The Queen stands to gain millions of pounds a year in extra funding, even as the rest of the country suffers from swingeing Government cuts, it emerged yesterday.

The Royal Household’s budget is set to rocket under an overhaul that will see the sovereign share in the profits from the immensely lucrative Crown Estate for the first time in 250 years. The royals are expected to benefit annually from a 15 per cent slice of the £6.6billion property portfolio’s profits when the new ‘sovereign support grant’ is introduced, Treasury sources revealed last night. The revelations contrast with the 14 per cent cut in the Queen’s budget announced by Chancellor George Osborne during Wednesday’s spending review.

Courtiers spoke of how the Royal Family would be tightening its belt in line with the rest of the country, as it was revealed the £30million annual Government grant is to be frozen at that level until 2012 with only a £1million one-off supplementary payment to cover the extra costs of the Diamond Jubilee in 2012. But in fact the change is thought likely to give a significant boost to the royal coffers once it comes into effect in 2013. Even during the economic downturn 15 per cent of profits from the portfolio would have yielded more money than the Queen’s current Government funding, and once the economy recovers the revenues should far outstrip it.

The Crown Estate belongs to the monarch, but its profits have been paid directly to the Treasury since 1760. This year, the portfolio made £210.7million, which would have led to a £31.6million profit for the Queen under the new formula - slightly more than the £30million she received this year in Government grants - while last year her share of Crown Estate profits would have translated into £34million. The estate’s capital value has risen by £2. billion over the past decade, and its trustees have publicly set a profits target of £250million, meaning £37.5million for the monarch – a vast increase in her funds.

Graham Smith, of the anti-monarchy pressure group Republic, said: ‘This is essentially a way of giving the royals an increase in funding that would otherwise be difficult to justify. 'The Crown Estate is a huge portfolio and its value will go up and up. Linking Royal Household funding to profits is ultimately like handing over a blank cheque. They could end up millions of pounds better off.’ The decision to give the royals a single, consolidated sum tied to the Crown Estate is part of a drive to simplify the archaic system under which the Queen currently receives individual Government grants.

This includes the £7.9million Civil List which covers the Queen’s personal expenditure on staff salaries, entertaining world leaders and opening Parliament. The Queen also receives £15.4million for palace repairs and maintenance from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and £3.9million for travel from the Department for Transport. However, these grants do not take into account the £150million cost of security for the royals and palaces, which will continue to be funded by the Government. A further £3.9million of expenditure is currently met directly by Government departments, including £1million from the Ministry of Defence for equerries and orderlies and £600,000 from the Cabinet Office for administering honours. It is understood these will remain in place rather than be absorbed into the sovereign support grant.

Buckingham Palace and the Treasury will now wrangle over how to work the new arrangement. An upper and lower limit on yearly funding could be a ‘sensible solution’, Palace insiders said. The new deal comes after the already relatively frugal Queen, 84, was forced to tighten her belt even further as reserves built up from the Civil List ran out. Buckets have been placed under leaking roofs in some parts of Buckingham Palace because there is not enough money to fund urgent repairs, while other historic palaces have not been refurbished for decades.

One royal aide said: ‘The new grant comes on the back of a ridiculous arrangement that left us on the same level of funding for ten years. This funding is not going to be rattling around in the Head of State’s pockets or lavished on personal extravagance. 'All the money is used transparently and responsibly for work such as vital repairs. ‘As things stand we are not going to reduce the 3,000 official engagements carried out by members of the Royal Family, and we want to avoid staff redundancies. For us, like the rest of the country, the situation remains incredibly tough.’

Royal aides last night insisted finances will be subject to stricter transparency controls because the accounts will be opened up to the National Audit Office from 2013. Currently spending is overseen by ministers, who have the power to veto Palace decisions, but it is effectively in the hands of Household staff. A Buckingham Palace spokesman added: ‘The new grant will be modern, transparent and audited by the National Audit Office.’

A £6.6billion empire to make the Queen the envy of the world

Its vast reach takes in everything from remote beef farms in the Scottish Highlands to the glitzy lights of Regent Street and much of London’s West End. The Crown Estate is one of the most coveted property portfolios in the West, and the envy of billionaire investors world-wide.

It has been accumulated by the monarchy over nearly 1,000 years, since William the Conqueror made a record of his lands and properties in the Domesday Book in 1086. The vast portfolio now consists of 146,000 hectares of farmland and a sprawling urban estate taking in shops and businesses on London’s most exclusive avenues including Regent Street and Harley Street. Ascot racecourse and the Windsor Estate and - at the other end of the spectrum - thousands of affordable homes effectively have the Queen as their symbolic landlady. More than a third of its properties are Grade-I listed. A 12-nautical mile perimeter around the whole of the UK’s coastline even belongs to the estate, meaning it benefits to the tune of £5billion for granting licences for hundreds of wind turbines dotted off our shores over the next 25 years. At its peak in 2008 the portfolio – which is controlled by a board of eight trustees and managed by nearly 400 staff – was valued at £7.3billion, but it suffered a swift £1.3billion drop during the credit crunch before recovering to £6.6billion this year. While the changes show the estate is not immune to the market’s volatility, experts say the way it is spread over agricultural, commercial, residential and marine sectors makes it well placed to weather any problems.

Over the past ten years the capital value of the Crown Estate has risen by £2.6billion, and it has paid £1.9billion to the Treasury. The next decade is expected to be even better. A 15 per cent cut of profits means the Queen and future monarchs could see funding for public functions rise exponentially, with some suggesting they could become the wealthiest crown heads in Europe. The new sovereign support grant reverses a 250-year-old pact between the monarch and ministers. When ‘mad’ King George III took the throne in 1760, he was in £3million of debt – over £200million in today’s money. No longer able to cope, the 22-year-old king relinquished management of the estate to ministers and agreed to hand over all surplus revenue to the Treasury.

