BBC shelves Princess Diana documentary 'after pressure from Prince Charles'.
The two-part documentary Reinventing The Royals has been axed from its prime-time 9pm slot this Sunday
BBC bosses have shelved a controversial documentary about the aftermath of Princess Diana’s death after legal pressure from Prince Charles, it has been claimed.
The two-part documentary Reinventing The Royals has been axed from its prime-time 9pm slot this Sunday.
It claims that the Royal Family employed PR experts who used controversial ‘spin’ tactics to make Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles more appealing to the public after Diana was killed in 1997.
Presented by former Panorama Editor Steve Hewlett, the hour-long documentary had already been included in BBC schedules after being cleared by BBC lawyers, the corporation’s editorial policy team and at the highest level of management.
However it is understood it was put on hold at the last minute by BBC news chief James Harding after lawyers acting on behalf of Charles and Camilla wrote of their concerns to the BBC.
The decision to postpone the programme was backed by the Director General Tony Hall.
It came so late that details of its content had already been given to the Radio Times.
The documentary includes the first TV interview with Sandy Henney, who was press secretary to Prince Charles when Diana died.
She said: “I remember briefing one of our private secretaries on the phone saying, ‘I know you’re seeing this on television but you really have to be here to feel the atmosphere.
‘The people here are really anti-monarchy.’ I was really worried about where it was going to go.”
Ms Henney said Charles’ public image was in tatters when she took up her post in 1993: “He was getting some pretty virulent criticism - bad father, unloving husband.
“I think he was pretty hurt... if you’ve got a middle-aged balding man and a beautiful princess, it’s a no-brainer as to who is going to get the media coverage.”
Steve Hewlett told the Radio Times that Prince Charles hired spin doctor Mark Bolland - dubbed ‘Blackadder’ by Harry and William - who attempted to repair his battered image by showing him as a single parent and caring father.
Another key objective was to encourage the public to accept his lover Camilla - a campaign known to palace insiders as ‘Operation Mrs PB’.
A BBC spokeswoman said: “The BBC is delaying broadcast of the documentary Reinventing The Royals, due to be shown on BBC Two on January 4, until later in the New Year while a number of issues including the use of archive footage are resolved.”
A spokeswoman for Clarence House refused to say whether or not royal lawyers had been in touch over the documentary and said: “Scheduling is a matter for the broadcaster.”
VIP homopaedo ring 'abused teenage boy INSIDE Buckingham Palace and Balmoral Castle'
The boy, then just 16, told how he was the victim of “exploitation of the highest order” - the claims could now be the subject of a police investigation
A teenage boy working at Buckingham Palace revealed he was groomed and sexually abused by a VIP paedophile ring there.
The lad was also assaulted at the Royal Family’s Scottish retreat Balmoral, according to shocking Home Office files, reports the Sunday People.
In a heartbreaking note, the boy – then just 16 – told how he was the victim of “exploitation of the highest order”.
The chilling claims could now be the subject of a police investigation into historic allegations of child sex abuse in the 1970s and 80s – linked to MPs and powerful figures.
The disturbing account was passed directly to the then Home Secretary Leon Brittan but he ruled it was “not practical” to investigate.
Campaigning Labour MP Tom Watson said: “I’m sure the Palace will want to co-operate with any inquiry.”
A Palace spokesman said: “The Royal Household takes any allegation of this nature seriously and would act to address any specific allegations or investigate specific information.”
Balmoral Castle Shadow on castle: Balmoral, where staff allegedly heard the boy scream at night
The Sunday People and the investigations website Exaro have established that the Home Office file contains evidence of a letter written by the boy’s mother.
She wrote to campaigning MP Geoffrey Dickens, fearing that her son had been groomed by a paedophile ring while working at the Buckingham Palace kitchens.
The boy was 16 at the time, putting him below the age of homosexual consent which was then 21 in England.
In Scotland homosexuality was still totally illegal.
Mr Dickens said at the time: “The boy told his parents he had been sexually abused by members of the Royal Household at the Palace.
“I am concerned the Palace could be part of a chain supplying young men to paedophiles in the diplomatic service.”
British Labour MP Tom Watson Demand: Labour MP Tom Watson is sure the Palace will co-operate with any inquiry
The 16-year-old went to work at the Palace in the early 1970s. After a few months his family noticed he was acting strangely.
A family friend told Exaro: “Things were OK when he first joined the Palace staff.
"After a few months, things started to turn a little strange.”
After what the source described as an “incident” at Balmoral, the royal family’s Scottish home, the boy’s parents were told by a close friend who also worked at Buckingham Palace that their son was being sexually abused there.
The source added: “They got wind of this after an incident at Balmoral when he screamed in the night.”
Concerned: Desperate parents wrote to MP Geoffrey Dickens for help
The concerned friend, who worked for the royals at the time, immediately alerted the boy’s parents.
He told them: “This is something that you should have nothing to do with.”
Reports from the time reveal further details of the boy’s ordeal.
One says his parents discovered a handwritten note from him.
It read: “What Buckingham Palace did for me was exploitation of the highest order.”
The boy’s mother said at the time: “My son was happy and normal until he went there.
"Then he changed completely. He refused to talk to us or discuss what he was up to.”
The boy’s father also claimed that young Palace staff were lavished with expensive gifts for “entertaining men”.
He added: “In some cases Palace officials were involved.
“Afterwards, the servants got good references to take up posts abroad with wealthy employers.”
According to the Home Office files, the desperate parents wrote to Geoffrey Dickens for help.
