We are now on Facebook! Join us here:
www.facebook.com/ThroneOut
19 February 2015
04 June 2012
Ruler more popular than ever
The nation's capital was awash with patriotic scenes of fervour as loyal subjects demonstrated their love for their ruling dynasty. There seems to be no decline in the huge popularity of a family that has overseen stability throughout decades that have seen all kind of uprisings, regime changes and turmoil elsewhere.
Critics have pointed to the luxurious lifestyle enjoyed by the rulers, who live in mansions, enjoy expensive wines and food imported from around the globe while the nation's economy lurches from crisis to crisis. But those present at the festivities seemed unconcerned, "look at them up there waving - it must be exhausting. Who'd deny them fois gras and a few bottles of bolly plus seven big houses for all the selfless effort?".
It seems if the crowds are anything to go by, the ruling family are as popular as ever. A quick straw poll among people who turned up to cheer them showed almost unanimous support.
The police meanwhile, remained vigilant and took steps yet again to imprison anyone who might 'spoil the fun' for everyone else by demanding democracy openly during a government funded propaganda exercise.
23 October 2009
14 January 2009
'Paki' and 'Raghead' officially no longer racist terms
After video of Prince Harry using both words emerged, royal brown-nosers have rallied round to clear the prince of any wrongdoing. It has been decided by senior government and military chiefs that both terms will retrospectively removed from the lexicon of offensive racist slurs and recategorized as harmless friendly banter. Consequently Harry will not be censured for use of the terms, and in fact has been praised by those hoping for knighthoods as a poster child for race relations.
Furthermore, some other terms popularly used by the prince have similarly had their meanings reclassified to head-off any future controversy.
1. N*gger - A gentleman who you are very friendly with and have a close working relationship with, and for whom you have the utmost respect and who might coincidentally have a darker than average skin tone
2. F*cking c*nt - A bit of a wag who is nevertheless quite lovable and well meaning
3. M*therf*cker - Any man known to have met Prince Diana on more than one occasion, or for more than 10 minutes on a single occasion
More info:
News of the World - Prince Harry's racist outbursts on video
Furthermore, some other terms popularly used by the prince have similarly had their meanings reclassified to head-off any future controversy.
1. N*gger - A gentleman who you are very friendly with and have a close working relationship with, and for whom you have the utmost respect and who might coincidentally have a darker than average skin tone
2. F*cking c*nt - A bit of a wag who is nevertheless quite lovable and well meaning
3. M*therf*cker - Any man known to have met Prince Diana on more than one occasion, or for more than 10 minutes on a single occasion
More info:
News of the World - Prince Harry's racist outbursts on video
02 April 2008
Coroner rules out conspiracy verdict
According to newspaper reports the Diana Inquest has cost some £7-10million. The hope was that it would clear up some of the unanswered questions about Diana's death, and in doing so, reach a conclusion as to whether her death was an accident, manslaughter or perhaps murder.
The previous coroner, Baroness Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, had decided that she would sit without a jury and decide the verdict alone.
This caused an amount of comment, especially from those supporting a conspiracy theory, who saw a whitewash - an establishment figure alone deciding the outcome. They argued that only by allowing a jury of normal people to decide a verdict would there be any chance of convincing skeptics that the death really was just an accident.
Mohamed Al Fayed challenged the decision, and won. Despite the extra costs, the inquest would have a jury of normal people. Baroness Butler-Sloss stepped down as coroner.
Now with the inquest almost complete, and millions of pounds later, the new coroner has decided that the jury won't have the option to decide that there was a conspiracy after all. They'll be limited to finding that deaths were either an accident, manslaughter (by drunk driver/paparazzi) or unexplained. The jury cannot apparently be trusted to dismiss a conspiracy themselves, so must have it done for them.
Its by no means likely that the jury would have concluded that it was a conspiracy. But it makes a mockery of the legal ruling to use a jury if another establishment figure (the current coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker) then takes away the most controversial of options from them. Surely if the evidence for a conspiracy is so non-existent, then a jury can be trusted to come to this conclusion too?
Perhaps the millions might have been better spent elsewhere.
More info:
The Independent - Coroner rules out Diana murder verdict
The previous coroner, Baroness Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, had decided that she would sit without a jury and decide the verdict alone.
This caused an amount of comment, especially from those supporting a conspiracy theory, who saw a whitewash - an establishment figure alone deciding the outcome. They argued that only by allowing a jury of normal people to decide a verdict would there be any chance of convincing skeptics that the death really was just an accident.
Mohamed Al Fayed challenged the decision, and won. Despite the extra costs, the inquest would have a jury of normal people. Baroness Butler-Sloss stepped down as coroner.
