23 December 2004

Queen's cousin banned from driving for speeding

The Queen's Cousin, the Duke of Gloucester, has been banned from driving for six months for speeding. It was his fourth conviction in as many years, giving him a total of 12 penalty points on his license.

In itself, this isn't particularly newsworthy - many people are banned each year for speeding.

However, the Duke is also president of the Institute of Advanced Motorists.

An institute spokesman told the BBC:

"Normally somebody who has a 12-point totting up offence loses their licence automatically as well as their membership."

The Scotsman Newspaper reports that the Duke has lost his membership, but that a decision has not yet been taken whether he will remain as president.

Of course for royalty, rules and hypocrisy aren't usually an issue. ThroneOut recently reported that the Queen had beaten an injured pheasant to death - despite being patron of the RSPB (The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds).

More Information:
BBC News - Queen's cousin given driving ban
The Scotsman - Speeding Duke Loses Advanced Motorists' Membership

19 November 2004

Prince Charles: "Don't get ideas above your station"

A sex-discrimination case involving a former member of Prince Charles's household has revealed the astonishing arrogance of Prince Charles.

A memo was presented in which the Prince writes:

"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 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."

Of course, he has never put in the necessary work to be head of state, since there is none necessary for him.

The Prince's mother is the head of state of the UK. The position is inherited regardless of talent, ability, qualifications or electoral mandate. Prince Charles will inherit the position without any assessment of whether he meets any of these 'qualifications' to be head of state.

So while the Great British public have to work hard to achieve any status or wealth, the Windsors will continue to be given it unconditionally. And they will continue to arrogantly believe in their own 'natural ability' while criticizing the public who have to work for a living.

One can only speculate how far Jug Ears would go as a member of the public in a society based on merit. Jobs for human tampons and translators fluent in silver-birch are rather thin on the ground.

More information:
BBC News - Former secretary accuses Prince

21 October 2004

Harry demonstrates military credentials

Prince Harry, the exam-cheating son of Princess Diana and either Prince Charles or James Hewitt, violently attacked a photographer outside a nightclub in London last night.

It was the kind of action that would normally result in cosmetic surgery courtesy of a bouncer's knuckles, but fortunately for Harry, it's fun to act hard when you're protected by burly armed guards who'll jump in to protect you and pull you away from trouble.

When rock stars and movie actors behave like this, they are condemned as yobs and castigated for their lack of manners and violent behaviour. Hair-transplant recipient Elton John was recently portrayed as an arrogant brat for verbal insults against the Taiwanese press after being the subject of press photographers' attention at an airport there. Courtney Love was charged with disorderly conduct for throwing a microphone stand into the crowd at a gig in New York. But expect to see no such condemnation when the perpetrator is a member of the house of Windsor. The blame will of course be put squarely at the door of the press for 'inciting' him.

Although tape-recorded admitting that he did virtually none of a coursework assignment for his art A-level, the exam board have said they have no intention of investigating the claims. Harry was admitted to Sandhurst military academy (for which a degree is usually required). Harry seems to have the perfect attitude for a life in the military, which consists largely of drunken fights in the streets and bars of Aldershot and brutal attacks on defenceless Iraqi prisoners.

More information:
BBC News - Prince Harry in nightclub scuffle

10 October 2004

Harry accused of cheating in A-levels

Prince Harry was never blessed with brains, but fortunately these aren't necessary as a member of the Royal Family. Even if a job can't be secured from a well-heeled family friend there is always the option of military service, after greasing a few palms, and awarding a few medals to the right people.

Most recruits to Sandhurst are graduates, but occasionally recruits are admitted with lower qualifications, especially if their surname is Windsor. In Harry's case, he was admitted with just a grade B in art, and a grade D in geography - the worst results of anyone in his year at school.

Unfortunately however, Harry wasn't even bright enough to manage Art. One of his former teachers at Eton claims she was asked by a senior master at the school to help Harry complete his coursework.

If found to have cheated Harry could face expulsion from the Army. Fortunately the Windsors are quite adept at manipulating the results of investigations. Expect to see this one buried, like the rest, and a collection of chinless wonder military types to crop up on TV saying what a top officer he is.

