he was not able to communicate and he broke down,” she said.

Originally from India, the family moved to the UK from the Mangalore region nine years ago. Mrs Saldanha worked hard, splitting her time between the family’s home in Bristol and staff lodgings at the hospital in London where she worked.

Working in an age when nurses are often criticised for not caring, Mrs Saldanha was quite different. Friends described her as a “lovely, lovely person” who was so dedicated to the profession that she used to spend her days off walking a neighbour with dementia to the shops.

She qualified as a nurse at the Father Muller College of Nursing in Mangalore and registered as a nurse in Britain in 2003. She married Mr Barboza in 1993 and the couple moved to Muscat before settling in the UK.

Neighbours of Mrs Saldanha’s family suggested yesterday that there may have been more pressing concerns, unknown as yet, on the mind of the nurse. Dudley Todd, 79, who lives nearby at Coldbeck Close, said: “I can’t help thinking there is more to this. It just doesn’t make sense when you have two children depending on you.”

Neighbour Mary Atwell, 56, said: “She was a lovely, lovely person who always spoke to you when you saw her in the street. The kids were always polite and well behaved. The boy often played football on the green outside with his friends.

“She must have taken the whole thing very badly because I don’t think the hospital disciplined her for what happened. She simply couldn’t live with herself, I suppose. But you could always see that she was very dedicated to her job. She was a lovely person. She used to walk an elderly neighbour who has dementia, who lives a few doors along, down to the shops and back.”

She answered Tuesday’s call from Australia’s 2Day FM DJs Mel Greig and Michael Christian only because she was on night duty, and at 5.30am there was no receptionist. It was not even she who divulged the personal details about the duchess; she transferred the DJs to another nurse, who gave details of her condition.

Flowers were left outside the King Edward VII’s Hospital’s nurses’ block yesterday. Attached to the red, white and blue flowers, a note from nurses at the hospital read: “Dear Jacintha, our thoughts are with you and your family. From all your fellow nurses, we bless your soul. God bless.”

The hospital sent a strong protest letter yesterday to the owners of the radio station, condemning the prank phone call that led to her death. The letter concluded: “I appreciate that you cannot undo the damage which has been done but I would urge you to take steps to ensure that such an incident could never be repeated.”

RCN chief executive Dr Peter Carter said in a statement: “This is tragic news, and the thoughts of all at the Royal College of Nursing go to the family of Jacintha Saldanha. It is deeply saddening that a simple human error due to a cruel hoax could lead to the death of a dedicated and caring member of the nursing profession.”

Rhys Holleran, chief executive of Southern Cross Austereo, said the DJs were “completely shattered” by her death. He said at a Melbourne press conference: “This is a tragic event that could not have been reasonably foreseen and we are deeply saddened by it. I spoke to both presenters early this morning and… they are completely shattered.” Since the prank, recorded and cleared by lawyers before it was aired, the station has been inundated with complaints. It has now pulled all its advertising and taken the show off air.

Many of the nurse’s relatives posted messages of condolence online. Below Ben Barboza’s tribute on Facebook, Jenson Alex Paid said: “Heartfelt condolences to you, Ben Uncle. May the good God grant her soul eternal peace.” Suzanna Gomes wrote: “Dear Benedict uncle and family, Very sorry to hear the news. Our heartfelt condolences. May her soul rest in peace.”

Source

So a 46-year-old nurse and mother of two commits suicide after being fooled by a phone call into thinking two prank playing Australian DJ’s were British royalty. As revealed in the transcript of the phone call below, she didn’t reveal anything that could seriously embarrass the royals and the hospital managers didn’t reprimand her either.

After all she did absolutely nothing wrong.

Yet days later the mother-two is found dead after committing suicide over the incident, apparently.

So why did she commit suicide over the incident, if indeed she did commit suicide?

It certainly seems an over-reaction but if nothing else her ‘suicide’ will deter others from trying to embarrass the royals. After all it’s not something the senior members of the Royal House of Windsor take lightly, as Princess Diana discovered.  

So why would a 46-year-old nurse and mother-of-two commit suicide over something as inconsequential as this? Don’t you think that her two children and the prospect of raising them would more important to her than the embarrassment of being fooled by a prank phone call? 

The outcry alone is enough to raise suspicions that this is being orchestrated. Foremost among those media outlets making great play over this is the BBC, as ever, with the rest of the British media dutifully following alongside.

 Now we are not saying that Jacintha Saldanha didn’t commit suicide but elements are at work to exploit her death to the full – to the benefit of British Royalty and their ‘privacy’.  

Read the transcript below, she divulged absolutely nothing that would compromise British royalty. 

We leave readers to decide but something is not quite right here. 

Kate hoax nurse found dead: Includes transcript of the call

Yorkshire Post – Dec 7, 2012

THE Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were “deeply saddened” today after a nurse who was duped by hoaxers in a call to the hospital treating pregnant Kate apparently took her own life.

Jacintha Saldanha was found an address near the King Edward VII’s Hospital in London this morning.

She had been the victim of two Australian radio DJs who impersonated the Queen and the Prince of Wales to obtain a condition update on Kate, who was suffering severe morning sickness at the private hospital.

In a statement St James’s Palace said: “The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are deeply saddened to learn of the death of Jacintha Saldanha.

“Their Royal Highnesses were looked after so wonderfully well at all times by everybody at King Edward VII Hospital, and their thoughts and prayers are with Jacintha Saldanha’s family, friends and colleagues at this very sad time.”

The hospital said in a statement: “We can confirm the tragic death of a member of our nursing staff, Jacintha Saldanha.

“Jacintha has worked at the King Edward VII’s Hospital for more than four years. She was an excellent nurse and a well-respected and popular member of staff with all her colleagues.

“We can confirm that Jacintha was recently the victim of a hoax call to the hospital. The hospital has been supporting her at this difficult time.”

Hospital chief executive John Lofthouse said: “Our thoughts and deepest sympathies at this time are with her family and friends. Everyone is shocked by the loss of a much-loved and valued colleague.”