The MP raised the mother’s concerns with the Home Secretary in 1983.
But Mr Dickens received a reply saying Leon Brittan felt it would not be practical to carry out a detailed investigation.
He wrote: “I need hardly assure you that the Royal Household is extremely concerned at these unsubstantiated allegations and it is, of course, their policy to take every step to avoid an occurrence of such as is alleged.
Deputy head of MI5 Peter Hayman Deputy: The 16-year-old was approached by notorious paedophile Sir Peter Hayman
There is nobody currently employed in the Royal Household who is under the age of 18.”
Mr Brittan indicated that her son had worked at Buckingham Palace for a year, adding: “It is extremely difficult to comment on the accuracy of the allegations in the letter.”
But an even more chilling development is contained in the files, lending weight to the claims that a paedophile VIP ring was linked to the Palace.
During his time at Buckingham Palace, the 16-year-old was approached by notorious paedophile Sir Peter Hayman and was asked to work for him in Canada, where he was ambassador.
Hayman has been identified as a member of the VIP paedophile ring operating in Westminster and is known to have had royal connections.
The site of the former Elm Guest House in Barnes Scandal: The site of the former Elm Guest House in Barnes
He was desperate to have the boy working for him, even writing to his parents to ask them about taking his son on as a footman. Hayman said the boy would need winter clothes.
The parents never found out how Hayman knew their son.
But the source said: “They knew there was something wrong.”
The parents were so concerned by Hayman’s approach that they attempted to stop their son working for him, the family friend explained.
Exaro has established that the boy’s parents intervened to stop him going to Canada to work for Hayman.
Mr Watson, who has led the campaign for a full-scale inquiry into claims of child sex abuse at the heart of the Establishment, said: “In light of what we now know, any allegation of sexual crimes regarding Peter Hayman should be thoroughly investigated.
“He was protected by the Establishment at the time.
“The full extent of how his conduct was covered up has not been explained.”
MP: Leon Brittan felt it would not be practical to carry out a detailed investigation
The parents and their son have declined to comment on the allegations.
But the revelations link Buckingham Palace to a paedophile network of MPs and powerful figures that operated over many years in the UK.
Palace officials have already been linked to the notorious brothel the Elm Guest House in South West London.
Police are investigating archives on Hayman in a bid to find his links to other Establishment homopaedo's.
"An abuse survivor, known as “Nick” to protect his identity, named one of his many VIP attackers as Hayman.
Nick picked Hayman out from a collection of pictures that Exaro showed to him, placing him at abuse parties with other paedophiles.
An appendix to a review by the Home Office last year reveals one of their missing files was called: “Sir Peter Hayman (1980-81 Papers Ex-Diplomat’s Intriguing Private Life).”
Meanwhile they use their guns to kill the very wildlife they CLAIM to protect
The Duke of Edinburgh has collected an award on behalf of Balmoral Estate for its wildlife practice.
The Wildlife Estates Scotland (WES) accreditation is given to farms and estates that demonstrate a standard of excellence in land management.
To receive the award, estates have to encourage wildlife conservation and biodiversity through careful species and habitat management.
Over 20 farms and estates have achieved accreditation in Scotland.
Red deer stalking, grouse shooting and salmon fishing are all managed at Balmoral.
Richard Gledson, Balmoral's resident factor, said the royal family were "thrilled" by the award.
He added: "We are delighted that the estate has been awarded WES accreditation.
"It marks the culmination of a long process to ensure Balmoral meets the high standards of the scheme."
Harmsworth's lunacy as Daily Rat goes OTT on royal parasites USA visit
Jonathan Harmsworth is the royal parasites masonic little helper pumping out royalist propaganda and shows
his pathological obsession of promoting a vile system of control along with the myriad of
American masonic / zionist run media companies used to portray a regime as some sort of force for good.
America's royalist sheeple fall for this bullshit time and again.
James Bond a royalist propaganda tool (Killing for Queen then country) VIDEO
Freemasons used as assassination goons against anyone who treads on their toes
Power dressing parasites
Royals secret political interference before the judicial mafia VIDEO
Royal parasite and Margaret Thatcher conspired to cover up Jimmy Savile’s child abuse
Former BBC radio DJ Noel Edmonds has made the shocking claim that the Royal Family and Margaret Thatcher conspired to cover up Jimmy Savile’s decades-long reign of sexual abuse, including the rape of children and sexual offences against the dead.
He also defended convicted sex offender DJ Dave Lee Travis, saying he was ‘not a nasty guy’ and just ‘misguided’.
Edmonds, who spent much of the Seventies working alongside Savile and Travis at the BBC, said that it was not fair to blame the Corporation for covering up hundreds of sex crimes, some against children as young as eight.
‘What transpired was unspeakable,’ he told the Mail on Sunday’s Event magazine, ‘But it’s wrong to blame the culture of the BBC.’
‘Savile was in deep with the Royals, with Mrs Thatcher, with the hospitals and with Broadmoor.
‘There’s a whole establishment that let him into its heart. Not just the BBC’
But Dave Lee Travis – the former BBC DJ who was recently found guilty of indecent assault – was not in the same league as Savile, Edmonds argued.
‘He’s not a nasty guy,’ Edmonds said. ‘There was no bad vibe about him. I was never aware of anything remotely sleazy about Dave. At worst he was possibly misguided.’
Savile often flaunted his friendship with the Royal Family, and spent Christmas at Chequers with Mrs Thatcher when she was Prime Minister.
Evidence of his crimes only came out after his death.
Sick bucket out for the gushing shit the Script speak about meeting the royal parasite.