More information
BBC News - Royal Family denies Harry cheated

11 September 2004

Queen donates money to Beslan fund

It was revealed that the Queen was so touched by the deaths of the children of Beslan in the school siege tragedy that she had personally donated money to the British Red Cross appeal.

"We got the donation from the Queen today," a British Red Cross spokeswoman said Tuesday. She gave an undisclosed sum to the charity's crisis appeal which will support survivors and families of those that died in the horrific terrorist attack in North Ossetia, the organisation said.

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman commented, "Yes, it's true. The Queen personally donated money. In fact, she does a lot of good work for charity but really doesn't like to talk about it. That's why she employs people like me to talk about it on her behalf.".

Although the organisation and palace did not disclose the value of the donation, the palace spokeswoman confirmed that it was 'sizeable' adding that it looked to be 'quite shiny and septagonal in shape'.

Asked if the Queen regularly donates to similar causes, the spokeswoman replied, "Yes, unless the children were killed by British troops of course, in which case her job is to give medals to the soldiers for their hard work in difficult circumstances".

More Information
Britain's Queen Elizabeth makes donation to Beslan siege victims

23 July 2004

Closure after three injured on Diana fountain

The Diana Memorial Fountain has been turned off after 3 people were injured on the east side of the source pool. The closure follows previous stoppages due to blocked pumping equipment and fallen leaves.

The memorial, which cost £3.6m and is based on an oval stone ring, was opened by the Queen two weeks ago. It consists of various stages, intended to represent the different periods of Diana's life.

The fountain starts off in a fast youthfull phase, representing Diana's carefree life as a youngster born to wealthy parents. It then slows representing the depression and despair that followed during her marriage to Prince Charles.

At this point the water flows into a large deep pool which member of the public are encouraged to throw money into. This represents the British taxpayer throwing pound after pound into the bottomless pit of royal expenditure.

Lastly follows a pool where pretty much anybody is invited into, representing the promiscuous sexual appetite of the post-divorce Diana.

The three injured members of the public are believed to have been injured after an explosion in the "landmine campaign" part of the fountain.

More info:
BBC News - Three injured on Diana's fountain

05 May 2004

How rich are the royals?

The Royal Family love to keep things secret. If its immoral or illegal you can pretty much bet your life someone in the Royal Family has not only done it, but they've managed to avoid criminal charges, have had their MI5 stooges hush up the mess and their friends in the judiciary slap ridiculous lawsuits on the free press to keep the information from the public.

The Royal Family and their supporters often say that the only income the Queen gets is from the civil list. However, this is not true.

Members of Parliament must declare their interests for the public record. But the Queen's finances other than the 'expenses' of the civil list are strictly out of bounds, as is the exact detail of who owns much of the property that the Queen treats as her own. The Queen negotiates how much tax she feels like paying (which is significantly LESS than she would pay if she was subject to the same law as everyone else).

Tonight the BBC attempts to get some answers, although it appears it will take more than good journalism to find out exactly how much the Windsors have been hiding from us.

More information
BBC News - My quest: How rich are the Royals?

16 April 2004

Royal planes may lose union jack

To reduce the risk of a terror attack against the Windsors and politicians, proposals are being considered to remove markings such as the Union Flag from the Queen's Flight, so that the aircraft aren't as easily distinguishable from civilian flights.

Of course, there is no suggestion that the Windsors will actually have to travel like the rest of us do - packed into a tiny cabin with legroom that even Douglas Bader would complain about.

However, the security analysis fails to spot other obvious security risks.

Its not hard for any would-be terrorist to find the Queen's address. She lives in an enormous Palace in the middle of London (though we won't give details as these may aid an attacker). In a shocking security breach, when a ThroneOut researcher asked a London Policeman for directions to "where the Queen lives", the friendly copper even drew a simple map and wished him luck. Had that ThroneOut researcher have been a suicide bomber with a dirty bomb in his rucksack one can only imagine the consequences.

ThroneOut suggests the following changes to ensure the safety of our Royals by making them less conspicuous:-
  • relocate the Windsors to ex-Council flats in South London
  • make them drive around in battered minicabs, rather than black limos
  • insist the Queen stops dressing like Dame Edna Everage
  • remove the Queens picture from stamps and money (these could be used by a terrorist to help identify our monarch)
More information
BBC News - Royal planes may lose Union Jack

26 February 2004

New UK citizenship ceremony

Royal apologists often defend the various pledges of allegiance to the Queen as being symbolic of a pledge to the country.