Lord Glenarthur, the hospital’s chairman, said: “This is a tragic event. Jacintha was a first class nurse who cared diligently for hundreds of patients during her time with us. She will be greatly missed.”

Scotland Yard said the death was not being treated as suspicious.

In a statement today, it said officers were called at around 9.35am this morning to a report of a woman found unconscious at an address in Weymouth Street, W1.

It said: “London Ambulance Service attended and the woman was pronounced dead at the scene. Inquiries are continuing to establish the circumstances of the incident.

“The death is not being treated as suspicious at this stage.”

The two presenters, Mel Greig and Michael Christian from 2Day FM, remarked during their show how their efforts were the “easiest prank call ever made”, as they put on mock British accents they later described as “terrible”.

Speaking on Tuesday, Mr Lofthouse condemned the hoax call, made in the early hours of that day, and said the hospital was considering legal action.

The presenters later apologised for their actions as did their radio station.

The station was expected to issue a statement about Ms Saldanha’s death later today.

Dr Peter Carter, chief executive and general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, said: “This is tragic news, and the thoughts of all at the Royal College of Nursing go to the family of Jacintha Saldanha.

“It is deeply saddening that a simple human error due to a cruel hoax could lead to the death of a dedicated and caring member of the nursing profession.”

The DJs made their call at around 5.30am on Tuesday and are thought to have been put through by Ms Saldanha, 46.

Another nurse then told them: “She’s sleeping at the moment and she has had an uneventful night and sleep is good for her.

“She’s been given some fluids to rehydrate her because she was quite dehydrated when she came in but she’s stable at the moment.”

The nurse added: “She hasn’t had any retching with me since I’ve been on duty and she has been sleeping on and off. I think it’s difficult sleeping in a strange bed as well.”

The prank call was deeply embarrassing for the hospital, which is the medical institution of choice for the Royal Family.

Mr Lofthouse said on Tuesday: “I’ve received advice that what the Australian broadcasters did may well have broken the law. On the other hand they’ve apologised for it so we’re going to have a long and careful think about what, if anything, we do.”

The prank call was pre-recorded and vetted by lawyers before being broadcast to listeners in Sydney.

In their initial apology the two presenters said: “We were very surprised that our call was put through. We thought we’d be hung up on as soon as they heard our terrible accents.

“We’re very sorry if we’ve caused any issues and we’re glad to hear that Kate is doing well.”

The royals have been the target of hoax callers before.

In 1995 Canadian DJ Pierre Brassard, pretending to be Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, was put through to the Queen.

The pair spoke for around 15 minutes and he even managed to elicit a promise that she would try to influence Quebec’s referendum on proposals to break away from Canada.

Today the DJs were bombarded with online abuse. The duo have continued to boast about the gag on Twitter while in a video on the radio station’s website they laugh and joke about it.

Greig giggles: “They were the worst accents ever and when we made that phone call, we were sure 100 people at least before us would have tried the same thing.”

Sitting beside her in what appears to be their studio, Christian adds: “We got through and now the entire world is talking.”

Meanwhile, a banner on the radio station’s website continues to proclaims it to be the “biggest royal prank ever”.

Partial transcript of call

Christian: Let’s give this hospital a call and see if we can get Kate Middleton or maybe even Prince Wills on the phone tonight. So the number is going in … oh Jeez, I hope this happens.

(PHONE RINGS)

Receptionist: Hello, good morning, King Edward VII Hospital.

Greig (Queen voice): Oh hello there, could I please speak to Kate please, my granddaughter.

Receptionist: Oh yes, just hold on ma’am.

Greig: Thank you.

Christian: Are they putting us through?

Greig: Yes.

(Laughter)

Christian: If this has worked, it’s the easiest prank call we have ever made. Your accent sucked, by the way, I just want you to know.

(Laughter)

Greig: I’m not used to playing 80-year-olds. (Phone connects) Kate, my darling, are you there?

Nurse: Good morning, ma’am, this is the nurses station, how may I help you?

Greig: Hello, I’m just after my granddaughter Kate. I wanted to see how her little tummy bug is going.

Nurse: She’s sleeping at the moment and has had an uneventful night, and sleep is good for her, as we speak. She’s been given some fluids to re-hydrate her because she was quite dehydrated when she came in. But she’s stable at the moment.

Greig: OK. Well, I’ll just feed my little corgis then (barking in the background). So when is a good time to come and visit her? Because I’m the Queen so I’ll need a lift down there. Charles! When can you take me to the hospital, Charles?

Christian (pretending to be Prince Charles): When will it be all right to come down and see her? Maybe in the morning or something? If that’s OK?

Nurse: I would suggest that any time after nine o’clock would be suitable, because the doctor will be in in the morning and we’ll just be getting her freshened up in the morning. I would think any time after nine.

Christian: Wonderful. Is Wills still there or has he gone home? I haven’t spoken to him yet.

Nurse: He went home at about half past nine last night. Actually, probably about nine o’ clock last night.

Christian: OK, Lovely. But they’re all OK, everything’s all right?

Nurse: Yes, she’s quite stable at the moment. She hasn’t had any retching with me since I’ve been on duty. And she has been sleeping on and off.

Christian: Wonderful.

Nurse: I think it’s difficult sleeping in a strange bed as well.

Christian: Yes, of course, it’s hardly the palace, is it!

Greig: It’s nothing like the palace is it, Charles? Oh, when are you going to walk those bloody corgis?

Christian: Mumsy, I’ll go and take the dogs outside.

Greig: I need to go and visit Kate in the morning. My dear, thank you so much.

Nurse: You’re very welcome.

Greig: Thank you, bye.

Christian: Goodbye.

(Hangs up)

(Laughter)

Greig: She was giving us real information!

Christian (as Prince Charles): Mumsy, I think that they believed everything we said.

Greig: I am the Queen: bow for me, bow for me.

Christian: Bow for you and your terrible accent.

Source

[Disclaimer: This email from a reader contains some credible information. I present it for your evaluation.]

I became involved in a very strange affair and through the course of it, a woman claiming to be a member of the Illuminati began to correspond with me.