Now with the inquest almost complete, and millions of pounds later, the new coroner has decided that the jury won't have the option to decide that there was a conspiracy after all. They'll be limited to finding that deaths were either an accident, manslaughter (by drunk driver/paparazzi) or unexplained. The jury cannot apparently be trusted to dismiss a conspiracy themselves, so must have it done for them.
Its by no means likely that the jury would have concluded that it was a conspiracy. But it makes a mockery of the legal ruling to use a jury if another establishment figure (the current coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker) then takes away the most controversial of options from them. Surely if the evidence for a conspiracy is so non-existent, then a jury can be trusted to come to this conclusion too?
Perhaps the millions might have been better spent elsewhere.
More info:
The Independent - Coroner rules out Diana murder verdict
02 March 2008
Harry retreats from Afghanistan before 'spring offensive' season
It was inevitable really. After the humiliation of dodging Iraq because the Army said it was 'too dangerous', an attempt at face saving was only a matter of time.
Afghanistan is considered much safer than Iraq, with the Independent noting that "The main British base in Helmand, Camp Bastion, has never been attacked, unlike its equivalent in Iraq, Basra air station. Even the forward operating bases in Lashkar Gah, the provincial capital, and Gereshk are reasonably safe."
The official excuse for withdrawing Harry was because of a media leak. However, an Australian Yahoo site broke the story some weeks back, and there had been much speculation in the media last year that Harry would be sent to Afghanistan as his regiment was scheduled to go.
Perhaps the MI6 spooks have inside knowledge that Al Qaeda get their celebrity news exclusively from the Drudge Report?
Harry spent just 10 weeks in Afghanistan, meaning he was posted some time around Christmas. In contrast, the rest of his regiment were reportedly posted to Iraq in October 2007 and had been there over 2 months by the time Harry turned up. So if the leak was the reason for him returning early (and the fact there were other leaks suggests it was not), what was the reason for him deploying late?
Quite probably Harry's late posting and early return were planned from the start to minimize the chance of any real 'action'.
It is widely known that hostilities die down in Afghanistan as the winter bites, resuming in the spring.
Indeed this year will likely be no exception, with the Taliban's military commander just a week ago warning of a spring offensive.
"The attack is imminent," he told Al Jazeera's Arabic channel in an interview aired on Wednesday.
"The number of Taliban mujahidin who are ready to launch the spring battle has reached 6000," he told Ahmed Zeidan, the Kabul bureau chief of Al Jazeera's Arabic channel.
Dadullah said that the fighters were concealed in tunnels and elsewhere in preparation for launching their attack.
So in order to avoid real risk, any deployment would have to be made to the safest theatre (Afghanistan) and at the safest time (from December to February) regardless of what the rest of his regiment were doing.
And despite Harry supposedly doing real soldiering, it turns out he was followed by a bunch of media lackeys filming the whole thing.
What is the betting there were no gun fights? Not even a couple of caged Taliban trucked in and let loose as a bit of sport.
Meanwhile the bodies of real troops who have died fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq continue to return without any media attention whatsoever.
For more information see
Al Jazeera - Taliban: Spring offensive is coming
Independent - Harry to Afghanistan
Aussie leak of Harry deployment
Afghanistan is considered much safer than Iraq, with the Independent noting that "The main British base in Helmand, Camp Bastion, has never been attacked, unlike its equivalent in Iraq, Basra air station. Even the forward operating bases in Lashkar Gah, the provincial capital, and Gereshk are reasonably safe."
The official excuse for withdrawing Harry was because of a media leak. However, an Australian Yahoo site broke the story some weeks back, and there had been much speculation in the media last year that Harry would be sent to Afghanistan as his regiment was scheduled to go.
Perhaps the MI6 spooks have inside knowledge that Al Qaeda get their celebrity news exclusively from the Drudge Report?
Harry spent just 10 weeks in Afghanistan, meaning he was posted some time around Christmas. In contrast, the rest of his regiment were reportedly posted to Iraq in October 2007 and had been there over 2 months by the time Harry turned up. So if the leak was the reason for him returning early (and the fact there were other leaks suggests it was not), what was the reason for him deploying late?
Quite probably Harry's late posting and early return were planned from the start to minimize the chance of any real 'action'.
It is widely known that hostilities die down in Afghanistan as the winter bites, resuming in the spring.
Indeed this year will likely be no exception, with the Taliban's military commander just a week ago warning of a spring offensive.
"The attack is imminent," he told Al Jazeera's Arabic channel in an interview aired on Wednesday.