Coincidently the TV company who made this royalist propaganda are called Princes TV Productions
based at Bayswater in London ONLY a stones throw away from one of their
many opulent mansions Kensington Palace inside Kensington Gardens.
Why do the royal mafia spend so much time mourning the war dead?
The British gutter press, if they are not spending all their time suggesting the light shines from the royal arse,
are busily connecting the royal mafia with the war dead. DO THEY GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THEM??????
Not one bit but the controlled media suggest that somehow all those men and young boys who gave their lives to ensure our freedom
instead did so to protect the utter tyranny that assures the richest despotic family on the planet remains so. The murderous
freemason mafia they use on a global scale, like a world stasi, are behind ALL the creepy spy networks Ed Snowden exposed
without really connecting the dots that goes right to the heart of the most sinister bunch of gangsters who continue to be protected
by their lackeys that run the press gangs.
BUCKINGHAM PALACE THE MOST EXPENSIVE PROPERTY ON THE PLANET
WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE IF THEY DIDN'T GET THE MASSIVE HAND OUTS FROM THE PUBLIC
PURSE AS THEY ARE THE BIGGEST
BENEFIT SCROUNGERS OF ALL
Jonathan Harmsworth maybe the biggest kisser of the royal arse on the planet ran a story in his vile Daily rat yesterday
claiming the most expensive property globally is Buckingham Palace worth over £1,000,000,000 and far more expensive
than any other palace owned by the global pariah of oligarchs. That is despite ALL the rich lists published yearly vastly underestimating
the worth of these evil bastards, BUT WHY????????????
WHAT HAS SHE GOT TO DO WITH DEAD SOLDIERS?????
If the worlds peasants really knew the true extent of the royals plundering across the globe there would be anarchy and why
the media mafia are all primed to vastly underestimate the trillions they have accumulated through their TOTAL control of the biggest terror groups on the planet the freemason gangsters and law society's that steal trillions from men caught up in their legal traps.
So the sheeple are once again blinded by the media light that shines on the Tower of London with poppies representing
the war dead and by connecting the TOWER, which was a symbol of royal tyranny throughout the centuries and used to
hung draw and quarter enemies, they are trying to suggest that these artificial poppies somehow represent them as caring.
WHEN THEY ARE THE MOST RUTHLESS MURDEROUS SCUM ON THE PLANET .
Geldof on another round of Band Aid to promote the royal parasites? VIDEO
Geldof kisses the royal arse big time at the Live Aid ruse 1985
(Was the whole charade to promote the royals
under the guise of babies dying in Africa?)
It has become as much of a festive staple as turkey and tinsel – but now Do They Know It’s Christmas? is getting a very modern update.
Three decades since their charity single first topped the charts, Bob Geldof and Midge Ure relaunched Band Aid yesterday. And while time may have taken its toll on both of them, they proved they have lost none of their youthful passion as they vowed to raise millions for victims of the ebola crisis in West Africa.
The pair are enlisting the help of a string of youthful acts – sprinkled with a few veteran singers – to record a new version of the song which raised £8million for famine victims in Ethiopia in 1984.
While the peasants get JAILED for not having a TV licence the royals and their lackeys are exempt
Another SECRET they want to keep SECRET just like the global freemason mafia she controls
and who do her VERY dirty work and they hand pick the judges ensuring ALL decisons are in their favour
A judge(NOT a jury) has ruled that the BBC should not release information about whether the Queen buys a TV licence because giving out this type of personal data is 'entirely unwarranted.'
The decision was made after an almost two-year battle between Gordon McIntosh, a journalist, and the BBC because the corporation refused to release information to him about whether any of the Royal Palaces - including Balmoral, Clarence House and Windsor Castle - had a television licence.
The lengthy wrangle has seen the request referred to appeal, the Information Commissioner and a tribunal, which all found the BBC was correct to withhold the information.
This means it will impossible to confirm if the Queen and other members of the Royal Family buy a television licence to watch their favourite programmes.
However many would assume they do, as a number of their preferred shows have emerged in recent years.
Downton Abbey is understood to be a favourite for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
Allen Leech, who plays Tom Branson in the drama, revealed Prince William told him he had become a fan of the show after the Duchess of Cambridge gave birth to Prince George.
The Queen is also widely rumoured to be a fan of gentle comedy Last of the Summer Wine.
Television aerials were also a definite fixture at the Tower of London as in 1986 one of the tower's historic ravens was dismissed from service for eating one.
Mr McIntosh initially wrote to the BBC in December 2012.
He wanted to know whether the £145.50 annual licence fee was paid for televisions at each of the Royal Palaces including Highgrove House and Buckingham Palace, as well as for Westminster.
In the request he wrote: 'I would like to know if the Royal Palaces, including Westminster, have licences for all of their televisions, and if you scrutinise and check in the same way as for residential or commercial premises.
But the BBC rejected his request - made under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act - insisting the details were 'personal data' and therefore exempt.
Mr McIntosh complained and asked the BBC to review its decision, stating that they should have given a list of all properties - for example all the apartments in Kensington Palace - detailing which have licences.
This was rejected and referred to the Information Commissioner, who backed the BBC.
The Information Commissioner upheld the BBC's decision saying there was 'a risk individuals could be identified from a full post code', given that there were so few residents in the specified addresses.
'TV Licence holders would have an expectation that the details about their licence held by the BBC would not be disclosed,' the Commissioner found, saying it was hard to see 'how disclosure would meet any specific public interest'.