We had a mutual interest in “pedigree collapse” which is caused by excessive inbreeding. Perhaps the most striking example of this condition can be found in the bloodline of the Hapsburg dynasty who through this practice wiped themselves out of existence. The last in the bloodline, Charles the Bewitched, was mentally and physically disabled as well as impotent. His  family members were closely related. His grandmother was also his aunt.

The late Queen Mother’s bloodline, the Bowes-Lyons carries the retardation gene which causes them to miscarry their male offspring. Five female members of the Queen’s family [her cousins] were born as imbeciles who had to be locked away in a mental institution for some 60 years.

Continues …

The unique marketing strategy traces the Royal Family’s connection to Vlad III, Prince of Walachia, more commonly known as Vlad the Impaler due to his penchant for impaling his enemies on stakes in the ground and leaving them to die.

Many academics have suggested that the character of Dracula, created by author Bram Stoker, was based on Vlad.

It is believed that the royal links with Vlad the Impaler come through Queen Mary, the consort of George V, and great-grandmother of the Prince of Wales.

The Romanian tourist board announced these royal links at the World Travel Market which opened in London today to attract British tourists.

Romania has already welcomed 7 per cent more Britons in the first three months of this year than in the same period last year, and as many as 118,000 British tourists visited in 2011.

There are further links between Romania and the Prince of Wales.

His great-grandfather’s cousin Marie married the crown prince of Romania and went on to rule the eastern European country after the First World War.

Last year Prince Charles claimed he was related to Vlad the Impaler, in an interview to promote the preservation of forests in Romania’s Transylvania region.

He joked: “The genealogy shows that I am descended from Vlad the Impaler. So I have a bit of a stake in the country”

Vlad the Impaler had a reputation for cruelty both against the Ottomans and against his own people. He skinned and boiled his victims, but his favourite form of torture was said to be impalement.

He is said to have killed as many as 100,000 in this fashion.

Source

Dating back to the very earliest civilisations Goddesses are depicted with their breasts exposed, from Babylon to Sumeria, Egypt, Greece and Rome, goddesses were depicted with their breasts exposed.

Ordinary peasants were never depicted bare chested, just Goddesses.

When the pictures of Kate topless hit the front pages, I immediately smelled a rat; it all seemed so staged…

Continues in full with videos …

A secretive power enjoyed by the Queen and Prince Charles to alter new laws is set to be exposed after the government lost a legal battle to keep details of its application private.

The information commissioner has ruled that the Cabinet Office must publish an internal Whitehall guide to the way the senior royals are consulted before legislation is introduced to ensure it doesn’t adversely affect their private interests.

The application of the controversial veto was revealed by the Guardian last year and has been described by constitutional lawyers as “a royal nuclear deterrent”. Some believe its existence may underpin the influence Charles appears to wield in Whitehall over pet issues ranging from architecture to healthcare.

A judgment issued last week by the deputy information commissioner, Graham Smith, means the Cabinet Office has until 25 September to release the confidential internal manual. It details how the consent of “The Crown and The Duchy of Cornwall” is obtained before bills are passed into law and what criteria ministers apply before asking the royals to amend draft laws. If it fails to do so it could face high court action.

In the past two parliamentary sessions Charles has been asked to consent to at least 12 draft bills on everything from wreck removals to co-operative societies. Between 2007-09 he was consulted on bills relating to coroners, economic development and construction, marine and coastal access, housing and regeneration, energy and planning. In Charles’s case, the little-known power stems from his role as the head of the £700m Duchy of Cornwall estate that provides his £17m-a-year private income.

The government battled to keep the manual secret, claiming publication would breach legal professional privilege and a spokeswoman for the Cabinet Office said it was still deciding whether to challenge the ruling at the information tribunal.

Lord Berkeley, a Labour peer who was told to seek Charles’ consent on a marine navigation bill, said the commissioner’s decision was “absolutely right”. He said publication could shed light on a little-known procedure that allows the prince and the Queen “to fiddle around with bills to make sure they don’t affect their private interests”.

“People will start thinking what the hell is going on,” he said. “We are in the 21st century, not the 18th century and it is crazy to think they are even trying to do this. The royal family should give up this special privilege and we should all obey the law of the land. Just because they have private estates, private incomes and land from several centuries ago doesn’t mean they should have the right to interfere.”

The latest crack in the edifice of secrecy around Charles’s influence on public life came after a legal scholar, John Kirkhope, asked for Whitehall’s internal manuals on consulting the royals. He said “it was clearly in the public interest that citizens understand how laws are made and applied as well as the circumstances in which the Duchy of Cornwall is consulted”.

Kirkhope was researching a university thesis about the legal status of the Duchy and wanted to know how ministers decided whether new laws affected the “hereditary revenues, personal property of the Duke [Charles] or other interests”.

The Duchy of Cornwall runs farms and industrial property, builds houses and acts as a landlord as well as taking responsibility for large areas of the natural environment in south-west England. Its interests often overlap with Charles’s own in areas such as town planning where past interventions in public debate have seen the prince accused of abusing his influence to distort the democratic process.

In 2009 Charles caused a storm when he stepped into the public planning debate for the Chelsea Barracks housing development designed by Richard Rogers. He privately complained to the site’s owner, the prime minister of Qatar, that the design was “a gigantic experiment with the very soul of our capital city”. Rogers was promptly sacked and the scheme redrawn in line with the prince’s tastes.

Kirkhope said evidence he had gathered suggested the process of seeking royal consent for draft bills was not a mere formality.

“The correspondence indicates that the effect of the bills are explained to the royal household, including the Duchy of Cornwall, discussions ensue and if necessary changes are made to proposed legislation,” he said. “Departments of state have fought to avoid releasing correspondence which gives some hint of how the process works and the Cabinet Office has resisted releasing details of the guidance which determines whether the prince as Duke of Cornwall is consulted in the first place.

“As a citizen of the this country I have proper interest in ensuring the process by which laws are made should be transparent and that those who are given special privileges should be accountable. That is demonstrably not the case with regard to the Duchy of Cornwall.”