In return, he was rewarded with a fixed annual payment, which later became known as the Civil List. In modern times, each sovereign has renewed the arrangement and Parliament has reviewed and increased the Civil List to reflect inflation and changing demands every ten years. It has also added on Government grants to cover palace repairs, travel and communication. The arrangement had become an integral part of Britain’s constitution. But, as Chancellor George Osborne hinted in the Spending Review, dealing with the funding has become a thorn in ministers’ sides. ‘The Royal Household will receive a new sovereign support grant linked to a portion of the revenue of the Crown Estate, so that my successors do not have to return to the issue so often,’ he said.

Now the Civil List – which has been fixed at £7.9million for 20 years – and most of the other grants will be ditched and replaced by a single lump sum. The argument is that it will make administration easier and do away with the headache of requesting money every ten years – especially at ‘awkward’ times such as during recessions. But in practice, critics say, the system is a back-hand way of increasing public funding by tying it to an archaic estate that has had very little to do with the Queen since it was signed over by her mad 18th century forebear.


    What does the Royal Mint know that we don't? Preparations begin for coin to celebrate Prince William and Kate's wedding

    The Royal Mint has made preparations to begin production of a commemorative coin to celebrate the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton, fuelling speculation that they are poised to announce their engagement. The Mail on Sunday has been told that a plaster mould of the special coin has been made, the first step in the manufacturing process. The project is so secret that staff at the Royal Mint’s plant at Llantrisant have been banned from talking about the coin, but insiders have confirmed that the initial design work has been done. One source said: ‘I have seen the plaster model from which they will cast the die. They are ready to go. All they are waiting for is the date.’ The Mail on Sunday spoke to the Royal Mint on three occasions last week and put it to them that a plaster mould had been made. They did not deny it, saying: ‘Like most business organisations we are forward-looking and plan ahead for commercial opportunities.’ Last night Clarence House said it was unaware that the Royal Mint, which is a Government-owned company operated by the Treasury, had prepared for production of the coin.

    In the case of a Royal engagement, Prince William would first need to seek the Queen’s permission. Her private secretary would then inform the Government ahead of a public announcement, made by the Prince’s aides at Clarence House. While Press officers at Clarence House refuse to speculate on a wedding date, a senior aide yesterday appeared to confirm that a wedding was in the pipeline, saying: ‘We don’t know the date, only William and Kate know. I don’t expect we’ll be told until the last minute. William plays his cards very close to his chest, that’s his nature. ‘We weren’t aware that a coin is being made, it sounds like a case of forward planning. You would imagine that given the very name Royal Mint, this coin would require some form of authorisation from the Palace, at least for the use of the image of the Prince. We cannot police every time an image of the Prince is used, but I’m guessing Royal Mint would need authorisation for this.’

    The coin, which will go on sale once the couple’s engagement has been announced, is expected to be minted in both gold and silver. It will bear portraits of the couple, although no details of the design have been released. It is thought that the initial work was completed by a small in-house design team, meaning knowledge of the project could be confined to only a handful of people. The Royal Mint is not the only organisation to prepare for a Royal wedding. A number of leading caterers, including Rhubarb and events’ company Concierge London, owned by Lady Cosima Somerset which oversaw Lord Freddie Windsor’s wedding, have already put their names forward to be considered as part of the wedding planning team.

    A source at Rhubarb, which regularly caters for events hosted by members of the Royal Family, said provisional menus and table decorations had already been discussed in-house as part of the preparations for their proposal. At Clarence House, a team of aides is in place and well briefed for an announcement. According to one aide: ‘The institution puts on big events all the time, so if and when there is an announcement, we would, of course, be ready. There would be sufficient time between an engagement announcement and the wedding date for us to be fully prepared.’ There are several windows for the couple to marry next year and 2011 is said by aides to be the opportune year for a Royal wedding.

    Not only is it the Duke of Edinburgh’s 90th birthday in June, it would have been the late Princess of Wales’s 50th birthday in August and it is the 30th anniversary of her 1981 wedding to Prince Charles on July 29. The Royal Mint is not the only company to have prematurely jumped on the wedding memorabilia bandwagon. Woolworths manufactured commemorative William and Kate wedding china as far back as 2006 which apparently ‘horrified’ William, who refuses to discuss his plans with his aides.

    But friends say that now he is a fully qualified search-and-rescue pilot he is set to make Kate his wife imminently and that they are already ‘as good as engaged’. The couple, who are both 28, have dated for nine years after meeting at St Andrews University. They have survived two break-ups and are said to be deeply in love. Kate, who is forging a career as a photographer, has given up her full-time job at her parents’ online business Party Pieces to be with William. She currently divides her time between her parents’ home in Bucklebury, Berkshire, and the farmhouse she shares with William on the island of Anglesey in Wales.

    Friends say they are living ‘as man and wife’.

    ‘This is their way of road-testing married life and of being together without being in the public eye,’ says one of their friends. ‘They are very happy but Kate does want to get married and she doesn’t want to have to wait much longer. She feels she has waited long enough.’ With the news that the Royal Mint is getting ahead of the game, it may not be too much longer until Kate, who has been nicknamed Waity Katie, becomes Princess Catherine. The Royal Mint plant at Llantrisant, near Cardiff, employs around 800 staff who all have to sign confidentiality agreements. The site is guarded like a military base with CCTV, barbed-wire fences and police patrols.

    In 2007 the Mint created new gold and silver £5 commemorative coins to mark the Queen and Prince Philip’s diamond wedding anniversary, featuring a double portrait of the couple. The Royal Mint has been based in South Wales since the closure of its historic Tower Hill home. The last coin, a gold sovereign, was struck at Tower Hill in 1975, with the last staff leaving the building in 1980 when the entire operation moved to Llantrisant. A Mint spokesman said last night that no commission had been received from the Government or Royal Household in connection with the expected wedding of William and Kate.