Mr McIntosh argued the decision and said 'a glaringly obvious public interest matter has been, in my opinion, negligently overlooked by the Information Commissioner's Office'.
He said 'reliable sources' had told him many staff and non-royal residents in palace accommodation do not pay for TV licences and that, if they were not being prosecuted due to their 'links to the Monarch', the public should know.
However, Judge Anisa Dhanji, sitting at the tribunal with fellow panel members Michael Jones and Nigel Watson today , said there was 'no evidence' to substantiate the claims, which were denied by the BBC.
She concluded: 'Even if there was a legitimate interest and disclosure was necessary, we consider that disclosure would be unwarranted by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subjects.'
The judge concluded by dismissing suggestions by Mr McIntosh that the Information Commissioner had a 'vested interest in protecting the royal household'.
'There is also no evidence that the Commissioner has acted with anything other than impartially in this case,' she said.
When the BBC earlier asked Mr McIntosh to clarify the addresses he was referring to, he also asked to know how many 'exemption requests' the corporation had received for these premises in the past two years.
He wanted to know: 'Are you pro-actively making, and then following up on licensing requests to these premises and how many requests were made in the last two years to how many 'properties' within the palaces/government residences?'
The BBC replied, clarifying that it was its 'duty to ensure that everyone in the UK who needs a licence has one' and stating that there had been no requests for exemptions from the specified addresses.
Almost 200,000 people are prosecuted a year – one in nine of all lower court cases - and more than 50 people were sent to prison in 2012-2013 for failing to buy a TV licence.
TV Licensing last year released some of the worst excuses for failing to pay.
These included one person who said: 'Apparently my dog, which is a corgi, is related to the Queen's dog so I didn't think I needed a TV Licence.
Another person said they thought they could avoid the charge because they spent a lot of time watching television at a neighbour's house.
Royal parasites press lackey on his version of how they operate VIDEO
Beating the drum for UK plc or more like propping up dictators??? and playing down their massive wealth
Fuck the royal parasite VIDEO
The establishment uncovered: how power works in Britain
In an exclusive extract from his new book, Owen Jones explains how the political, social and business elites have a stranglehold on the country
Definitions of "the establishment" share one thing in common: they are always pejorative. Rightwingers tend to see it as the national purveyor of a rampant, morally corrupting social liberalism; for the left, it is more likely to mean a network of public-school and Oxbridge boys dominating the key institutions of British political life.
Here is what I understand the establishment to mean. Today's establishment is made up – as it has always been – of powerful groups that need to protect their position in a democracy in which almost the entire adult population has the right to vote. The establishment represents an attempt on behalf of these groups to "manage" democracy, to make sure that it does not threaten their own interests. In this respect, it might be seen as a firewall that insulates them from the wider population. As the well-connected rightwing blogger and columnist Paul Staines puts it approvingly: "We've had nearly a century of universal suffrage now, and what happens is capital finds ways to protect itself from, you know, the voters."
Back in the 19th century, as calls for universal suffrage gathered strength, there were fears in privileged circles that extending the vote to the poor would pose a mortal threat to their own position – that the lower rungs of society would use their newfound voice to take away power and wealth from those at the top and redistribute it throughout the electorate. "I have heard much on the subject of the working classes in this house which, I confess, has filled me with feelings of some apprehension," Conservative statesman Lord Salisbury told parliament in 1866, in response to plans to extend the suffrage. Giving working-class people the vote would, he stated, tempt them to pass "laws with respect to taxation and property especially favourable to them, and therefore dangerous to all other classes".
The worries of those 19th-century opponents of universal suffrage were not without foundation. In the decades that followed the second world war, constraints were imposed on Britain's powerful interests, including higher taxes and the regulation of private business. This was, after all, the will of the recently enfranchised masses. But today, many of those constraints have been removed or are in the process of being dismantled – and now the establishment is characterised by institutions and ideas that legitimise and protect the concentration of wealth and power in very few hands.
The interests of those who dominate British society are disparate; indeed, they often conflict with one another. The establishment includes politicians who make laws; media barons who set the terms of debate; businesses and financiers who run the economy; police forces that enforce a law that is rigged in favour of the powerful. The establishment is where these interests and worlds intersect, either consciously or unconsciously. It is unified by a common mentality, which holds that those at the top deserve their power and their ever-growing fortunes, and which might be summed up by the advertising slogan "Because I'm worth it". This is the mentality that has driven politicians to pilfer expenses, businesses to avoid tax, and City bankers to demand ever greater bonuses while plunging the world into economic disaster. All of these things are facilitated – even encouraged – by laws that are geared to cracking down on the smallest of misdemeanours committed by those at the bottom of the pecking order – for example, benefit fraud. "One rule for us, one rule for everybody else" might be another way to sum up establishment thinking.
These mentalities owe everything to the shared ideology of the modern establishment, a set of ideas that helps it to rationalise and justify its position and behaviour. Often described as "neoliberalism", this ideology is based around a belief in so-called free markets: in transferring public assets to profit-driven businesses as far as possible; in a degree of opposition – if not hostility – to a formal role for the state in the economy; support for reducing the tax burden on private interests; and the driving back of any form of collective organisation that might challenge the status quo. This ideology is often rationalised as "freedom" – particularly "economic freedom" – and wraps itself in the language of individualism. These are beliefs that the establishment treats as common sense, as being a fact of life, just like the weather.
Not to subscribe to these beliefs is to be outside today's establishment, to be dismissed by it as an eccentric at best, or even as an extremist fringe element. Members of the establishment genuinely believe in this ideology – but it is a set of beliefs and policies that, rather conveniently, guarantees them ever growing personal riches and power.