Earlier this month Kirkhope forced the government to release edited emails showing how the Ministry of Justice consulted Buckingham Palace in 2008 and 2009 over the detail of the apprenticeships bill and how it would affect the Queen “in her personal capacity”. As an employer of 1,200 staff the royal household stood to be affected, along with thousands of other employers. The civil servants wanted to know “Her Majesty’s intentions in relation to the bill” before its second reading in the House of Commons.

One email refers to a note from the Queen’s solicitors, Farrer and Co, “setting out his instructions in relation to the application of the apprenticeships bill to Her Majesty in her personal capacity”.

The official states: “I understand from our discussion today that it might not be possible for what they want to happen without there being express provision in the bill”.

It echoes correspondence released last year in which a minister wrote to the prince’s office requesting his consent to a new planning bill because it was “capable of applying to … [the] Prince of Wales’ private interests”.

Buckingham Palace and Clarence House released a joint statement in response to the information commissioner’s ruling.

“The royal household understands that the Cabinet Office is considering the information commissioner’s decision and next step,” it said. “It would not be a matter for the royal household to challenge any decision”.

Source

Here in old Blighty the Queen’s ‘ Diamond Jubilee’ celebrations are just beginning.

Four days of blithering, bum-licking, mind-numbing media drivel.

The presumption being that we all want to participate in the glorious pageant.

Well, here’s my contribution to the party.

It’s a fair question.

Why do the British Royals have their male offspring circumcised by Jewish Mohels?

Why?

A few ideas suggesting possible answers occur, but maybe there are more:

1) The British Royals are Jewish.
2) The British Royals merely perceive themselves as being Jewish (the ‘line of David’ and all that).
3) The entire European aristocracy including the ‘Windsors’ have, over the last couple of centuries, intermarried with the banking elite and are therefore sort of Jewish.
4) Acting ‘Jewish’ is a kind of insurance policy. The Royals will be well aware what happened to their Russian cousins in 1917 after New York banker Jacob Schiff’s project (he funded Lenin and Trotsky) was successful. (see film below. The astonishing story of the takeover of Russia by western-financed Bolsheviks is worth two hours for anybody who wants to understand modern history)

Maybe someone out there has some better ideas.

I’m off to Spain for 3 days. This trip couldn’t have come along at a better time.

Up the Republic! 

Source

Almost half of Britons believe Britain has changed for the worse during Queen Elizabeth’s 60-year reign but most think that celebrations to mark her sixth decade on the throne will be good for business and Britain’s character, a poll showed on Monday.

Huge crowds are expected to celebrate 86-year-old Elizabeth’s Diamond Jubilee next week, which is expected to be marked by a concert at Buckingham Palace, a procession through London and a 1,000-strong flotilla along the River Thames.

An ITV News/ComRes poll found that 47 percent of those surveyed thought that Britain was not as good a place as before her reign, and just over half said they would not go to a jubilee street party or other celebration.

The poll did not say how Britons felt their nation had changed for the worse. Elizabeth has presided over the demise of Britain’s once vast empire and many Britons are now feeling the squeeze of tough government spending cuts to tackle a big budget deficit.

However, 80 percent said the jubilee celebrations contribute to Britain’s reputation as a country with its own distinct character, and 65 percent said the event was good for the economy. Only 14 percent opposed Britain having a monarchy.

Despite her age, many commentators believe Elizabeth remains an important figurehead in Britain and beyond, a symbol of stability and service that has taken on added weight during straitened economic times.

The wedding of Prince William, the queen’s grandson, to Kate Middleton last year helped boost the monarchy’s popularity.

ComRes interviewed 2,056 British adults in the period of May 25-28.

(Reporting by Mohammed Abbas; Editing by Mark Heinrich)

Source

A fringe candidate for next month’s French presidential election on Wednesday alleged that the Queen of England owes her fortune to drugs money laundered by “Jewish bankers in The City”.

Jacques Cheminade, an independent, is one of 10 candidates who has been cleared by France’s Constitutional Court to run in the April 22 first round of the battle to unseat incumbent President Nicolas Sarkozy.

It ought to be a tough list to get on – former prime minister Dominique de Villepin and several other leading figures failed to make the cut – but little known Cheminade was one of the first to gather 500 mayors’ signatures.

Few in France have any idea what Cheminade stands for, as he represents no political party and has a low media profile.

But, now that the campaign proper has begun, French broadcasting fairness laws require he be given as much exposure as any other candidate, such as Sarkozy or opinion poll frontrunner and Socialist champion Francois Hollande.

Thus, Cheminade appeared on LCP television Wednesday, in a debate sponsored by AFP and other French media. He was asked about his support for US extremist Lyndon Larouche, a notorious conspiracy theorist.

In particular, he was asked whether the Queen is a drugs baroness.

“No, not all her fortune,” he replied. “There are many other sources, but it’s a series of trafficking operations within which, yes, there were drugs.”

Cheminade linked this claim to allegations about the Rothschild banking family, and compared the economic crisis to “the start of the Nazi regime and the measures it gradually put in place, as in the United States today.”

Voting will not begin for four weeks, but opinion polls track Cheminade’s support at less than one percent, or within the margin of error.

Source  

Coutts fined 8.75 million pounds for money laundering failures

Sudip Kar-Gupta – Reuters March 26, 2012

Coutts, best known as banker to The Queen, was fined 8.75 million pounds for “significant and widespread” failings in its money laundering controls, its second penalty for financial trangressions in four months.

Financial watchdog said Coutts had dealt inadequately with a type of clientele known as “politically exposed persons” – people whose prominent position in public life might have made them vulnerable to corruption.

“Coutts’ failings were significant, widespread and unacceptable,” Tracey McDermott, acting director of enforcement and financial crime at the Financial Services Authority (FSA), said in a statement on Monday.

“Its conduct fell well below the standards we expect and the size of the financial penalty demonstrates how seriously we view its failures.”

The FSA had previously fined Coutts, owned by Royal Bank of Scotland, 6.3 million pounds in November for failings related to the sale of a fund product during the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis.

The latest fine comes after the FSA visited Coutts in October 2010 as part of a review into banks’ management of high-risk money-laundering situations.