    The spokesman said: ‘The Royal Mint lies at the heart of British celebrations and commemorates all important Royal occasions. ‘Were a major Royal event announced we would certainly look to produce a commemorative coin to mark the occasion. The coin would then go on sale to the public as a permanent memento of the Royal announcement. ‘Any coin produced by the Royal Mint has to be approved by Her Majesty the Queen before it is released and a coin relating to her family is no different. Like most business organisations, we plan ahead for commercial opportunities.’

    A spokesman for Clarence House said last night: ‘We have not heard from the Royal Mint, or anyone else for that matter, about making a coin to mark an engagement or wedding. ‘If they have prepared a mould, it is without our knowledge.’

  • The British Royals and their band of highly paid masonic henchmen
    shotgun queen No coincidence the Queen's diamond jubilee falls in June 2012 just before the start of the Olympics on July 27th. The Olympics by design is all part of the control mechanism the ruling elite use to propagate their mind games. Hitler was expert at using sport , especially football, to foment loyalty to the motherland.

    The queen and her massive media propaganda machine have been expert at portraying her as some sort of godly creature, when she is in fact a descendant of some of the biggest despots on earth. Her entourage have been working overtime ensuring the Olympics coincide with her diamond jubilee and along with the new King Billy's marriage will see the royals centre stage, adorned with praises from all quarters during a major sporting event.

    For those who view the British monarchy as heading an evil masonic mafia who are plundering the world using their judicial henchmen this is an absolute disgrace. The royals are being forced to reinvent themselves after the death of Princess Diana who will go down in history , along with J.F. Kennedy as another masonic assassination to protect the ruling elite's power and control.

  • How The British Use The Media for Mass Psychological Warfare
  • Royalist propaganda: If its not pubs or public buildings that get named after her its ships

    There have been rumors in the past about the prince but the press are just going crazy over this headline in the Globe. Now according to blogger Ian Halperin a former London male prostitute named “Colin” who lives in London’s exclusive Maida Vale area plans to out Britain’s elite world of gay men who pretend to be straight in a tell-all book to be released in 2010.

    The Elite that he is talking of allegedly includes Prince Charles, David Beckham and Margaret Thatcher’s late husband Sir Denis Thatcher. “These blokes can’t even think straight,” he said. “I’ve seen them all at down low parties. Charles is notoriously gay. He’s the biggest Queen in Britain. That’s what destroyed his relationship with Diana. He paid her millions to keep quiet about his sexuality.

    In fact, I will prove that Prince Harry was not fathered by Charles. By the time Di got pregnant with Harry, Charles and Di had not had sex in more than two years. I know that for a fact. Camilla (Parker Bowles) came on the scene for convenience. It’s a perfect case scenario for Charles. Camilla is into women, that’s what destroyed her previous marriage. They are both using their marriage mainly to stay in the closet in order to avoid public scrutiny.” Whether this book actually surfaces is yet to be seen but there may definitely be a few libel lawsuits in the offing.


    £1.5m spent on non-urgent jobs while Queen's officials pleaded poverty

    The Queen’s officials spent more than £1.5million of taxpayers’ money on cosmetic improvements to her palaces as other aides begged the Government for more cash. Nearly £100,000 went on cleaning chandeliers and £14,000 on a curtain to protect wine bottles in the Buckingham Palace cellars. Refurbishing a staff canteen and games room cost £808,000 while turning a private cinema into a State function room was £458,000, official expenses documents show. The funds came from a £15million grant from the Department for Culture to cover repairs to royal palaces. A series of non-urgent maintenance jobs, which went unchallenged by ministers, raise question marks over how the money was spent. Yet senior courtiers at Buckingham Palace were begging the Government for extra funds to carry out vital repairs over the same period, 2004 to 2006.

    Officials claimed the historic buildings were falling apart, with buckets in place to catch rainwater coming in through cracks in the walls and ceilings at Buckingham Palace. Revelations about ‘indulgent’ refurbishments will pose difficult questions for the Royal Household, which is battling to secure a new funding deal from the Coalition next year as swingeing cuts are brought in elsewhere. Graham Smith of the anti-monarchy campaign group Republic said: ‘A couple of days ago we heard that Buckingham Palace was trying to take money from a poverty fund to pay their heating bills because of the financial pressure they claimed to be under. Now we find they have essentially been feathering their nest.

    ‘It’s an absolute disgrace. The Royal Family clearly holds the taxpayer in absolute contempt.’ Fiona McEvoy of the TaxPayers’ Alliance added: ‘Taxpayers’ money shouldn’t be used to renovate wine cellars or cinemas, particularly at a time when money is tight. Though few would object to the vital maintenance of national assets, this is pure indulgence.’ The Queen receives £38million of public money a year, including the £7.9million Civil List for personal expenses, £15million for maintenance and £400,000 for communications.

    The Royal Household can decide how to spend the cash on its properties, but must show audited accounts to ministers. Details of property accounts back to 2004 were obtained after a Freedom of Information request. A Buckingham Palace spokesman said last night: ‘The reason the cost is high is everything is heritage listed. You cannot just get the cheapest version.

    queen list

    While the British media have been used by the the ruling elite and her henchmen to convince us that it is better for British citizens to remain completely defenseless in a growing police state. Meanwhile the Queen and her henchmen have VAST arsenals of weapons that show that guns , wealth and power are all interconnected hence them wanting the sheeple to remain as defenseless subjects(puppets) to the richest despot on the planet. Now here we have an example were one of her gun slinging minders misuses a gun. So are we going to see the queen and those minders have all their guns removed because of that misuse? NO but that is exactly what they have done to the British public stripped us of our right, as America has , to bear arms. Instead we are left defenseless against the henchmen controlling the UK at HER MAJESTY'S PLEASURE.