"The number of Taliban mujahidin who are ready to launch the spring battle has reached 6000," he told Ahmed Zeidan, the Kabul bureau chief of Al Jazeera's Arabic channel.
Dadullah said that the fighters were concealed in tunnels and elsewhere in preparation for launching their attack.
So in order to avoid real risk, any deployment would have to be made to the safest theatre (Afghanistan) and at the safest time (from December to February) regardless of what the rest of his regiment were doing.
And despite Harry supposedly doing real soldiering, it turns out he was followed by a bunch of media lackeys filming the whole thing.
What is the betting there were no gun fights? Not even a couple of caged Taliban trucked in and let loose as a bit of sport.
Meanwhile the bodies of real troops who have died fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq continue to return without any media attention whatsoever.
For more information see
Al Jazeera - Taliban: Spring offensive is coming
Independent - Harry to Afghanistan
Aussie leak of Harry deployment
27 July 2007
Norwegian royal nutjob shares her special gift
Considering that European royals were appointed by God almighty himself, it's hardly surprising that they get to chat to his door staff. A Norwegian princess claims she is psychic and can talk to angels."I have lately understood the value of this important gift and I wish to share it with other people, maybe with you."
Ah, gawd bless you ma'am.
A three-year programme at her centre costs 24,000 Norwegian crowns ($4,150; 3,000 euros; £2,000) per year.
You what!?
So it seems that not only do the angels talk to her, they advise her to set up a shabby business milking gullible new age royalist twats for 2 grand a year.
We're sure that once the angels finish the pressing business of helping Martha Louise fleece suckers, they get straight on sorting out wars, disease and famines.
For more information see
Norway princess 'talks to angels'
21 July 2007
Spanish royal cartoon banned
Freedom of speech has been under threat in many EU countries despite it being supposedly guaranteed under law. In many countries, 'holocaust denial' is a crime punishable by years in jail. Of course, the truth is perfectly capable of standing up for itself but it seems there are some things that countries with a guilty past just cannot face being discussed.
Now the Spanish have stepped up the assault on liberal democracy and free speech with a dictatorship-era act against the publisher of a political cartoon portraying a Spanish prince. It's ironic given that Europe proudly trumpeted its free speech credentials when cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed were published in Denmark.
So Europeans should beware. You can insult a major world religion with impunity, but if you dare insult a royal family in similar fashion or question the legally-mandated view of world history, a prison cell beckons.
For more information see
Spanish royal sex cartoon banned
17 May 2007
Harry excused from war zone
ThroneOut had predicted that Prince Harry would not see front line service from the moment it was announced. But it seems he won't even be sent to Iraq at all because "it's dangerous".
Of course it is. It's a war zone. Well over a hundred British troops have been killed already, and the soldiers face suicide bombings, snipers, IEDs and mortar attacks on a daily basis. The insurgents are already doing their best to kill or capture enemy troops, as the recent attack on a US patrol that resulted in the capture of 3 servicemen shows.
None of that deters our country's misguided leaders from throwing more cannon fodder into the unwinnable quagmire. But when it comes to the Queen's grandchild, they suddenly become much more concerned about the dangers.
So the question is, if a royal cannot be sent to a war zone because as a high-profile person he'd be a special target, what the hell is he doing in the army anyway? What was the use of wasting tax payers' money on training him to shoot guns, drive tanks and bark commands to flunkies when as soon as those skills are actually required he's pulled out because (shock!) the other side might shoot at him?
In the dim and very distant past, kings themselves would lead their armies onto the battlefield. Very often, one of them would not leave it. Those days are long gone. Sure they like the uniforms, and the medals and the parades and the posing. But it's just fancy dress, because at heart members of the royal family are pampered pansies. The closest Harry comes to combat is punching tabloid photographers, and only then if there are some beefy bouncers to make sure he doesn't get punched back.
So in few years time when Harry gets married to some useless money-grabbing tart, and wears his military uniform with a chest full of medals, you'll know for sure he got them for being the useless bastard son of a useless family, rather than for acts of bravery on the battlefield.
For more information see
Prince Harry not to serve in Iraq
Of course it is. It's a war zone. Well over a hundred British troops have been killed already, and the soldiers face suicide bombings, snipers, IEDs and mortar attacks on a daily basis. The insurgents are already doing their best to kill or capture enemy troops, as the recent attack on a US patrol that resulted in the capture of 3 servicemen shows.
None of that deters our country's misguided leaders from throwing more cannon fodder into the unwinnable quagmire. But when it comes to the Queen's grandchild, they suddenly become much more concerned about the dangers.