The FSA found Coutts did not apply robust controls when starting relationships with high-risk customers and did not consistently apply an appropriate level of monitoring.

It gave no further details and did not indicate if any particular customers were a cause for concern.

CLIENT LIST

Coutts, which was founded by Thomas Coutts in the 18th century, is one of Britain’s best-known private banks and boasts a client list which has included sports people and pop stars as well as the British monarch.

The FSA said Coutts had started improving its anti money-laundering systems and had agreed to settle at an early stage with the regulator over the fine. If it had not done so, Coutts would have been fined 12.5 million pounds.

Richard Yoxon, managing director at Brand Finance – a consultancy which assesses the value of various corporate brands – said Coutts’ clientele would likely be disappointed by the latest fine, but added that steps taken by Coutts to improve its systems could help reassure concerned customers.

“No doubt the bank’s high profile, wealthy patrons will be concerned and disappointed by news of today’s FSA fine for failure to implement adequate money laundering controls,” said Yoxon.

“Certainly this news will prompt current and potential customers to reassess their relationship with the bank, but only time will tell if the Coutts brand will suffer any lasting damage. Coutts’ response to the fine will determine the longer term impact on brand,” he added.

“The bank’s statement that they remain committed to preventing any future failings may be enough to provide concerned customers with assurance than the bank can still be trusted with their financial affairs.”

Coutts last week sold its Latin American, Caribbean and African private banking arms to Royal Bank of Canada as part of its strategy to focus more on its key markets such as the UK, Switzerland, Russia, the Middle East and Asia.

(Editing by Myles Neligan and David Holmes)

Source 

Although there’s currently no reason to suspect the Royals, the fact of the matter, is that murdered human remains have been found at the Sandringham estate, currently occupied by The Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Earl & Countess of Wessex.

They were informed of the discovery on Monday night [1]. The key word here being informed. This might seem like nitpicking to some, but if human remains had been found in the garden of any regular citizen, wealthy or on a council estate, would you expect them to simply be informed, or would the occupants be brought in for questioning?

This isn’t an accusation; I doubt the Royals are stupid enough to murder somebody and bury them not far from a house they actually do reside in. They’re probably more accustomed to advanced covert ops such as the “Boston Breaks” assassination method, which may have been used on Princess Diana according to some researchers.

It’s the principal of it all. Just because they were born in to a barbaric, authoritarian, inbred family, that has pillaged and conquered the world over, who now sit comfortably on the blood money of their ancestors, while simultaneously sponging off the tax payers during a deep recession, does that mean they’re above the procedures of law?

One resident told the Telegraph:

“It is just a stone’s throw from the Stud and the Royals’ house. It is very close.”

Another stated, “It is quite a bit of a shock, given the proximity to the grounds itself. The area is really not that far from Sandringham House”.

Royal shooting parties are thought to have used the area over the Christmas break, reports the Telegraph in another article.

A Norfolk police spokeswoman said: “The body is described as a young, white, adult female, aged between 15 and 23 years old, which has been at that site for a period estimated to be between a month and up to four months.” [2]

The body was discovered shortly after the Royals attended a church service on New Year’s day. Keeping up appearances the Queen was snapped on her horse just hours after the incident, rather than being questioned or offering help to the investigators.

One recent missing person case detectives are thought to be looking at is that of a 17–year–old Latvian, Alisa Dmitrijeva, who disappeared from nearby King’s Lynn.

There were concerns for the safety of the brown–haired teenager, who lived in Wisbech, Cambs and was reported missing on Sept 6.

In October last year the remains of an obsessive stalker were found within sight of Buckingham Palace, on an island in St James’s Park.[3]

Source

Anyone thinking very logically and simply would simply ask one question:

WHY HAVE JEWS BEEN BANISHED FROM SOME MANY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES AND CULTURES OVER CENTURIES? BY PEOPLES WHO HAVE NEVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSPIRE AGAINST THEM BECAUSE OF VAST DISTANCES BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES WHO HAVE BANISHED THEM. YET ALL OF THESE PEOPLES HAVE, AT DIFFERENT TIMES THROUGHOUT HISTORY, FELT IT NECESSARY TO DO JUST THAT. FOR NO REASON? ALL OF THESE CULTURES HAVE JUST HAD SOME RACIAL HATRED OF JEWS? THERE’S NO LOGIC IN IT. THE ONLY COMMON DENOMINATOR WHICH PERMEATES THROUGHOUT THESE BANISHMENTS IS THAT OF MONEY AND USURY.

Henk Ruyssenaars’ article on July 10th 2006 drew attention to the book “Descent into Slavery” by Des Griffin in which the real meaning of the term “City of London” is explained. The following is an excerpt from that article.

“To the majority of people the words “Crown” and “City” in reference to London refer to the queen or the capital of England.

This is not the truth. The “City” is in fact a privately owned Corporation – or Sovereign State – occupying an irregular rectangle of 677 acres and located right in the heart of the 610 square mile ‘Greater London’ area. The population of ‘The City’ is listed at just over four thousand, whereas the population of ‘Greater London’ (32 boroughs) is approximately seven and a half million.

“The Crown” is a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule the independent sovereign state known as London or ‘The City.’ ‘The City’ is not part of England. It is not subject to the Sovereign. It is not under the rule of the British parliament. Like the Vatican in Rome, it is a separate, independent state.

“The City”, which is often called “the wealthiest square mile on earth,” is ruled over by a Lord Mayor. Here are grouped together Britain’s great financial and commercial institutions: Wealthy banks, dominated by the privately-owned (Rothschild controlled) Bank of England, Lloyd’s of London, the London Stock Exchange, and the offices of most of the leading international trading concerns. Here, also, is located Fleet Street, the heart and core of the newspaper and publishing worlds.

The Lord Mayor, who is elected for a one year stint, is the monarch in the City. As Aubrey Menen says in “London”, Time-Life, 1976, p. 16:

“The relation of this monarch of the City to the monarch of the realm [Queen] is curious and tells much.”
It certainly is and certainly does!
When the Queen of England goes to visit the City she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple Bar, the symbolic gate of the City. She bows and asks for permission to enter his private, sovereign State. During such State visits “the Lord Mayor in his robes and chain, and his entourage in medieval costume, outshines the royal party, which can dress up no further than service uniforms.”