As well as a shared mentality, the establishment is cemented by financial links and a "revolving door": that is, powerful individuals gliding between the political, corporate and media worlds – or who manage to inhabit these various worlds at the same time. The terms of political debate are, in large part, dictated by a media controlled by a small number of exceptionally rich owners, while thinktanks and political parties are funded by wealthy individuals and corporate interests. Many politicians are on the payroll of private businesses; along with civil servants, they end up working for companies interested in their policy areas, allowing them to profit from their public service – something that gives them a vested interest in an ideology that furthers corporate interests. The business world benefits from the politicians' and civil servants' contacts, as well as an understanding of government structures and experience, allowing private firms to navigate their way to the very heart of power.
Yet there is a logical flaw at the heart of establishment thinking. It may abhor the state – but it is completely dependent on the state to flourish. Bailed-out banks; state-funded infrastructure; the state's protection of property; research and development; a workforce educated at great public expense; the topping up of wages too low to live on; numerous subsidies – all are examples of what could be described as a "socialism for the rich" that marks today's establishment.
This establishment does not receive the scrutiny it deserves. After all, it is the job of the media to shed light on the behaviour of those with power. But the British media is an integral part of the British establishment; its owners share the same underlying assumptions and mantras. Instead, journalists and politicians alike obsessively critique and attack the behaviour of those at the bottom of society. Unemployed people and other benefit claimants; immigrants; public-sector workers – these are groups that have faced critical exposure or even outright vilification. This focus on the relatively powerless is all too convenient in deflecting anger away from those who actually wield power in British society.
To understand what today's establishment is and how it has changed, we have to go back to 1955: a Britain shaking off postwar austerity in favour of a new era of consumerism, rock'n'roll and Teddy Boys. But there was a more sinister side to the country, and it disturbed an ambitious Tory journalist in his early 30s named Henry Fairlie.
Early in his career, Fairlie was mixing with the powerful and the influential. In his 20s, he was already writing leader columns for the Times. But, at the age of 30, he left for the world of freelance writing and began penning a column for the Spectator magazine. Fairlie had grown cynical about the higher echelons of British society and, one day in the autumn of 1955, he wrote a piece explaining why. What attracted his attention was a scandal involving two Foreign Office officials, Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean, who had defected to the Soviet Union. Fairlie suggested that friends of the two men had attempted to shield their families from media attention.
This, he asserted, revealed that "what I call the 'establishment' in this country is today more powerful than ever before". His piece made "the establishment" a household phrase – and made Fairlie's name in the process.
For Fairlie, the establishment included not only "the centres of official power – though they are certainly part of it" – but "the whole matrix of official and social relations within which power is exercised".
This "exercise of power", he claimed, could only be understood as being "exercised socially". In other words, the establishment comprised a set of well-connected people who knew one another, mixed in the same circles and had one another's backs. It was not based on official, legal or formal arrangements, but rather on "subtle social relationships".
Fairlie's establishment consisted of a diverse network of people. It was not just the likes of the prime minister and the archbishop of Canterbury, but also incorporated "lesser mortals" such as the chairman of the Arts Council, the director general of the BBC and the editor of the Times Literary Supplement, "not to mention divinities like Lady Violet Bonham Carter" – the daughter of former Liberal prime minister Herbert Asquith, confidante of Winston Churchill and grandmother of future Hollywood actor Helena Bonham Carter.
The Foreign Office was, Fairlie claimed, "near the heart of the pattern of social relationships which so powerfully controls the exercise of power in this country", stacked as it was with those who "know all the right people". In other words, the establishment was all about "who you know".
But important facets of power in Britain were missing from Fairlie's definition. First, there was no reference to shared economic interests, the profound links that bring together the big-business, financial and political elites. Second, his piece gave no sense of a common mentality binding the establishment together. There was one – although it was very different from the mentality that dominates today, despite the fact that, then as now, an Old Etonian Conservative (Anthony Eden) was in Downing Street. For this was the era of welfare capitalism, and an ethos of statism and paternalism – above all, a belief that active government was necessary for a healthy, stable society – was shared by those with power.
The differences between Fairlie's era and our own show that Britain's ruling establishment is not static: the upper crust of British society has always been in a state of perpetual flux. This relentless change is driven by survival. History is littered with demands from below for ruling elites to give up some of their power, forcing members of the upper crust of British society to compromise. After all, unchecked obstinacy in the face of demands for change risks bringing down not just individual pillars of the establishment, but the entire system of power with them.
The monarchy is a striking example of a traditional pillar of power that, faced with occasionally formidable threats, has had to adapt to survive. This was evident right from the origins of a power-sharing arrangement between crown and parliament struck in the aftermath of revolution and foreign invasion in the 17th century, and which continues to exist today. Many of the monarchy's arbitrary powers, such as the ability to wage war, ended up in the hands of the prime minister. Even today, the monarchy's role is not entirely symbolic.
"The Crown is a bit of a vague institution, but it is kind of the heart of the constitution, where all the power comes from," says Andrew Child, campaign manager of Republic, a group advocating an elected head of state. The prime minister appoints and sacks government ministers without needing to consult the legislature or electorate because he is using the Queen's powers: these are the Crown's ministers, not the people's. In practice, too, members of the royal family have a powerful platform from which to intervene in democratic decisions.
Prince Charles, the designated successor to the throne, has met with ministers at least three dozen times since the 2010 general election and is known to have strong opinions on issues such as the environment, the hunting ban, "alternative" medicine and heritage.