So the question is, if a royal cannot be sent to a war zone because as a high-profile person he'd be a special target, what the hell is he doing in the army anyway? What was the use of wasting tax payers' money on training him to shoot guns, drive tanks and bark commands to flunkies when as soon as those skills are actually required he's pulled out because (shock!) the other side might shoot at him?
In the dim and very distant past, kings themselves would lead their armies onto the battlefield. Very often, one of them would not leave it. Those days are long gone. Sure they like the uniforms, and the medals and the parades and the posing. But it's just fancy dress, because at heart members of the royal family are pampered pansies. The closest Harry comes to combat is punching tabloid photographers, and only then if there are some beefy bouncers to make sure he doesn't get punched back.
So in few years time when Harry gets married to some useless money-grabbing tart, and wears his military uniform with a chest full of medals, you'll know for sure he got them for being the useless bastard son of a useless family, rather than for acts of bravery on the battlefield.
For more information see
Prince Harry not to serve in Iraq
25 March 2007
Harry accidentally falls into tabloid journalist
According to Buckingham Palace, a stone cold sober Prince Harry 'accidentally fell into a tabloid photographer' on his way home from a quiet night out in London last night. The spokesman said that the prince had enjoyed half a shandy early in the evening followed by one or two orange juices and a handful of bombay mix around 11pm.While leaving the club after not feeling up a girl who was not his girlfriend, he spotted a tabloid photographer and greeted him with a cheerful "And what do you do?" before posing politely for some photographs. However, in the poor light he stumbled on an uneven paving stone before accidentally shouting "I'm going to fucking kill you" while inadvertently attempting to rip the man's head off.
Harry's pending posting to Iraq has caused controversy after it emerged he would have minders to make sure he didn't come to any harm. The British Army explained the decision, "Prince Harry has experienced a number of accidents outside nightclubs due to poor quality pavement surfacing. Iraq has some of the most uneven sidewalks in the world, and Prince Harry is obviously at greater risk than the other troops because he will have the added distraction of trying not to fall onto tabloid journalists as well as avoiding snipers' bullets, roadside bombs and suicide attacks.
The British Army has asked the media not to attempt to follow the prince or reveal which suite in the heavily-fortified Basra Ritz-Carlton he will be patrolling.
For more information see
News of the World - Prince Harry Orf his head
BBC News - Harry club fracas claims denied
02 March 2007
Diana inquest will have jury
Since Diana's death in 1997 there have been persistent conspiracy theories that her death was not an accident.
An inquest has still not been held nearly 10 years later.
When the coroner for her inquest was finally appointed she decided to hold the inquest without a jury - she alone would decide the verdict.
ThroneOut criticized this decision. Such an inquest would be seen by those who disbelieve the official version of events as a whitewash.
After legal action by Mohamed Fayed, this decision has now been overturned, and the inquest will proceed with a jury.
It unlikely that true conspiracy buffs will be convinced by anything, including the verdict of a jury of randomly selected people, but for most the selection of an unbiased jury of ordinary members of the public will give much more legitimacy to whatever decision is reached.
Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. A single coroner acting alone may well come to the right decision, but in the eyes of many it would be a verdict that means nothing.
One has to ask why this commonsense decision was not made initially. It will be interesting to see if there is any legal attempt to appeal it, and again leave the decision on this controversial event to a single "estblishment" figure.
For more information see
ThroneOut - Public cannot be trusted with Diana inquest verdict
BBC News - Diana inquest to be heard by jury
An inquest has still not been held nearly 10 years later.
When the coroner for her inquest was finally appointed she decided to hold the inquest without a jury - she alone would decide the verdict.
ThroneOut criticized this decision. Such an inquest would be seen by those who disbelieve the official version of events as a whitewash.
After legal action by Mohamed Fayed, this decision has now been overturned, and the inquest will proceed with a jury.
It unlikely that true conspiracy buffs will be convinced by anything, including the verdict of a jury of randomly selected people, but for most the selection of an unbiased jury of ordinary members of the public will give much more legitimacy to whatever decision is reached.
Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. A single coroner acting alone may well come to the right decision, but in the eyes of many it would be a verdict that means nothing.
One has to ask why this commonsense decision was not made initially. It will be interesting to see if there is any legal attempt to appeal it, and again leave the decision on this controversial event to a single "estblishment" figure.
For more information see
ThroneOut - Public cannot be trusted with Diana inquest verdict
BBC News - Diana inquest to be heard by jury
16 January 2007
Public cannot be trusted with Diana inquest verdict
Since Diana's death there have been widespread suspicions that she may have been murdered due to many unanswered questions about her death. These suspicions were later inflamed by the revelation that she had claimed that she would be killed in a car crash.