    THE Queen's top protection cop was suspended from duty after accidentally firing a shot inside a royal palace. The loaded gun went off as SAS-trained Chief Superintendent Ian Boyes was cleaning it. He was alone and off duty. The blunder at Holyroodhouse came just hours before the Pope's visit there on September 16 to meet the Queen. It is not known if the monarch was at the official residence in Edinburgh when the bullet was discharged. Chief Supt Boyes - a vastly experienced member of the Royal and Diplomatic Protection Department (RDPD) - was unhurt. It is the first time an officer of such senior rank has been removed from duty for such an incident. Chief Supt Boyes was awarded the Member of the Royal Victorian Order in 2005 for services to the RDPD. He has been the Queen's last line of defence for a decade and was at her side during the Golden Jubilee celebrations in 2002.

    A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "As is routine in this type of incident, the officer was removed from firearms duty and an internal inquiry undertaken. The officer has completed the re-accreditation process and has resumed firearms duty." Royal bodyguards favour using the Austrian Glock 19 9mm pistol. A security source said: "It is a very easy to use weapon but has limited safety features. "When unloading it is important to discharge the magazine from the butt of the gun. Then, before easing the springs, in other words before making the weapon safe, the user needs to 'rack-back' the magazine to discharge the single bullet in the chamber.

    "Only when that bullet has been discharged can the trigger be released and the gun made safe. "For there to be an unlawful discharge, it is guaranteed almost 100 per cent to be human error where the user has failed to 'rack back' the weapon."

    In 2000, PC Michael Slade, 59, fired two shots accidently on the Royal train as the Queen slept nearby. Six years earlier, royal bodyguard Des Stout - now a senior operations officer with Royalty Protection - accidently shot himself in the leg during a routine practice.

    The Queen asked ministers for money to heat Buckingham Palace from a fund reserved for low-income families, it has been revealed.

    Royal aides pleaded for the cash as they claimed gas and electricity bills had risen by more than 50 per cent in a year - totalling more than £1million. They complained that the £15million government grant to cover the Queen's palaces was inadequate and her energy bills had become 'untenable'. The money would have come from £60million of energy-saving grants reserved for cash-strapped families, housing associations and hospitals.

    But ministers rejected the 2004 application made by the Royal Household, fearing a public relations disaster. The Independent newspaper reports that the Queen's deputy treasurer also wrote to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport for a grant to replace four heating and power units at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle. The revelations came after it was revealed that the Queen has been forced to sign agreements that effectively give the Government a veto over her spending.

    A previously unpublished memo revealed that under Labour, ministers were given the right to over-ride Her Majesty's office on decisions about royal palaces in the event of a dispute. And it emerged that the same arrangement is in place to cover most of the £38.2million of government money given to the sovereign each year. The decision raises the prospect of the Queen being made to surrender control of her finances to ministers if they fail to agree on how the money should be spent.

    The Government is able to influence what the Queen spends because it sets the amount of funding she receives and requires auditing of the accounts. 'Financial memorandums' containing 70 clauses were drawn up in 2006, formalising the threat of much tighter controls and paving the way for closer scrutiny in future. Professor Gary Slapper, director of the Centre for Law at the Open University, said: 'It is, in effect, a formal farewell to one of the vestiges of monarchical power. The legal power and influence of the British monarchy has been slipping away for centuries and this memorandum makes clear and concrete that the ultimate power over the monarch and money is held by a minister from an elected government.'

    The Queen receives £38.2million a year from the Government. This includes the Civil List - a £7.9million annual grant from the Treasury to cover the Queen's personal spending and staff salaries - and four grants - in- aid totalling £19.7million from other departments for areas including travel and building repairs. Last year she also got £3.9million in miscellaneous costs met by the Government and Crown Estate. The biggest grant is £15.4million for property maintenance from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, which also pays her £400,000 communications bill. The previously unseen clause in its memorandum - revealed under the Freedom of Information Act - says: 'In the event of any irreconcilable differences over the interpretation of this financial memorandum or the memorandum of understanding, the Secretary of State shall be entitled to cease payment of grant-in-aid and take over directly the execution of her responsibility for the provision of property services for the occupied Royal palaces, funding for Royal communications, and provision of property and guard services for Marlborough House.'

    A senior royal aide admitted: 'If there is, for example, an issue where a wall collapsed because we didn't have enough money and it became a danger to members of the public, then the department could tell us we had to fix the wall.' The Freedom of Information requests were initially refused, but the Queen's spokesman denied a cover-up, saying: 'We are a fully transparent and accountable organisation. The nature of finances is under review following the change of government.'

    Funny if not so serious that the richest despot on the planet gets a further £38,000,000 per year of public money to prop up her already expanding wealth.

    Ministers will lay down the law on how the Queen spends her £38m

    The Queen has been forced to give up her right to manage the royal finances in a secret deal that gives the Government the final say. The agreement between the monarch and ministers lays down strict rules over how the Queen can spend the £38.2m given to her by Parliament every year. Under the ‘financial memorandum’, signed by Palace aides and the Government in 2006, ministers have the constitutional powers to override the Palace and take over the management of the public money in the event of a disagreement over how it is spent. Last night experts in constitutional law experts said the memorandum could be used to curb the Queen’s spending or even make her use her own private wealth. It follows a long-running dispute between the crown and the Government over the amount of public money used to fund the Royal family. The agreement, disclosed to The Independent last night under the Freedom of Information Act, could make it more difficult for the palace as they continue to press the Government for an increase in Royal funding.