In contrast to other European countries, Britain's aristocracy also managed to avoid obliteration by adapting and assimilating. In the wake of the industrial revolution it absorbed – much to the disgust of traditionalists – some prospering businessmen into its ranks, such as the City of London financier Lord Addington and the silk broker Lord Cheylesmore. The aristocracy continued to wield considerable political power throughout the 19th century, supplying many prime ministers, such as the 1st Duke of Wellington, the 2nd Earl Grey and the 2nd Viscount Melbourne. But following parliament acts passed by MPs in 1911 and 1949, this power was curtailed when the elected House of Commons enshrined in law its own dominance over the aristocrats' House of Lords. The legacy of centuries of aristocratic power has not vanished, though: more than a third of English and Welsh land – and more than 50% of rural land – remains in the hands of just 36,000 aristocrats.
Although less influential today than it has ever been, the Church of England retains the trappings of its old power. Indeed, the word establishment is testament to its one-time importance: the term is likely to derive from the fact that the Church of England is the country's "established church", or state religion, with the monarch serving as its head. The church's most senior official, the archbishop of Canterbury, is appointed by the prime minister on behalf of the monarch.
Even though Britain is one of the most irreligious countries on Earth, with just one in 10 attending church each week and a quarter of Britons having no religious beliefs, the Church of England still runs one in four primary and secondary schools in England, while its bishops sit in the House of Lords, making Britain the only country – other than Iran – to have automatically unelected clerics sitting in the legislature.
The establishment is a shape-shifter, evolving and adapting as needs must. But one thing that distinguishes today's establishment from earlier incarnations is its sense of triumphalism. The powerful once faced significant threats that kept them in check. But the opponents of our current establishment have, apparently, ceased to exist in any meaningful, organised way. Politicians largely conform to a similar script; once-mighty trade unions are now treated as if they have no legitimate place in political or even public life; and economists and academics who reject establishment ideology have been largely driven out of the intellectual mainstream. The end of the cold war was spun by politicians, intellectuals and the media to signal the death of any alternative to the status quo: "the end of history", as the US political scientist Francis Fukuyama put it. All this has left the establishment pushing at an open door. Whereas the position of the powerful was once undermined by the advent of democracy, an opposite process is now underway.
The establishment is amassing wealth and aggressively annexing power in a way that has no precedent in modern times. After all, there is nothing to stop it.
These evil bastards have claim to everything we think we own
Every last one of the gutter press that promote the world's richest and most despotic gangsters can NEVER be trusted with what they push as news. Despite endless revelations about the sinister, devious and dangerous agenda of Britain's royal family every last newspaper, tv and radio station promotes them as if the sun shines out of their vile arses.
The royals are behind the global satanic cult of freemasonry that has been used to cajole and blackmail their dimwitted goons to take out anyone who gets in the way of their trillion dollar fleecing schemes. They use their third party thugs to enforce a vile regime
yet you would never guess when you read the press, watch the tv or listen to the radio. A global pariah is promoted on every single airway and every single mass media newsprint as if they are some sort of godly creatures, who through a global tyranny using brute force and the law, have created a system whereby they control every contract ever written thanks to their hold over the biggest terrorist group by far the global law society centred in London and engineered by their loyal lord lieutenant the grand old Dukey Kent.
Some of the most dangerous psychopathic minds are installed as press barons from madman Rupert Murdoch (Ex-News of the World, The Sun and Times) to Jonathan Harmsworth (Daily Mail), Richard Desmond (Daily Express, Daily Star and OK mag ), Barclay brothers (Daily Telegraph), and the BBC's top zionist Danny Cohen. They ALL claim to provide news reports but in between the general news that we could get from many other sources they intertwine the agenda providing never ending trivia that inflates the Royal parasites to god like status despite their long history of despotism that takes a different form today from the brute force their forefathers got away with to steal with total impunity. They and their lackeys have given themselves status above the laws they impose on the peasants they thieve from.
They are the global masters of psychological torture. Many an activist has been thrown into their psychiatric gulags for daring to cross their paths. They distant themselves from the continued rape and pillage of the non mason men targeted by their judicial lackeys, many who do not survive the rigors of their dangerous games, by using an endless array of goons who have sold their souls to the devil that ensures they alone have more power and wealth strategically hidden by their global propaganda machine.
There is nothing on the face of this earth more deadly than the royal henchmen's persecution network to fleece the long suffering public. Far more dangerous than every last bogeyman they create to suggest terrorism comes from many arena's that are a great smokescreen for the biggest terrorist threat from them alone. It remains a mad world when those who threaten us most are portrayed as our saviours by a machine so vast no one can truly comprehend the lengths they have gone to create a TRUMAN like world where we are all being spied on by their merry little masonic helpers. Ed Snowden put paid to the myth that it is in our best interests to allow this monster to continue to rape the citizens of the world for their own and their mafia's self enrichment.
Royal parasites behind global spying by GCHQ and MI5 VIDEO
Royal parasites Buckingham Palace henchman on £100,000 bribes charge
Billions spent propping up the parasite's vast empire of palaces and mansions with public money going on
contracts to her freemason lackeys
The Queen’s former deputy property manager has been charged with taking more than £100,000 in kickbacks for royal contracts funded by the taxpayer.
Ronald Harper, 61, one of the most senior members of the Royal Household staff, is accused of taking bribes from directors of building, heating and energy firms.
In return, he is said to have handed out huge contracts for mechanical and electrical work at Buckingham Palace, St James’s Palace and Kensington Palace.