This myth has been well and truly shot down by the government's new citizenship ceremony.

In addition to pledging allegiance to the country and the constitution, those seeking to become citizens must also separately swear allegiance to the Queen. This clearly shows the two are not the same - one is a pledge to the country/system and the other is personally to the Queen/Monarchy.

So now those seeking British Citizenship must be monarchists - a test 30-40% of current British Citizens would fail.

Meanwhile, many are raising concerns over the inclusion of the "national" anthemn... which many see as anything but "national". Most countries have a national anthemn that unites the people - only in Britain do we have one that divides people according to their political views.

More info:
Citizenship anthem doubt emerges

05 February 2004

Anti-monarchy protestors win damages

Royal apologists often claim that the UK is a democracy (even though we have an undemocratically elected head of state, and one of the two chambers of Parliament is not elected).

They defend their claim on the basis that those who don't agree with the system are free to protest legally for change.

However, those that use these "rights" soon find that they are arrested.

On 4th June 2002 a number of protestors from Movement Against the Monarchy decided to make their protest against our undemocratic system. And in the true traditions of a non-democracy their protest was broken up illegally by the police.

23 members of the organisation will now receive £3,500 each and a written apology from the Metropolitan Police for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment.

Its a reluctant victory. Freedom is something that can't be valued in terms of money. The establishment is happy to pay over £80,000 (of public money) to take away people's right to protest about the fact that they aren't able to democratically choose their head of state.

Your taxes are being used to pay Police to silence legal protests that are an embarrassment to the Monarchy and then your taxes are being used to compensate those that are the victims of the establishment's illegal actions.

The Police should be spending their time investigating male rapist lovers of the heir to the throne, or possible murder plots against his ex-wives.

If you break the law, the Police will try and stop you. Even if you don't break the law the Police may arrest you. Who stops the Police breaking the law? Once again the law and legal system is being perverted to suppress anything that might damage the Windsors' right to dip their hands into your pay packet.

More information:
BBC News - Jubilee protesters get damages

04 February 2004

Mad Prince Charles says Mad King George wasn't mad

When George Smith (a Falklands War Veteran who risked his life for Queen and Country) claimed that he had been gay-raped by Prince Charles's boyfriend Michael Fawcett there was only one explanation the Prince Charles could use. Clearly Mr Smith was mad, quite insane in fact.

And when Princess Diana made the spookily prophetic claim that Charles was trying to murder her in a car crash, Prince Charles once again used his favourite explanation to explain Diana's letter. She was mad, paranoid.

These "expert" opinions on mental health came from a man who:
  • enjoys killing or torturing animals (often seen as a sign of trouble by real mental health professionals)
  • dumped Diana so he could shag Camilla Parker Bowles
  • wanted to be Camilla's tampon
  • talks to plants
However, when it comes to documented cases of loonies in the Windsor family, Charles has rather different opinions. He believes that his ancestor Mad King George III wasn't actually mad at all.

According to the Scotsman Newspaper Charles told the Timewatch TV programme that:

his studies of doctors’ reports and correspondence in the Royal archives had led him to the conclusion that his ancestor was ill, but was not insane.

The Scotsman adds

George III had a passion for the countryside and a strong interest in architecture, in common with Charles.

So we have a nutter who is interested in architecture and the countryside, defending a nutter who is interested in architecture and the countryside.

Charles intends to become King George VII upon succession. Perhaps he is modelling himself on King George III? Further investigation suggests not, the BBC History site states of George III:

Unlike his predecessor and successor, he had no mistresses to support - consequently his court was declared to be dull. His personal tastes were frugal - which allowed Gillray, the cartoonist, to ridicule the king breakfasting with relish on a boiled egg, or advising his daughters to drink tea without sugar.

There's not much chance of Charles giving up his extravagant lifestyle or his mistress (and gay lover).