    The memorandum dictates the financial relationship between the Queen and the Government over 70 points. But the crucial clause, which wrestles power from the Palace, states: ‘In the event of any irreconcilable differences over the interpretation of this financial memorandum or the memorandum of understanding, the Secretary of State shall be entitled to cease payment of grant-in-aid and take over directly the execution of her responsibility for the provision of property services for the occupied Royal palaces, funding for Royal communications, and provision of property and guard services for Marlborough House.’ Following an appeal by The Independent to the Information Tribunal, the Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) was forced to release hundreds of letters, emails and reports detailing the deal and the increasingly antagonistic relationship between the Government and the Queen over the Privy purse.

    Correspondence revealed the Queen was given £2m by the Government to help cash-flow problems. Ministers handed over disputed funds from the sale of land at Kensington Palace Gardens to boost the annual £15m grant-in-aid. A spokesman for the DCMS said the sovereignty clause was based on the then new memorandum for non-departmental public bodies or quangos. He said: ‘This would include whether there was still a need for the body, and whether it was as efficient as required. In the case of the Royal household property services, as Government does not have the same control over the Royal household, the paragraph was modified to achieve the same aim when there was a difference in interpretation that could not be resolved.’

    In 2005 ministers were apparently so concerned about how the Royal Family was spending public money that they sent consultants into Buckingham Palace to investigate the accounts. Following the findings, the DCMS questioned Palace aides about why the proportion of jobs considered to be good value for money had dropped significantly. They also asked whether the cost of redirecting the Prince of Wales’s mail after he moved homes was ‘likely to continue’.


    The wrangle for power between the monarchy and the Government is centuries old. Ever since Charles I was executed in 1649 for attempting to persuade Parliament that a king’s power came direct from God, the English monarchy has struggled to keep control of the country and its finances. Although the divine right to rule was relied upon by previous monarchs, it took the claim of Charles Stuart and the English Civil War to secure a law ensuring the nation had ultimate control over the Crown’s purse. Charles I declared: ‘Kings are not bound to give an account of their actions but to God alone.’

    His words ensured the spending of all future monarchs would be carefully monitored. The supremacy of Parliament was assured by Oliver Cromwell in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The overthrow of James II resulted in the separation of the expenses of the Palace from the general cost of running the state. Under the reign of William and Mary shortly after, the ability of the monarch to spend the Crown’s income was curbed again.

    Under an 1697 Act granting William III ‘subsidy … for the Service of His Majesties Household & other Uses’, the monarch was granted £1.2m, of which £700,000 was to be used for the new “Civil List” to pay for the expenses of the civil service, the Royal Household and his lifestyle. By the 18th Century, under the reign of George III, the crown had given up all inherited revenues apart from the Duchy of Lancaster, which continues to provide the Queen with a private income. In 1830, a new law restricted the Civil List to the personal expenses of the Crown, which still remains. The Government has declared a new system of ‘consolidated support’ should be in place by 2012.


    It was one of the West End's glossiest nights of glamour. Late into the warm September evening, Regent Street's pavements teemed with shoppers, with stores such as Liberty and Jaeger staying open until 11pm.

    For the Crown Estate, owner of Regent Street for almost two centuries, a recent celebrity-garlanded opening — the Vogue-sponsored Fashion's Night Out — was another triumph, showing the newly polished jewel at the centre of the monarchy's £6 billion property portfolio at its best. But for residents of 1,400 affordable homes across the capital that are also part of the Crown Estate, it was typical of the ancient property owner's starry-eyed obsession with its glitzy West End developments. Just two days earlier, the Crown Estate board announced plans to sell the homes — in north, south, east and central London — for £250 million in what is being seen as a gross “betrayal” by London's second biggest landlord after the Duke of Westminster. The flats and houses are built on royal land owned by the crown since Henry VIII's reign and are rented predominantly by key workers such as nurses and teachers.

    Many residents have lived on the estates all their lives and for them the decision to sell is a rejection by a landlord they assumed had a benevolent and long-term, almost feudal, interest in their welfare. Although George III gave up day-to-day control of the Crown Estate in 1760 in return for a civil list income, the Queen is still technically the “landlady” and many tenants treasure the royal connection. Ben Bowling, chair of the residents' association for the Millbank Estate, says: “Most people understand themselves to be tenants of the Queen. Particularly among the older residents, there is an idea that there is something special about being Crown tenants, it is almost an honour. So it has come as a terrible shock to learn that their tenancy agreement was something transient that could be bought and sold. People feel terribly betrayed.”

    The housing is spread over four separate estates in London, the biggest and oldest one is next to Victoria Park in the borough of Tower Hamlets, with smaller ones in Millbank, Camden and Lewisham. Commercially, the decision to sell makes perfect sense. The affordable homes generate just £3 million profit, an annual return of little more than one per cent. If the £250 million the Crown Estate expects to realise from the sale were invested in highly profitable West End developments or retail parks, the potential returns are many times higher.

    In addition, it says it is legally bound to maximise the investment returns from its eclectic portfolio, which made £211 million profit last year (under its “Going for Gold” strategy, it hopes to boost this to £250 million). The Crown Estate also encompasses the Windsor Estate, the seabed out to 12 miles, around half the foreshore between low and high tide, commercial property and farmland. So despite a long and well organised campaign of opposition since the sale was first mooted in January — including a poll of residents that found more than 1,500 opposed the sale and only two were in favour — a buyer has been found. The identity of this buyer will not be disclosed for another three weeks, merely adding to the ill-feeling of tenants who, despite assurances to the contrary, fear a new commercial owner will push up rents, weaken tenants' rights and sell off homes as they fall vacant, eventually leading to the break-up of the estates. Madeleine Davies, of the Victoria Park Residents' Association, says: “We've already seen rents go up massively for new tenants and the rent for existing tenants is being put up as high as it can be. Now we face an uncertain future with goodness knows who.”