The authorities of course have always denied foul play.
Having seen the inquest delayed until nearly 10 years after her death, and with an attempt made to hold the inquest in private, those believing in a conspiracy always suggested that an unbiased inquest would never take place. Their suspicion was that the jury would be a fixed jury (by using the coroner's powers to appoint a jury of members of the royal household).
Instead the coroner, Lady Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, has removed any reason for a bent jury - by deciding she alone will decide whether Diana was murdered by a government conspiracy. No jury required.
ThroneOut takes no position on whether Diana was murdered. Its entirely possible that her death was an accident, but then again many questions remain unanswered, and Diana herself claimed she would be murdered in a car crash.
But the move to exclude a jury will do absolutely nothing to dispel rumours of a conspiracy. Judges don't have a history of finding against "the establishment". Ask those who sat through Lord Hutton's investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly, and were stunned when he reached a verdict quite different from that which everyone else who sat through the hearings had expected.
The inquest verdict is of course a done deal. It seems inconceivable that the decision to exclude a jury could be made in a case of such great public interest. Instead the inquest has been turned into monumental waste of public money which will do absolutely nothing to dispel any rumours about a conspiracy.
More info
BBC News - Diana inquest to sit with no jury
The authorities of course have always denied foul play.
Having seen the inquest delayed until nearly 10 years after her death, and with an attempt made to hold the inquest in private, those believing in a conspiracy always suggested that an unbiased inquest would never take place. Their suspicion was that the jury would be a fixed jury (by using the coroner's powers to appoint a jury of members of the royal household).
Instead the coroner, Lady Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, has removed any reason for a bent jury - by deciding she alone will decide whether Diana was murdered by a government conspiracy. No jury required.
ThroneOut takes no position on whether Diana was murdered. Its entirely possible that her death was an accident, but then again many questions remain unanswered, and Diana herself claimed she would be murdered in a car crash.
But the move to exclude a jury will do absolutely nothing to dispel rumours of a conspiracy. Judges don't have a history of finding against "the establishment". Ask those who sat through Lord Hutton's investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly, and were stunned when he reached a verdict quite different from that which everyone else who sat through the hearings had expected.
The inquest verdict is of course a done deal. It seems inconceivable that the decision to exclude a jury could be made in a case of such great public interest. Instead the inquest has been turned into monumental waste of public money which will do absolutely nothing to dispel any rumours about a conspiracy.
More info
BBC News - Diana inquest to sit with no jury
30 November 2006
Republic 'best place to live in world'
Monarchists often argue that the without the monarchy the UK would be doomed. Either our tourism industry would collapse, we'd suffer political instability, or our national identity would disappear.
In the first half of the 20th Century one part of the UK did become a republic - Ireland. It gained its independence from the UK and replaced the monarch with an elected head of state.
Far from the ridiculous claims of the monarchists, Ireland has prospered. Its economic growth puts Britain to shame.
The Irish have not lost their national pride or identity - instead they've managed to export their culture and brands around the world.
Ireland has not ended up as a dictatorship - it is a healthy democracy.
Tourism to Ireland has boomed, despite the rather wet climate. And it has managed to shake of its role as a largely agricultural part of the UK to become a forward-looking high tech economy, attracting companies like Dell and Google.
More recently, the Economist decided that Ireland was the best place in the world to live.
Monarchists make many ridiculous claims about how our society, culture and prosperity will suffer as a republic, but this is not supported by the facts - the only part of the UK to have become a democratic republic has prospered.
BBC News - Ireland is named 'best country'
In the first half of the 20th Century one part of the UK did become a republic - Ireland. It gained its independence from the UK and replaced the monarch with an elected head of state.
Far from the ridiculous claims of the monarchists, Ireland has prospered. Its economic growth puts Britain to shame.
The Irish have not lost their national pride or identity - instead they've managed to export their culture and brands around the world.
Ireland has not ended up as a dictatorship - it is a healthy democracy.
Tourism to Ireland has boomed, despite the rather wet climate. And it has managed to shake of its role as a largely agricultural part of the UK to become a forward-looking high tech economy, attracting companies like Dell and Google.
More recently, the Economist decided that Ireland was the best place in the world to live.
Monarchists make many ridiculous claims about how our society, culture and prosperity will suffer as a republic, but this is not supported by the facts - the only part of the UK to have become a democratic republic has prospered.
BBC News - Ireland is named 'best country'
24 October 2006
Charles' tax avoidance questioned
Unlike us poor saps, the Windsors get to decide how much tax they pay, and whether they actually want to pay any tax at all.
