Rixon Stewart – 2002
Like they say: appearances can be deceptive and that is certainly the case with Michael of Albany. After all you expect royalty to be somewhat distant, aloof and unapproachable – especially after having seen the Windsor’s in action – but nothing could be further from the truth with real royalty. So you might walk past Michael of Albany and not notice that he was indeed a real prince. Yet Prince Michael of Albany has a more legitimate claim to the throne of Scotland than the Windsor’s and moreover he possesses qualities that they all too obviously lack: modesty, genuine humility and a human touch that is way beyond the reach of members of the House of Windsor.
Despite recent efforts to boost their appeal by appearances in popular TV dramas, set in working class neighbourhoods, it is all too apparent that the Windsor’s are uneasy off their pedestal. Watching them it was clear that they were out of their element and the whole episode looked like a calculated attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Princess Diana on the other hand would have taken to it like a natural: she possessed popular appeal and charm in abundance along with a genuine common touch that reached out to all humanity. It was a quality that quickly earned her the title: “The People’s Princess”. In contrast to the Windsor’s who expect and demand seemingly endless bowing and scraping. But then as Prince Michael points out Diana also carried a lot of Stewart blood in her veins and that, say the authors of a new book about her, is one of the reasons that she was killed.
“Princess Diana: the Hidden Evidence”, by Jon King and John Beveridge, argues its case very convincingly. With a foreword written by Prince Michael of Albany it is probably the most serious threat yet to the continued reign of the Windsor’s. As the authors contend, if Diana had married Al Fayed then her appeal backed by his millions could have laid the foundations for a rival court that would have easily eclipsed the House of Windsor. Coupled with her heritage it made her removal from public life an absolute imperative. For Diana had, via her Spencer ancestors, a direct blood tie to the Stewart’s; and that made her potential to rival the Windsor’s all the more potent because it effectively legitimised it.
That same unaffected manner is readily apparent in talking with Prince Michael of Albany. It underlines his claim, verified by genealogical records and historians, to being the direct descendant of a bloodline stretching back to the Merovingian Kings and even further to the biblical Kings David and Solomon. So it truly is a royal bloodline and despite all the trappings of monarchy it is something that the Windsor’s have very little in common with. Which is why they wanted to draw it into their bloodline and thus legitimise their claim to the British throne via a marriage to Diana. In effect she was used to infuse her bloodlines qualities to the next generation of Windsor’s, and had she dutifully played her part she would probably still be alive.
As we know though she didn’t. She spoke out and in her own independent way she became a real threat to the British establishment: all the more so because in the months prior to her death she had been in contact with the Prince Michael.
As history attests: the Windsor’s were installed with the help of continental bankers who needed a compliant Royal Household with which to usurp the British throne. So when William III came to Britain from Holland in 1689 he brought with him an army that was two thirds mercenary. Shortly thereafter the Bank of England was established along with the system of fractional reserve lending, in other words usury. And like the Federal Reserve Bank in the States the Bank of England is anything but a national institution; in reality it is a privately owned corporation that simply prints money and then lends it to the government of the day on the understanding that it will be repaid plus interest.
To complete this scam the Hanover’s were brought over and duly installed on the British throne on the death of Queen Anne in 1714. In essence establishing a confidence trick that continues to this day with the Hanover’s only changing their official title to Windsor at the height of World War 1, when its German origin sounded like a liability. So on the one hand we have the Windsor’s: the titular head of a military industrial machine that fights wars or provokes them and then supplies the armaments to fight them. While on the other hand we have banking dynasties lending money for the weapons to fight wars and then, when the fighting’s over, lending more money for reconstruction and repair. And once again it must be emphasised that the money lent by the banks does not exist until they print it and lend it, with the expectation that it will be repaid plus interest. Truly a royal scam and one that Diana began to threaten when she launched her campaign against land mines. A campaign, say authors King and Beveridge, that made her powerful enemies in the US as well as Britain and resulted in the CIA working with Britain’s MI6 in an operation that ultimately led to her fatal “accident.” Or as the authors refer to it her “judicial murder.”
Recognising the probability that the mainstream media will ignore the book co-author Jon King has embarked on a series of speaking engagements with Prince Michael to try and publicise it. However it looks like they face an uphill struggle. On the morning of their first speaking engagement, in rural Wiltshire, they were interviewed by phone by the BBC’s local radio for a live show. As Prince Michael was recounting how a CIA contact had confirmed to him that the Agency was indeed involved in Princess Diana’s assassination the phone line suddenly went dead: the interviewer had simply slammed the phone down on Prince Michael in mid sentence.
Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence by Jon King and John Beveridge Published by SPI BOOKS ISBN: 1-56171-922-6