    Dr Bowling, an academic who has lived with his teacher wife on the estate for 25 years, says the consultation was universally regarded as a token “box- ticking” exercise. “We asked for a role in selecting the new landlord or at least in the selection criteria but essentially we've been excluded from the process. We all feel very powerless. “Now, finally, we've got to wait another three weeks to find out who it is and many of the older residents are very anxious about what is going to happen to their homes.”

    The estates represent one of the biggest pools of affordable housing in a city where house prices have risen more than 100-fold since the Queen ascended the throne in 1952. Rents are set at between 40 and 60 per cent of market levels and, until recently, the Crown Estate was regarded as a model social housing proprietor. Lesley Gilbert, a clinic manager at University College Hospital, says: “Experienced key workers keep London's heart beating but we need a place to live in at affordable rents.” Tube driver Brian Munro says: “It's astonishing that the Crown Estate is treating key worker tenants in central London in this way. The whole community is opposed to this sell-off.”

    In recent years, according to some tenants, the Crown Estate has become more commercial, more aggressive. A threatening letter earlier this year raised hackles by warning Victoria Park residents that if they left anything in communal areas they would be considered in breach of tenancy. There was also ill-feeling over a decision this summer to install “live-in” security guards at a nearby flat after it was cleared of squatters by police. Blame for the Crown Estate's “betrayal” is put squarely at the door of its “technocrat” leadership, headed by chairman and former John Lewis boss Sir Stuart Hampson and its chief executive Roger Birch. Special opprobrium is reserved for the £225,000-a year-director of investment and asset management, Paul Clark, who previously worked for the Church Commissioners and was responsible for selling its portfolio of social housing in 2005. Some tenants suspect that bonuses for senior management linked to the Crown Estate's financial performance are driving the decision to sell the affordable housing portfolio.

    At a Treasury Select Committee hearing in March — profits from the estate go to the Treasury — the board said the residential homes were “non-core” and better off in the hands of a specialist housing company. It insisted that it would do its utmost to find a suitable new owner that would honour the rights of tenants. But none of the reassurances have convinced tenants, or indeed Boris Johnson. The Mayor is said to be furious about the potential loss of such a large and valuable stock of social housing. He is also concerned that the new owner will raise rents year-on-year at the maximum allowable rate of nine per cent to boost profits. Many residents believe the Queen herself is personally sympathetic to their campaign. One cited the fact that they were allowed to deliver a petition to the front door of Buckingham Palace itself in March. A palace footman told one member of the delegation that only petitions for causes in which the Queen took a personal interest are accorded that honour.

    The history of the Crown's involvement in affordable housing can be traced back to 1840, when Queen Victoria received a petition from the people of Bethnal Green for a royal park. An Act of Parliament in 1842 authorised the Commissioner of Woods and Forests to buy land to develop Victoria Park and homes around it to be let at “affordable rents” for tradesmen and working people. Three other estates providing affordable rented homes to local artisans and tradesmen were then created at Millbank, Cumberland Market in Camden and Lee Green in Lewisham.

    But short of direct government action, it now seems inevitable that the off-loading of the homes will be completed at some point over the winter. Although the Queen has no personal involvement in the running of the Crown Estate, some tenants find it hard not to hold her responsible. As one elderly resident put it: “I've collected books about the royal family all my life. Now I just feel like tearing them all up.”

    bbc proms Britain is massively divided between the 'HAVES' and the 'HAVE NOTS' and maybe there is one song that sums up the huge disparity between the ultra rich and the rest of us.
    "Rule Britannia!" were the chorus adds "Britannia rule the waves. Britons never, never, never shall be slaves."

    The BBC use our licence money each year to feature some of the most pompous and arrogant sections of British society, a self appointed ruling elite, who finish a night of mind numbing boredom with 'RULE BRITANNIA' . For these bunch of public school twatties to suggest 'Britons will never be slaves' is in direct contradiction to the vast majority of UK citizens living under the most draconian control network on the planet . Britons are the most spied on anywhere across the globe ensuring all those who swear allegiance to the richest despot on the planet and her many henchmen and women, who frequent the likes of Albert Hall and who's surrounding flats are some of the most expensive property in the world, can continue to convince the world that Brits are not enslaved.

    For the many victims of a most wicked system of law know that is definitely not the case. The endless plundering of the crown and its hatchetmen judges ensure the vast majority are being kept in their places as anyone who rises above their station, apart from the few carefully selected masonic loyalists, will in time have their assets illegally seized when dragged through their dens of iniquity. London has some of the most evil bunch of greedy and sadistic fascists with extreme right wing delusions of grandeur that hark back to the middle ages. The tory party and now unfortunately the NEW Labour party represent a political system that more than ever encourages the widening inequality that breeds an arrogance that sets Britain apart as a world leader in discrimination through class.

    Very few ordinary folk associate themselves with the pompous twats who sing 'RULE BRITANNIA' and in time the sheeple must waken up to the myth that "Britons never, never, never shall be slaves."

  • BBC PROMS 2010

    PRINCE William will end the marathon wait for Kate Middleton - by making her his bride in 2012 just before the London Olympics. They will marry in the spring - just ahead of his 30th birthday in June.

    The couple want their big day around the time when the world's spotlight is on London - for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee in June and the Games which start July 27. A senior insider said: "William and Kate are both aware a royal wedding followed by the jubilee celebrations and the Olympics will really put Britain (NO THEM) on the map again." Secret plans are being drawn up for the nuptials to fit in with both major events.

    fayed microwave MOHAMED Fayed and Prince Charles have had little to agree on over the years but one thing they see eye-to-eye on is their dislike of mobile-phone masts. But while the Prince of Wales’s distaste for masts is on aesthetic grounds, Fayed worries about their health implications and has taken action — installing anti-radiation blinds at Harrods in order to protect his staff from any harmful rays.