Harper, who was made a Member of the Royal Victorian Order by the Queen in 2004, is alleged to have corruptly accepted gifts of tens of thousands of pounds over nearly six years in return for favouring a number of firms supplying air conditioning, boilers and other electrical services at ‘inflated prices’.
It is a hugely embarrassing development for the Queen as the Royal Household has been criticised for leaving palaces to crumble after years of complacency.
The multi-million pound works were for the London homes of Prince Harry, Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge.
They were paid for out of the public purse through a government grant that covers the upkeep of royal palaces.
Luke Bulpitt, of the Crown Prosecution Service, said it had ‘authorised charges against nine men and a woman in connection with alleged fraudulent activity concerning property management at the royal palaces’.
He added: ‘It is alleged that between 2006 and 2011, a number of company directors bribed Ron Harper ... in return for him awarding them large contracts.’
Harper and nine co-defendants are due to appear before Westminster magistrates today.
He is charged with four counts of conspiracy to give and receive corrupt payments.
A relative of Harper, Alan Rollinson, is also charged with one count of converting or transferring criminal property.
In an article on the Royal Family’s website, Harper boasted of keeping down high electric bills at Buckingham Palace.
He said: ‘Every five years, issues relating to the efficient running of the household’s heat and power supplies are reviewed by the team here at Buckingham Palace, meaning that energy efficiency within the Royal Household is constantly under a process of scrutiny and improvement.’ A computerised building management system controls heating and power, even regulating the fans in the palace kitchen.
Ahead of the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton, Harper also bragged of the benefits of Buckingham Palace’s combined heat and power units for energy and the LED technology it was installing in candelabras.
He claimed that a boiler firm he had selected had reduced the palace’s annual energy bill by eight per cent. But police believe a number of the contracts he handed out to firms promising to use renewable energy involved corrupt payments.
Buckingham Palace declined to comment last night.
A Member of the Royal Victorian Order is given by the Queen to people who have served her or the Monarchy in a personal way.
The masonic blackmail network headed by the Duke of Kent protects her power and wealth
Royal parasites use new sprogs as propaganda tools VIDEO
Royal parasites continue to hide their German roots
The English loyalists think they back England when supporting the royal mafia when they are actually
backing German tyranny.
For more than a century they have been hidden away in a Royal wardrobe, a reminder of the rift in the House of Windsor caused by the First World War.
Now the Queen is facing calls to display the German uniforms worn by her grandfather, George V, to mark the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of war.
The close familial links between the British and German monarchs in 1914 – George V and Kaiser Wilhelm II were both grandchildren of Queen Victoria – meant that George held the honorary ranks as a German Field Marshal and as a colonel of German regiments.
He was fitted out for Teutonic uniforms to mark his roles as Admiral of the Imperial German Navy, Prussian Field Marshal, Colonel-in-Chief of the 1st Guard Dragoon Regiment and Colonel-in-Chief of the Kürassier Regiment Graf Getzler (Rhine) No 8.
At the time, both sides of the family used the name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
The uniforms are still held by the Royal Collection, but have been displayed only on rare occasions.
Last night, former Labour MP Andrew Mackinlay, a First World War expert, said the uniforms should be placed on display at the Victoria and Albert Museum.
‘These are hugely significant items,’ Mr Mackinlay said.
‘Not only do they tell the extraordinary story of the schism between the Royals occasioned by the war, but they are also works of considerable skill and artistry in terms of the fabric and design.
'They have been kept in pristine condition. Displaying them would highlight that despite the fact that these close first cousins were the heads of the two principal belligerent countries, the tragedy of the First World War could not be averted.
‘Many young people today do not realise how close the two wings of the family were – or that Queen Victoria died in the Kaiser’s arms in 1901.’
The conflict led to George changing the name of the family by Royal proclamation in July 1917 to Windsor.
A spokeswoman for the Royal Collection said: ‘A number of Royal Collection items relating to the First World War are on short and long-term loan to cultural institutions across the UK, and any loan requests will continue to be fulfilled wherever possible to mark this four-year centenary period.’
Royal parasites now commandeering almost every major sporting event VIDEO
Royal parasites on display AGAIN!!!!!!!!
Royal parasite shows off her VAST arsenals while peasants she steals from are unarmed VIDEO
Meanwhile her political lackeys rant on about getting GUNS off the streets but NOT her guns.
The MAIN cause of vast inequality she resides over with the knowledge the downtrodden Brits
cannot defend themselves against the enormous theft of land, business's and properties
her freemason judicial mafia instigate.
Royal parasite's power dress in ridiculous garb for 'Order of the Garter' parade VIDEO
Royal parasite baton dragged through masonic Rosslyn chapel
All the heavily promoted games Olympic and Commonwealth have masonic symbolism
and a means to once again promote the self appointed elite. There is hardly
a sports event that doesn't include images taken outside Buckingham Palace
alongside the artists prepared to kiss the royal arse as they line up to enter
any one of her opulent mansions providing the propaganda that
rubbing shoulders with a murderous regime is somehow good for society.
They would be committing commercial suicide if they refused that offer and only true
countrymen have told her to stick her tacky awards up her backside.
Royal parasites finances under scrutiny with calls to end privileges VIDEO
These evil bastards are a law unto themselves
Cayman Islands where the freemasons stash their stolen loot
No surprise that the Cayman Islands embassy in London is literally yards away from the top masonic lodge
that services the royal parasites and who use their ill gotten gains to tax dodge in its offshore haven.
Some of the self appointed elite use Cayman islands for all sorts of dodgy deals but especially
stashing the money stolen from Britain's peasants by the gangsters running the City of London.