The Lord Mayor leads the queen into his city.
The symbolism is clear. The Lord Mayor is the monarch. The Queen is his subject.

The small clique who rule the City dictate to the British Parliament. It tells them what to do, and when. In theory Britain is ruled by a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of close advisers. These ‘fronts’ go to great lengths to create the impression that they are running the show but, in reality, they are mere puppets whose strings are pulled by the shadowy characters who dominate behind the scenes. As the former British Prime Minister of England during the late 1800s Benjamin D’Israeli wrote:

“So you see… the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes”
(Coningsby, The Century Co., N.Y., 1907, p. 233).

This fact is further demonstrated by another passage from Menen’s book:

“The Prime Minister, a busy politician, is not expected to understand the mysteries of high finance, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer is only expected to understand them when he introduces the budget. Both are advised by the permanenet officials of the Treasury, and these listen to the City. If they suspect that some policy of the government will back-fire, it is of no use their calling up British ambassadors to ask if it is so; they can find out more quickly from the City. As one ambassador said: “Diplomats are nowadays no more than office boys, and slow ones at that. The City will know. They will tell the Treasury and the Treasury will tell the Prime Minister.”

Woe betide him if he does not listen. The most striking instance of this happened in recent history. In 1956 the then Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden… launched a war to regain the Suez Canal. It had scarcely begun when the City let it be known that in a few days he would have no more money to fight it; the Pound would collapse. He stopped the war and was turned out of office by his party. When the Prime Minister rises to address the Lord Mayor’s banquet, he hopes that the City will put more behind him than the gold plate lavishly displayed on the sideboards.”

The British government is the bond slave of the “invisible and inaudible” force centred in the City. The City calls the tune. The “visible and audible leaders” are mere puppets who dance to that tune on command. They have no power. They have no authority. In spite of the outward show they are mere pawns in the game being played by the financial elite.

It is important to recognise the fact that two separate empires were operating under the guise of the British Empire. One was the Crown Empire and the other the British Empire.

The colonial possessions that were white were under the sovereign – i.e. under the authority of the British government. Such nations as the Union of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada were governed under British law. These only represented thirteen percent of the people who made up the inhabitants of the Britsh Empire.

All the other parts of the British Empire – nations like India, Egypt, Bermuda, Malta, Cyprus and colonies in Central Africa, Singapore, Hong Kong and Gibraltar were all Crown Colonies. These were not under British rule. The British parliament had no authority over them.

As the Crown owned the committee known as the British government there was no problem getting the British taxpayer to pay for naval and military forces to maintain the Crown’s supremacy in these areas.

The City reaped fantastic profits from its operations conducted under the protection of the British armed forces. This wasn’t British commerce and British wealth. The international bankers, prosperous merchants and those members of the aristocracy who were part of the “City” machine accumulated vast fortunes .

About seventy years ago Vincent Cartwright Vickers stated that :

….”financiers in reality took upon themselves, perhaps not the responsibility, but certainly the power of controlling the markets of the world and therefore the numerous relationships between one nation and another, involving international friendship and mistrusts… Loans to foreign countries are organised and arranged by the City of London with no thought whatsoever of the nation’s welfare but solely in order to increase indebtedness upon which the City thrives and grows rich…”
In “Empire of the City” E. C. Knuth said:

” This national amnd mainly international dictatorship of money which plays off one country against another and which, through ownership of a large portion of the press converts the advertisement of its own private opinion into a semblance of general public opinion, cannot for much longer be permitted to render Democratic Government a mere nickname. Today we see through a glass darkly: for there is so much which it would not be in the public interest to divulge.”…

The battle for power and riches is an ancient one, but any attempt to make sense of the present world situation where the bulk of humanity is being herded like sheep into a corral without some knowledge of history is a difficult if not impossible task.

At present names have been replaced by groups, capitalists, republicans, democrats, terrorists, corporations, NATO, UNO, NAFTA, EMI, ECB, ASEAN. Names that are spewed out like confetti in an endless list of anonymity.

In spite of modern technology the figures in the background remain blurred. Mention the word “Jew” or “Conspiracy” and everyone with few exceptions will turn away. Why? Fear? Of what? What is the magic talisman which makes the mention of these co-religionists a no-go area? Is it because they have infiltrated every aspect of human activity? Is it they who are pulling the strings which are leading the world on its downward slope?

The Jew has been mistrusted since way back. But what is apparent now is that any attempt to offer an answer to the question is clamped down upon. What does that indicate? Above all it indicates that these shadowy figures fear more than anything else the truth.

Professor Jesse H. Holmes, writing in, “The American Hebrew,” expressed the following similar sentiments:

“It can hardly be an accident that antagonism directed against the Jews is to be found pretty much everywhere in the world where Jews and non-Jews are associated. And as the Jews are the common element of the situation it would seem probable, on the face of it, that the cause will be found in them rather than in the widely varying groups which feel this antagonism.
In Europe and Russia alone, the Jews have been banished 47 times in the last 1,000 years: Mainz, 1012; France, 1182; Upper Bavaria, 1276; England, 1290; France, 1306; France, 1322; Saxony, 1349; Hungary, 1360; Belgium, 1370; Slovakia, 1380; France, 1394; Austria, 1420; Lyons, 1420; Cologne, 1424; Mainz, 1438; Augsburg, 1438; Upper Bavaria, 1442; Netherlands, 1444; Brandenburg, 1446; Mainz, 1462; Lithuania, 1495; Portugal, 1496; Naples, 1496; Navarre, 1498; Nuremberg, 1498; Brandenburg, 1510; Prussia, 1510; Genoa, 1515; Naples, 1533; Italy, 1540; Naples, 1541; Prague, 1541; Genoa, 1550; Bavaria, 1551; Prague, 1557; Papal States, 1569; Hungary, 1582; Hamburg, 1649; Vienna, 1669; Slovakia, 1744; Mainz, 1483; Warsaw, 1483; Spain, 1492; Italy, 1492; Moravia, 1744; Bohemia, 1744; Moscow, 1891.