    “How can the council allow mobile phone masts in very densely-populated areas?” Fayed asks me. “All that radiation — it causes cancer. Every day I see the cluster of masts on Prince’s Court opposite Harrods. I have put anti-radiation blinds on the windows of my employees who face that way to protect them. I speak to experts who are investigating the links between masts and cancer and I will continue to campaign against masts. We cannot just accept surveys funded by mobile-phone operators.” Fayed, who sold Harrods this year but is still honorary chairman, commissioned a report on microwave exposure levels at the Knightsbridge emporium. The report concluded: “We have shown that the levels of the signals from the nearby mobile phone network base station antennas are a low percentage of the current ICNIRP maximum guidance levels. Therefore we see no merit in challenging the mobile-phone network companies regarding the location and power of the mobile-phone system antennas on the buildings close to Harrods.”

    In 1998, Fayed was in dispute with Tandridge District Council in Surrey over the erection of a phone mast near his estate at Oxted. He was not only worried about the health of residents but that the mast would interfere with navigation equipment on his helicopter.


    Met chief under fire over £113m bill for protecting royals

    One of Met's most senior officers will face MPs' questions today over how the force spent at least £310,000 every 24 hours protecting royals, VIPs and diplomats. Assistant Commissioner John Yates, head of specialist operations for the Metropolitan Police, will give evidence to the Commons' Home Affairs Select Committee after figures showed Scotland Yard racked up a £113,598,687 bill for armed bodyguards who shadow high-profile individuals and patrol at risk properties in 2009-10. He will be questioned by MPs “about topical aspects of his role, particularly in relation to royal protection and counter-terrorism” - and is also likely to be asked about the News of the World phone-hacking affair when he appears before the MPs.

    Met Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson complained to successive home secretaries that the Whitehall funding is not enough to adequately protect those at risk. As a result London residents are contributing to international protection duties through their council tax. Sir Paul indicated that the protection bill must be slimmed down and suggested he is impatient for an ongoing review to be completed.

    The £113.6 million figure was less than the £127,784,028 spent in 2008-9, but similar to the £116,515,695 laid out in 2007-8. It can be made public for the first time after it was included in internal budget papers filed by accountants at the end of the financial year. But it is not clear if the money is only the annual grant handed over by the Government, which could mean the true cost of protection is even higher.

    Police have begun preparing for the expensive and complex task of protecting hundreds of VIPs during the 2012 Olympic Games. One source said the figures include the cost of patrolling embassies, royal residences and other sensitive buildings. A panel of senior police officers, civil servants and diplomatic representatives continue to review the “who, why, when and how much” of protection duties.

    The cost of safeguarding junior members of the royal family is one aspect that has come under considerable scrutiny during the review. The Met will confirm only that the Queen, the Prince of Wales and Prime Minister David Cameron receive protection. Others include former prime ministers Tony Blair and John Major and former Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf.

    Police forces across England and Wales receive extra funding for so-called dedicated security posts every year. The Met bears the brunt of protection responsibilities and has been caught in a long-running dispute with the Government over how much it receives. The new figures come after details of expenses run up by police bodyguards were revealed by the Mail on Sunday. One team ran up a £250,000 bill in hotel accommodation, food and other items as they followed Mr Blair around the world.

    The total expenses bill for members of the royal and diplomatic protection squad has reached more than £1.5 million this year. Sir Paul came under increasing pressure from his Police Authority to disclose publicly the total protection bill and who receives bodyguards.

    Most of the protection budget is spent on salaries and overtime for round-the-clock armed guards on palaces and hi-tech security measures. Officers can work up to 70 hours a week, particularly on foreign trips, and can receive overtime payments running into tens of thousands of pounds.

  • How police spend £350,000 every 24 hours protecting royals, VIPs and diplomats
    Don't be fooled by the tabloid press the British royal family are the BIGGEST despots on this planet and UK voters have a choice only of her personally selected masonic goons who head the dodgy political parties that masquerade as some sort of fabricated democracy. NO ONE CAN BE A BRITISH PRIME MINISTER WITHOUT THE BLESSING OF THE TYRANNICAL ROYALS . SHE AND HER LOYAL JUDICIAL MAFIA RULE BRITAIN WITH AN EVIL, WICKED AND BRUTAL IRON FIST

    Tony Blair's book today makes unprecedented disclosures about the Queen and reveals his private dealings with the royal family.

    In a major breach of protocol, his memoirs relate conversations in detail, including strained discussions after the death of Diana. He describes country weekends at Balmoral as “a vivid combination of the intriguing, the surreal and the utterly freaky” which he faced when he was prime minister with “a bit of horror”. Mr Blair says the stiff drinks he was poured before dinner were “a blessing” that acted like “true rocket fuel” and made the evening with the royal family more bearable.

    “Individually, it can be a little nerve-racking to be with them; en masse, all of them and just Cherie and me, well, you can imagine,” he adds. He says the Queen exhibited “hauteur” on occasion and was verydirect, telling him at their first meeting after he took office: “You are my tenth prime minister. The first was Winston. That was before you were born.” Tory MP Nicholas Soames, a close friend of Prince Charles, said the revelations about the Queen and the royal family were “highly inappropriate”.

    He added: “It is not only inappropriate but it flies in the face of the convention that the discussions between the monarch and her prime minister are entirely private and should never be subject to any indiscretions whatsoever.” Mr Soames, grandson of Winston Churchill, added: “Nor is it appropriate to talk about dealings with the royal family. It is highly inappropriate, a great breach and bad manners.” It is unheard of for any prime minister to relate conversations with the Queen. David Cameron was criticised recently for hinting at what he told her after this year's election and Harold Wilson was criticised for revealing that she cooked him lunch in the Seventies. Mr Blair goes much further than either.