James Henry, former chief economist at consultancy McKinsey and an expert on tax havens shows that at
least £13tn – perhaps up to £20tn – has leaked out of scores of countries into secretive
jurisdictions such as Switzerland and the Cayman Islands with the help of private banks.
What we believe is going on is a very devious scheme
that sees key freemasons being allowed to syphon off trillions from the
economy into Cayman Island banks and on death their estates are then passed to the royal parasites who
control all of their lives via the Dukey Kunt and their sworn oaths to freemasonry. The report below
shows that the Duchy of Cornwall,
owned by Prince Charles (or at least stolen by his forefathers), personally gets to keep the estates of
anyone who dies there with no will and it does not require a rocket scientist to work out that is exactly what is happening to
those given free rein to bankrupt Britain and keeping the Royals propped up after their demise. Freemasons are being used
as third party couriers of vast wealth out of Britain and globally into secret offshore accounts to ensure
on their death that money is moved into the royals hands under the guise of the British Crown.
James Bond has ALWAYS been a propaganda tool for the royal parasites VIDEO
Serve these parasites and flash cars and women await . But only in the fictional
character they use to suggest somehow they are above the other murdering despots
across the planet and using their 5 millions strong masonic thugs to reinforce their
despotism globally via the DukeyKunt.
Gutter press continue kissing the right royal arse by exposing it this time VIDEO
Power dressing by the royal parasites will never hide their despotism VIDEO
Imprison the Royal Family and Abolish the Monarchy
Execution of Louis XVI
With the emergence of the latest—and cutest—member of the British Royal Family, allow us to put forth a gentle reminder: In a just world, this innocent child would be going up for adoption, since its family would have been imprisoned for crimes against humanity.
The Royal Family is no better than a family of mobsters. It sucks its sustenance from the public coffers, enriching itself greatly at the expense of poor taxpaying citizens. It operates not as a meritocracy, but through strict nepotism and strategic alliances. And its strength is a rough measure of the lack of civilization in a particular culture. To be completely clear, we are not suggesting that people should "pay less attention" to the Royal Family, or that the UK should reduce the amount of money it spends on this obscene relic of a brutal monarchical past. We are suggesting that the Royal Family should, as an institution, be completely abolished, and that its remaining members be imprisoned and forced to work for the remainder of their lives to, in some token way, repay the public for all of these years of financial support. Perhaps by making license plates, or breaking rocks.
It is amusing to reflect upon the imperial past of England, and the inherent assumptions of racial and cultural superiority that fueled it, while also noting the fact that the UK still to this very day continues to offer slavish financial, political, and cultural support to a tiny family elite notable for nothing except the lineage of the particular person's vagina from which they slunk. The persistence of the Royal Family, and the worshipful attention that it draws from the British public, is the sort of primitive superstitious voodoo that puts to shame any of the animist rituals that the colonial British would have derided as uncivilized.
The Royal Family is more than an international embarrassment, though; it is a crime against the British public. It represents the taking of precious public resources for the most undemocratic, elitist, and unproductive use. It is akin to taxing the American public to support the Kardashian family. Currently, the British monarchy gets 15% of the annual revenues generated by the Crown Estate. (Not to be confused with the slew of luxurious private estates that they own.) That will be well over $50 million this year. There are 2.5 million unemployed people in the UK right now. It is not too presumptuous to suggest that they might be able to find more productive uses for that money.
It is often suggested that the Royal Family is "affordable" or a "bargain" for taxpayers, because their cost is minor compared to other costs, and besides, they help to "generate tourism." This is incorrect. Tourists would continue to go to the Tower of London and Buckingham Palace whether or not the Royal Family was being subsidized to the tune of tens of millions of dollars annually. Money from the public treasury spent on the Royal Family is a sunk cost, a charity payment to the world's most undeserving charity. The Royal Family does not "work" for that money. The Royal Family does not sit inside Buckingham Palace from 9-5 every day, posing for pictures with tourists for $25 a pop. And even if they were, we certainly wouldn't pay them $50 million a year for that. Six pounds thirty one pence per hour, maybe.
The Royal Family did not "work" to acquire its property. The Royal Family did not "work" to acquire its wealth. The Royal Family did not "work" to acquire its prestige. All of these things have been passed down to them, due to the accident of their birth, after being accumulated over hundreds of years during which the humble citizens of the UK were obligated to give these things to the monarchy, lest they lose their heads. Though European history is littered with the corpses of royalty, it is littered far more heavily with the corpses of all of the millions upon millions of regular people who toiled in the shadows of grand castles and died in poverty as their taxes paid for the members of one lucky family to live in opulence.
The Royal Family is a grotesque relic of a less civilized time. The only just thing for a member of the Royal Family to do is, at age 18, to renounce all the privileges of their position and spend the remainder of their natural life denouncing the institution of monarchy and working feverishly to repay the public treasury for the outrageous and undignified years of support they've received. Since all of the current members of the Royal Family have passed the age of majority without having performed this basic nod towards civility, they are in contempt of the public trust.
Confiscate their wealth, sell off their possessions, lock them up for theft, and strike all appropriations for the Royal Family from the public budget. Auction off the crown jewels, use the money to buy gasoline, and burn the queen's home to ground during a grand national celebration of the birth of a new society in which the public's money is put to use for the public's own benefit, and fame is accorded to those who have earned it by doing something more than being born with the right last name.
For the sake of all that is holy, please allow this Royal Baby to grow up free of the clutches of this crime family, lest its innocence be lost.