(The above is excerpted from The Synagogue of Satan by Andrew Carrington Hitchcock.)

Of what were these people guilty to arouse such a reaction from so many diverse people?

Well, in England, it’s very interesting:

IT ALL STARTED with The Edict of Expulsion of 1290 AD.
The Jews would have us believe that their expulsion from England by Edward I (reigned 1272-1307) was due to their money lending endeavors. The real reason was due to the Jews’ crime of blood ritual murders.

The Orthodox Christian historian of the 5th Century, Socrates Scholasticus, in his Ecclesiastical History, 7:16, recounts an incident about Jews killing a Christian child:

— “At a place near Antioch in Syria, the Jews, in derision of the Cross and those who put their trust in the Crucified One, seized a Christian boy, and having bound him to a cross they made, began to sneer at him. In a little while becoming so transported with fury, they scourged the child until he died under their hands.” —

Here are a few examples which led to the English expulsion of the Jews in 1290 AD:

1144 A.D. Norwich: A twelve year-old boy was crucified and his side pierced at the Jewish Passover. His body was found in a sack hidden in a tree. A converted Jew to Christianity named Theobald of Cambridge informed the authorities that the Jews took blood every year from a Christian child because they thought that only by so doing could they ever return to Palestine. The boy has ever since been known as St. William.

1160 A.D. Gloucester: The body of a child named Harold was found in the river with the wounds of crucifixion.

1255 A.D. Lincoln: A boy named Hugh was tortured and crucified by the Jews. The boy’s mother found the body in a well on the premises of a Jew named Jopin. 18 Jews were hanged for the crime by King Henry III.

1290 A.D. Oxford: The Patent Roll 18 Of Edward I, 21st June 1290 contains an order for the Gaol delivery of a Jew named Isaac de Pulet for the murder and blood letting of a Christian boy. Only one month after this, King Edward I issued his decree expelling the Jews from England.
(See Sources #1 Below )

JEWISH BANKERS FROM AMSTERDAM led by the Jewish financier and army contractor of Cromwell’s New Model Army, Fernandez Carvajal and assisted by Portuguese Ambassador De Souza, a Marano (secret Jew), saw an opportunity to exploit in the civil unrest led by Oliver Cromwell in 1643.

A stable Christian society of ancient traditions binding the Monarchy, Church, State, nobles and people into one solemn bond was disrupted by Calvin’s Protestant uprising. The Jews of Amsterdam exploited this civil unrest and made their move. They contacted Oliver Cromwell in a series of letters:

Cromwell To Ebenezer Pratt of the Mulheim Synagogue in Amsterdam,
16th June 1647:
— “In return for financial support will advocate admission of Jews to England: This however impossible while Charles living. Charles cannot be executed without trial, adequate grounds for which do not at present exist. Therefore advise that Charles be assassinated, but will have nothing to do with arrangements for procuring an assassin, though willing to help in his escape.” —

To Oliver Cromwell From Ebenezer Pratt, 12th July 1647:
— “Will grant financial aid as soon as Charles removed and Jews admitted. Assassination too dangerous. Charles shall be given opportunity to escape: His recapture will make trial and execution possible. The support will be liberal, but useless to discuss terms until trial commences.” —

Cromwell had carried out the orders of the Jewish financiers and beheaded, (yes, Cromwell and his Jewish sponsors must face Christ!), King Charles I on January 30 1649.

Beginning in 1655, Cromwell, through his alliance with the Jewish bankers of Amsterdam and specifically with Manasseh Ben Israel and his brother-in-law, David Abravanel Dormido, initiated the resettlement of the Jews in England.
(See Sources #2 Below )

JEWS GET THEIR CENTRAL BANK OF ENGLAND

WILLIAM STADHOLDER, a Dutch army careerist, was a handsome chap with money problems. The Jews saw another opportunity and through their influence arranged for William’s elevation to Captain General of the Dutch Forces. The next step up the ladder for William was his elevation by the Jews to the aristocratic title of William, Prince of Orange.

The Jews then arranged a meeting between William and Mary, the eldest daughter of the Duke of York. The Duke was only one place removed from becoming King of England. In 1677 Princess Mary of England married William Prince of Orange.

To place William upon the throne of England it was necessary to get rid of both Charles II and the Duke of York who was slated to become James II of the Stuarts. It is important to note that none of the Stuarts would grant charter for an English national bank. That is why murder, civil war, and religious conflicts plagued their reigns by the Jewish bankers.

In 1685, King Charles II died and the Duke of York became King James II of England. In 1688 the Jews ordered William Prince of Orange to land in England at Torbay. Because of an ongoing Campaign of L’Infamie against King James II contrived by the Jews, he abdicated and fled to France. William of Orange and Mary were proclaimed King and Queen of England.

The new King William III soon got England involved in costly wars against Catholic France which put England deep into debt. Here was the Jewish bankers’ chance to collect. So King William, under orders from the Elders of Zion in Amsterdam, persuaded the British Treasury to borrow 1.25 million pounds sterling from the Jewish bankers who had helped him to the throne.

Since the state’s debts had risen dramatically, the government had no choice but to accept. But there were conditions attached: The names of the lenders were to be kept secret and that they be granted a Charter to establish a Central Bank of England. Parliament accepted and the Jewish bankers sunk their tentacles into Great Britain.

ENTER THE ROTHSCHILDS

MAYER AMSCHEL BAUER OPENED a money lending business on Judenstrasse (Jew Street) in Frankfurt Germany in 1750 and changed his name to Rothschild. Mayer Rothschild had five sons.

The smartest of his sons, Nathan, was sent to London to establish a bank in 1806. Much of the initial funding for the new bank was tapped from the British East India Company which Mayer Rothschild had significant control of. Mayer Rothschild placed his other four sons in Frankfort, Paris, Naples, and Vienna.