For example the Queen wasn't required to pay inheritance tax on the Queen Mother's estate, and the will was made private (wills are normally public documents) so no one outside the Royal family knows how much tax was avoided.
The Queen volunteers to pay some income tax (after a generous deduction of expenses naturally - roast swan isn't cheap).
Charles' income derives from the Duchy of Cornwall. It (like the Duchy of Lancaster that creates income for the Queen) is exempt from both corporate and capital gains tax. No one is quite sure why.
Charles voluntarily agrees to pay some tax on this income (to stop the peasants revolting one assumes). However, since the accounts are closed (unlike every normal business in the UK that has to submit accounts to the taxman) its not clear exactly how much tax is being avoided by these exemptions.
Next time you get your payslip and see the large chunk the government has taken out of it, or have to pay a large inheritance tax bill on a deceased relative's estate, at least you can console yourself with the thought that part of these taxes are being used to support the Windsors living in their numerous homes. And that the Windsors are exempt from the taxes you have to pay.
More info:
The Telegraph - Watchdog investigates Charles' tax record
The Guardian - MPs angry at confidential royal will and tax deal
For example the Queen wasn't required to pay inheritance tax on the Queen Mother's estate, and the will was made private (wills are normally public documents) so no one outside the Royal family knows how much tax was avoided.
The Queen volunteers to pay some income tax (after a generous deduction of expenses naturally - roast swan isn't cheap).
Charles' income derives from the Duchy of Cornwall. It (like the Duchy of Lancaster that creates income for the Queen) is exempt from both corporate and capital gains tax. No one is quite sure why.
Charles voluntarily agrees to pay some tax on this income (to stop the peasants revolting one assumes). However, since the accounts are closed (unlike every normal business in the UK that has to submit accounts to the taxman) its not clear exactly how much tax is being avoided by these exemptions.
Next time you get your payslip and see the large chunk the government has taken out of it, or have to pay a large inheritance tax bill on a deceased relative's estate, at least you can console yourself with the thought that part of these taxes are being used to support the Windsors living in their numerous homes. And that the Windsors are exempt from the taxes you have to pay.
More info:
The Telegraph - Watchdog investigates Charles' tax record
The Guardian - MPs angry at confidential royal will and tax deal
20 June 2006
Diana inquiry finds new witnesses
According to the Daily Mail, police investigating the death of Diana have obtained statements from new witnesses. If true, these statements suggest that both the Royal Family and the UK Government had advance warning of the death of Diana in Paris.
These include:
- One of Tony Blair's security detail, who claims to have spoken to an RAF crew who told him that they had been on standby for 48 hours prior to Diana's death to fly Tony Blair.
- A wireless operator at the British Embassy in Paris who was on duty on the night of Diana's death claims that 2 "public school" type men burst in prior to the crash and forced him out of the room, taking over his job.
- a note from a source at the CIA, naming two MI6 agents, and suggesting that their roles be further investigated.
If true, the allegations suggest a conspiracy that goes to the heart of the British Establishment. Of course, an establishment capable of carrying out such a conspiracy would likely have the means to suppress it. It seems beyond belief that a member of Her Majesty's Police could determine anything other than a tragic accident as the cause of Diana's death?
More info:
Daily Mail - Revealed: Diana inquiry's tantalising new questions
These include:
- One of Tony Blair's security detail, who claims to have spoken to an RAF crew who told him that they had been on standby for 48 hours prior to Diana's death to fly Tony Blair.
- A wireless operator at the British Embassy in Paris who was on duty on the night of Diana's death claims that 2 "public school" type men burst in prior to the crash and forced him out of the room, taking over his job.
- a note from a source at the CIA, naming two MI6 agents, and suggesting that their roles be further investigated.
If true, the allegations suggest a conspiracy that goes to the heart of the British Establishment. Of course, an establishment capable of carrying out such a conspiracy would likely have the means to suppress it. It seems beyond belief that a member of Her Majesty's Police could determine anything other than a tragic accident as the cause of Diana's death?
More info:
Daily Mail - Revealed: Diana inquiry's tantalising new questions
15 March 2006
Charles's great uncle in military coup plots
A BBC documentary reveals that Harold Wilson not only believed that the secret services were plotting to discredit him, but that they intended to stage a military coup backed by the Royal Family.
Prince Charles's great uncle Lord Louis Mountbatten, who he was very close to, was to be installed as interim Prime Minister following the coup.
While some may dismiss this as paranoia on behalf of Wilson, various other information seems to corroborate his beliefs. New witnesses interviewed for the programme talk about these military coups and Mountbatten's role in them. Journalist Barrie Penrose, who secretly recorded meetings with Wilson, says they confirm such plotting "wasn't in the fevered imagination of an embittered ex-PM".