But CBS clearly sees links between Mad King George and Prince Charles - their article about Charles views on his ancestor is cheekily entitled Did 'Mad' King George Get Bum Rap

More information:
The Scotsman - George III was ill, not insane, argues Charles
CBS News -Did 'Mad' King George Get Bum Rap?
The BBC - George III and History's Poisoned Well
BBC News - Clarence House statement in full

28 January 2004

Queen bashes pheasant to death and becomes patron of ThroneOut

There's no better way to enjoy wild birds in their natural environment than saying hello to them with both barrels of a shotgun. Its a beautiful thing to see a bird in flight ripped to pieces by hundreds of pieces of high velocity lead shot. But sometimes you don't quite manage to finish the little buggers off.

In such circumstances there is only one thing the humane, kind, caring bird killer can do - finish your feathered pal off promptly by clubbing the remaining life out of it with your walking stick. And this is exactly what our caring Queen was photographed doing. Reportedly it took our ailing monarch some 5 whacks to despatch the little blighter, but her persistence paid off. What a lovely lady, an inspiration to all of us who enjoy killing animals for fun (without them suffering too much, naturally).

Some would say that such behaviour was inappropriate for our head of state, especially as HM the Queen is also patron of the RSPB - The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. But no, apparently the best way to protect birds is by firing at them whilst shouting "hoorah" with your inbred friends.

As a tribute to our Queen, and her absolute hypocrisy, we've decided to appoint her Royal Patron of ThroneOut. We are honoured that a woman, whose views and position might initially appear to be contrary to the aims of ThroneOut, should so courteously permit us to use her name on our letterhead, alongside our other great Patrons, Diana "Princess of People's Hearts" (and shagger of arab heart surgeons), and of course our first patron, King Charles I.

For more information:
Daily Mail - Queen clubs bird to death
Daily Record - Pheasant Clubbing Defended

06 January 2004

Aussie republican is true king of England

A historical thesis, explored in a recent television documentary, suggests that Edward IV, who reigned from 1461 to 1483, was conceived when his parents were 160 kilometres apart.

His "father", Richard Duke of York, was fighting the French at Pontoise, near Paris, while his mother, Lady Cicely Neville, was at court in Rouen.

She was said to be spending much of her time in the company of a local archer with whom she was rumoured to be having an affair.

Since the evidence suggests that Edward IV was hence illegitimate (and therefore not the real son of the King), he and his heirs would have no claim to the throne. Instead, the succession should have followed a different line leading to Michael Abney-Hastings, a forklift truck driver in Australia.

Yet again, the more you dig, the more you find royals bed hopping and sprog popping with people they shouldn't. This only lends weight to ThroneOut's call for the Windsors to be DNA tested. Who knows how many of them have no claim to the large amounts of tax payers' money they help themselves to? Of course, if this research is right, none of them do.

More info:
BBC News - Aussie is 'heir to English crown'

Diana claimed charles would kill her in car accident

ThroneOut has previously reported how Diana had claimed that a "senior royal" was planning to kill her in a car accident. The Mirror Newspaper has now confirmed that the letter she wrote accuses Prince Charles of planning her death. Diana was killed in a car accident later that year.

Diana was apparently convinced that she would be killed and had famously collated evidence of wrongdoing by Prince Charles which she apparently intended to use in any battle with him over the custody of her sons. There was also claimed to be unease in high places about the extent of her relationship with Dodi Fayed who would have been step father to the future King had Diana and Dodi married.

In related developments, the coroner appointed to oversee the inquest into Diana's death has adjourned the inquest until 2005 after appointing a senior policeman to investigate whether Diana's death was suspicious. So we have:
1) Diana rumoured to be about to marry Dodi Fayed, and possibly pregnant with his child
2) Diana collating evidence about male rape and other wrongdoing within Prince Charles' home, for use in a custody battle over William and Harry
3) Diana alleging that Prince Charles would arrange a car accident to kill her
4) Diana dying shortly afterwards in a car accident
5) Numerous documented inconsistencies with the official version of events both before and after the accident.

No doubt Mr Plod will conclude that there is nothing suspicious at all. Afterall, why let a jury see the evidence, when you can let one copper who has pledged allegiance to the Queen decide that for you?

"Nothing for you to see here folks, move along."

Coverage of this current story:
The Guardian - Burrell: I didn't want Charles named
BBC News - Diana crash investigation ordered