In 1814, Nathanael Rothschild saw an opportunity in the Battle of Waterloo. Early in the battle, Napoleon appeared to be winning and the first military report to London communicated that fact. But the tide turned in favor of Wellington.

A courier of Nathan Rothschild brought the news to him in London on June 20. This was 24 hours before Wellington’s courier arrived in London with the news of Wellington’s victory. Seeing this fortuitous event, Nathan Rothschild began spreading the rumor that Britain was defeated.

With everyone believing that Wellington was defeated, Nathan Rothschild began to sell all of his stock on the English Stock Market. Everyone panicked and also began selling causing stocks to plummet to practically nothing. At the last minute, Nathan Rothschild began buying up the stocks at rock-bottom prices.

This gave the Rothschild family complete control of the British economy – now the financial centre of the world and forced England to set up a revamped Bank of England with Nathan Rothschild in control.
(See Sources #4 Below )

ALL ABOUT THE JEWISH VATICAN

(As much as that is possible given Rothschild secrecy)
A PRIVATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION exists today in England known as “The City.” It is also known as The Jewish Vatican located in the heart of Greater London:

A Committee of 12 men rule The Jewish Vatican. They are known as “The Crown.” The City and its rulers, The Crown, are not subject to the Parliament. They are a Sovereign State within a State.

The City is the financial hub of the world. It is here that the Rothschilds have their base of operations and their centrality of control:

• The Central Bank of England (controlled by the Rothschilds) is located in The City.
  * All major British banks have their main offices in The City.
  * 385 foreign banks are located in The City.
  * 70 banks from the United States are located in The City.

London Stock Exchange is located in The City.
* Lloyd’s of London is located in The City.
* The Baltic Exchange (shipping contracts) is located in The City.
* Fleet Street (newspapers & publishing) is located in The City.
* The London Metal Exchange is located in The City.
* The London Commodity Exchange (trading rubber, wool, sugar, coffee) is located in The City.

Every year a Lord Mayor is elected as monarch of The City. The British Parliament does not make a move without consulting the Lord Mayor of The City. For here in the heart of London are grouped together Britain’s financial institutions dominated by the Rothschild-controlled Central Bank of England.

The Rothschilds have traditionally chosen the Lord Mayor since 1820. Who is the present day Lord Mayor of The City? Only the Rothschilds’ know for sure…
(See Sources #5 Below )

Sources #1: Ariel Toaff, Bloody Passover-Jews of Europe and Ritual Homicide, 2007 Click Here; J. C. Cox, Norfolk Churches; Victoria County History of Norfolk, 1906; Arnold Leese, Jewish Ritual Murder In England; Henry III, Close Roll 16; Joseph Haydn, Dictionary of Dates.

Sources #2: Isaac Disraeli, Life of Charles I, 1851; Hugh Ross Williamson, Charles and Cromwell; AHM Ramsey, The Nameless War; Lord Alfred Douglas, Plain English, 1921; Geoffrey H. Smith, The Settlement Of Jews In England

Sources #3: John Harold Wood, History of Central Banking in Great Britain; Gustaaf Johannes Renier, William of Orange

Sources #4: Frederick Morton, The Rothschilds; Benjamin Disraeli, Coningsby

Sources #5: E.C. Knuth, The Empire of The City; Des Griffin, Descent Into Slavery

Source

After building bridges on her historic state visit to Ireland, the Queen may be asked to use her influence to head off moves for Scottish independence.

My man in Whitehall says the monarch’s warm relationship with Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, could prove a decisive card for Downing Street to play in maintaining the union after the SNP’s landslide win in the Scottish elections.

The SNP is committed to holding a referendum on independence and the Queen would be dismayed – every bit as much as David Cameron – to see any parting of the ways between Scotland and the rest of the kingdom.

“I would say that the Queen is probably as close to Salmond as she is to any current politician, not least because of their shared passion for horses,” I am told. “She was close, too, to the late Robin Cook for precisely the same reason.”

Angus MacNeil, Salmond’s fellow Scots Nationalist, once joked that, after the Queen had met with his boss on several occasions over a six-month period, that seldom, if ever, had two people travelled so far to “exchange racing tips”.

A courtier tells me that the Queen is always wary of involving herself in political issues. “She would, of course, accept the will of the people in Scotland on this issue, but the union is obviously important to her,” he says. “I have no doubt that, if asked, she would be happy to offer her advice.”

The SNP leader has already been at pains to stress that an independent Scotland would retain the Queen as its head of state.

Source

Superficially the visit of Queen Elizabeth to Ireland is a cause for celebration an all sides. It seems that irreversible peace has broken out between Ireland and its ancient enemy across the water.

This can only be good.

We can all celebrate the fact that IRA bombs no longer blow up English city centres.

However, if this is marking the breakout of peace why has this visit taken so long. The Good Friday Agreement was signed in 1998, after all.

The last Royal visit, by George V, was in 1911 when Ireland was just another possession of ‘The Crown‘. Owners do, after all, like to take a look at their goods every now and again and, in the case of colonies, remind them who’s in charge.

We should, perhaps, remember that Her Majesty is a figurehead for a rather nebulous organisation that is called ‘The Crown’.

But who are ‘The Crown’?

Some say that ‘The Crown’ is the allegorical symbol and name for the familiar international financial oligarchy whose base is in the City of London. If this is the case, then the IMF is a mere instrument of this ‘Crown’.

The same IMF that now have taken control of the Irish economy.

Is Elizabeth’s visit a marking of a new occupation of Ireland by ‘The Crown’? This time not by force of arms but by the instrument of debt?

The old slavery was enforced at the point of a gun.

Techniques have become more sophisticated. The very same entity can now extract the same servitude and more, without using a single bullet.

But make no mistake.

DEBT IS SLAVERY.

The parasite is back in full control.

There is another interesting aspect to this that is worth a mention.

Henry Makow, a Jewish writer, says that “The Jewish Conspiracy” is British Imperialism.

We might wonder why all the Royal Males get circumcised, as openly acknowledged by this Rabbi (and Mohel) and does this not support the claim we do not read about in the papers, that The Royals regard themselves as Merovingian Jews?

Source