Penrose concludes his Radio Times article: "You may ask, at the end of the programme, how much of it can be believed. My view now, as it was then, is that Wilson was right in his fears.... in answer to the question 'how close did we come to a military government' I can only say - closer than we'd ever be content to think."
So much for the Royal Family and the monarchy as guarantors of freedom and democracy.
More information
BBC News - Wilson 'plot': The secret tapes
Prince Charles's great uncle Lord Louis Mountbatten, who he was very close to, was to be installed as interim Prime Minister following the coup.
While some may dismiss this as paranoia on behalf of Wilson, various other information seems to corroborate his beliefs. New witnesses interviewed for the programme talk about these military coups and Mountbatten's role in them. Journalist Barrie Penrose, who secretly recorded meetings with Wilson, says they confirm such plotting "wasn't in the fevered imagination of an embittered ex-PM".
Penrose concludes his Radio Times article: "You may ask, at the end of the programme, how much of it can be believed. My view now, as it was then, is that Wilson was right in his fears.... in answer to the question 'how close did we come to a military government' I can only say - closer than we'd ever be content to think."
So much for the Royal Family and the monarchy as guarantors of freedom and democracy.
More information
BBC News - Wilson 'plot': The secret tapes
11 February 2006
Tory call to strip the queen of powers
New Conservative Party leader David Cameron has called for the Queen to be stripped of many of her traditional powers.
Although the Queen still legally retains many "prerogative" powers, many of these are now exercised on her behalf by the elected government.
However the Queen retains a number of powers that she exercises personally. These include
- the power to dissolve Parliament
- the power to appoint a Prime Minister
- the power to award some honours
Mr Cameron has recently formed a "democracy task force" which will exam the use of some of these powers by the monarch, as well as the use of other prerogative powers (such as the power to declare war) by ministers.
More information:
The Guardian - Queen's powers should be removed, says Cameron
Although the Queen still legally retains many "prerogative" powers, many of these are now exercised on her behalf by the elected government.
However the Queen retains a number of powers that she exercises personally. These include
- the power to dissolve Parliament
- the power to appoint a Prime Minister
- the power to award some honours
Mr Cameron has recently formed a "democracy task force" which will exam the use of some of these powers by the monarch, as well as the use of other prerogative powers (such as the power to declare war) by ministers.
More information:
The Guardian - Queen's powers should be removed, says Cameron
27 October 2005
Charles lectures on global warming
When it comes to hypocrisy, they don't come much worse than the Windsors. The Queen (who is patron of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) was famously pictured "despatching" a bird that had been injured by her shooting party - by beating it to death with a stick.
Not to be outdone by his mother, Prince Charles has been lecturing the "proles" about global warming. Apparently its a problem and its something we should be doing something about (in case you hadn't heard).
Charles told the BBC:
"We should be treating, I think, the whole issue of climate change and global warming with a far greater degree of priority than I think is happening now"
Most would agree with this sentiment - the impact as well of the causes of global warming are widely known. But whilst many of us choose lower emission cars, public transport and cycling/walking as means of transport, the Windsors have shown a preference for helicopters - which use many times more fuel than a car for the same trip.
In the Times it was recently reported (in coverage of the Royal Budget):
On one occasion, Prince Charles took a chartered helicopter from his home Highgrove in Tetbury to nearby Gloucester and then on to Buckingham Palace for £4,031. His engagements included a Prince’s Trust event and a visit to Smithfield Market. In April last year, the Princess Royal took a chartered helicopter ride from her home Gatcombe Park to Thorncote Green for £4,710 to present rosettes at a pony club.
Once again the Windsor rule is "do as we say, not as we do".
More information:
BBC News - Prince's plea over climate change
The Times - Queen wins rebate as price of party cakes soars
Not to be outdone by his mother, Prince Charles has been lecturing the "proles" about global warming. Apparently its a problem and its something we should be doing something about (in case you hadn't heard).
Charles told the BBC:
"We should be treating, I think, the whole issue of climate change and global warming with a far greater degree of priority than I think is happening now"
Most would agree with this sentiment - the impact as well of the causes of global warming are widely known. But whilst many of us choose lower emission cars, public transport and cycling/walking as means of transport, the Windsors have shown a preference for helicopters - which use many times more fuel than a car for the same trip.
In the Times it was recently reported (in coverage of the Royal Budget):
On one occasion, Prince Charles took a chartered helicopter from his home Highgrove in Tetbury to nearby Gloucester and then on to Buckingham Palace for £4,031. His engagements included a Prince’s Trust event and a visit to Smithfield Market. In April last year, the Princess Royal took a chartered helicopter ride from her home Gatcombe Park to Thorncote Green for £4,710 to present rosettes at a pony club.
Once again the Windsor rule is "do as we say, not as we do".
More information:
BBC News - Prince's plea over climate change
The Times - Queen wins rebate as price of party cakes soars
25 September 2005
When Harry's dad met Di
It has long been speculated that Prince Harry's real father is Diana's ex-lover, James Hewitt. However, royalists and Hewitt himself have always claimed this is impossible because he only met Diana for the first time in 1986, and Harry was born in 1984. Now a new witness has produced evidence suggesting Hewitt was lying all this time.Best of all, it's a first hand witness to the couple's first meeting: James Hewitt himself.
Under hypnosis for a TV interview, Hewitt admits not only that he first met Diana in 1981, but that he began a sexual relationship with her in 1981 or 1982, at least a full 2 years before Harry was born.
He also claims that the secret service threatened him.
The admission destroys yet another royalist argument, a lie that has been repeated again and again by royalists on this very site. The evidence for Hewitt being Harry's father gets stronger all the time. No wonder the royals will do anything to avoid a DNA test for Harry. They obviously knew all this time that Hewitt was lying.
More information
The Mirror - Hewitt hypnotized
28 July 2005
Royal finances under scrutiny
MPs have been examining the finances of the Queen and Prince Charles. In addition to payments from the civil list, both have other sources of income from "private" estates.
The Duchy of Lancaster accounts show that the Queen benefited from a surplus of £9.7m, a 19.6% increase on the year before, while this year's Duchy of Cornwall accounts showed that Prince Charles's private income from his estates at £13.2m, up 11% on the previous year.
These amounts are in addition to civil list payments that the Royals receive from the state.
Both the Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy of Cornwall are exempt from capital gains tax and corporation tax, and are passed upon death without being subject to any inheritance tax. These tax breaks alone are worth several million pounds per year to the Queen and Prince Charles.
The accounts also show that the Duchy of Cornwall purchased a house for Michael Fawcett, Charles's very close friend and personal assistant. In 2003 Mr Fawcett obtained unprecedented injunctions preventing a raft of UK newspapers publishing allegations that he was caught in bed with Prince Charles.
MP have also voiced unease about the Duchy hiring interior designer Annabel Elliot. Mrs Elliot was paid to renovate three holiday cottages on the Isles of Scilly. MPs have pointed out a possible conflict of interest - Mrs Elliot happens to be the sister of Camilla Parker Bowles!
Many UK taxpayers will likely be shocked that they are having their own incomes taxed at up to 40%+, whilst the richest in the land, with jobs for life, are able to inherit large estates without paying inheritance tax, and then run those estates at a profit without paying any corporation or capital gains tax.
Cronyism, tax dodging and corruption. The changes in the House of Windsor appear largely cosmetic.
More information
The Guardian - MPs tell Prince of Wales: Open up
The Observer - Prince's £12m salary investigated
The Duchy of Lancaster accounts show that the Queen benefited from a surplus of £9.7m, a 19.6% increase on the year before, while this year's Duchy of Cornwall accounts showed that Prince Charles's private income from his estates at £13.2m, up 11% on the previous year.
These amounts are in addition to civil list payments that the Royals receive from the state.
Both the Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy of Cornwall are exempt from capital gains tax and corporation tax, and are passed upon death without being subject to any inheritance tax. These tax breaks alone are worth several million pounds per year to the Queen and Prince Charles.
The accounts also show that the Duchy of Cornwall purchased a house for Michael Fawcett, Charles's very close friend and personal assistant. In 2003 Mr Fawcett obtained unprecedented injunctions preventing a raft of UK newspapers publishing allegations that he was caught in bed with Prince Charles.
MP have also voiced unease about the Duchy hiring interior designer Annabel Elliot. Mrs Elliot was paid to renovate three holiday cottages on the Isles of Scilly. MPs have pointed out a possible conflict of interest - Mrs Elliot happens to be the sister of Camilla Parker Bowles!
Many UK taxpayers will likely be shocked that they are having their own incomes taxed at up to 40%+, whilst the richest in the land, with jobs for life, are able to inherit large estates without paying inheritance tax, and then run those estates at a profit without paying any corporation or capital gains tax.
Cronyism, tax dodging and corruption. The changes in the House of Windsor appear largely cosmetic.
More information
The Guardian - MPs tell Prince of Wales: Open up
The Observer - Prince's £12m salary investigated
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