    At Balmoral after Diana's funeral, Mr Blair spent time alone with the Queen. He says: “I talked about the need to learn lessons.” He goes on: “I worried afterwards she would think I was lecturing her or being presumptuous, and at points during the conversation she assumed a certain hauteur, but in the end she herself said lessons must be learnt.” He says that he had felt slightly uncomfortable during the weekend, and could not have got through it without the drink served before dinner, which he described as a “blessing”, adding: “Had it been a dry event, had the Queen been a teetotaller or a temperance fanatic, I don't believe I could have got through the weekend. But this stuff — I was never quite sure what it was — I was absolutely sure it was what was needed. It was true rocket fuel. The easy conversation intercourse with the royal family seemed entirely natural.”

    A year later he spent another weekend at Balmoral with his wife Cherie, who wanted to bring the children. “At which I laughed hysterically and said on no account.” Mr Blair describes an unlikely barbecue where Prince Philip cooked and other members of the royal family cleared up. “You think I'm joking, but I'm not. They put the gloves on and stick their hands in the sink. The Queen asks if you've finished, she stacks the plates up and goes off to the sink,” he writes. He writes that he had an immediate connection with Diana, recalling her as down-to-earth and charming but also stubborn and prone to being over-emotional. “We were both, in our own way, manipulators,” he said, of their ability to instinctively grasp and play on the feelings of others.

    But on a visit to Chequers in July 1997, a month before her death, he felt compelled to share his concerns over her relationship with Dodi Fayed. “She didn't like it and I could feel the wilful side of her bridling.” He also reveals that he had been concerned acrobats would fall on the Queen's head during the new year celebrations at the Millennium Dome.

  • Blair's memoirs reveal jaw-dropping vanity and self-delusion
  • A journey into Blair's fantasy world
  • Lawyer liar Blair's memoirs(bullshit): Playing the victim card it was all Brown's fault
  • Blair and Brown two EVIL masonic bastards that destroyed UK's working classes and Labour
  • The Tony Blair Interview with Andrew Marr (VIDEO)

    The British Royal family have always been close to Freemasonry and their own orders like the Knights of the Garter, the Order of the Thistle, and the Royal Victorian Order interlock with the Freemasonic networks. So, of course, does the Order of St John of Jerusalem (Knights of Malta). The expansion of Freemasonry in England in the 18th century coincided with the arrival of the German Hanoverian dynasty. The current Grand Master of the English Grand Lodge in Great Queen(Semiramis/Isis) Street in London is the Queen’s cousin, the Duke of Kent. Prince Philip was initiated into the Navy Lodge number 2612 on December 5th 1952.

    His father in law, George VI, the Queen’s father and husband of the Queen Mother, was an ardent Mason, as was Edward VII and most other monarchs since the emergence of Freemasonry. The Queen is ‘Grand Patroness’ of Freemasonry. She is served by the 390 members of the so-called Privy Council which connects with its equivalent in other Commonwealth countries. It is legally above Parliament because of its prerogative powers. Its members, who are appointed for life, include Prince Philip, Prince Charles, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Prime Minister. Nine official meetings are held each year and the government ministers stand to attention while the Queen is told of the government measures they are asking the Queen to approve. This Privy Council of inner-circle politicians, courtiers and public servants have to bow to the Queen and shake her hand before standing in line and they are sworn to conduct their business in the utmost secrecy.

    Another of the Windsor-Black Nobility vehicles for global manipulation is the Crown Agents. This organization was formed in 1833 as ‘Crown Agents for the Colonies’ to run the day-to-day administration in the Empire and serve as private bankers to government officials, colonial authorities and heads of state. It also supplied a vast range of goods, including arms. Given the methods and background of the British Empire, it would certainly have been involved in the drugs market. The Crown Agents has a long history of involvement with organized crime and operates covert arms shipments into Africa which are used to cause the genocidal wars.

    This was, and is, a Crown Agency working for the monarch and yet had its entire debt guaranteed by the British government. In the 1970s it was bailed out by a Bank of England rescue costing hundreds of millions of pounds. For many years it managed the personal wealth of the Sultan of Brunei, the friend of the Queen and a funder of many private projects for Prince Philip, Prince Charles and George Bush. The Sultan is also a financial backer of unofficial British and American Intelligence operations and a man who has funded the operation of Mohamed Al Fayed, father of Dodi. The Crown Agents were ‘privatised’ in 1996 with the name Crown Agents for Overseas Government and Administrations Ltd. ‘Privatisation’ is Brotherhood-speak for the transfer of power from Black Nobility via government agency to Black Nobility via direct ownership. The new Crown Agents acts as a holding company for a long list of companies and ventures and it continues as before as a vital cog in the network throughout the world. It’s chairman, David H. Probert, is the former director of the British weapons manufacturer, Birmingham Small Arms Ltd, and a director is F. Cassell (that name again), a Companion of the Bath (a Queen-awarded title), and former executive director of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank for Great Britain.

    The Crown Agents Foundation, which holds the share capital in trust, is headed by Sir David Rowe-Ham, Knight Grand Cross of the British Empire. This trust includes Barclays Bank, Standard and Chartered Bank, Unilever, Tate and Lyle, Securicor (a global operator of ‘security services’), British Telecom, the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum (headed by Prince Charles), and the Aga Khan Foundation. The same old crowd.

    The Crown Agents manages the customs services for Mozambique and, through a company called Europe SA, is in charge of all economic construction procurement for Bosnia... yes, Bosnia. It is also involved in a joint venture with a Monaco-based company, ES-KO, to provide all the food for United Nations peacekeeping forces in Angola and Bosnia. So the more wars and conflict, the more money the Crown Agents has the potential to make. An important part of the Windsor-Black Nobility-City of London web are the so-called ‘City Livery Companies’. These allege to represent the various groups of merchants like the gun makers, stationers and newspaper makers, the goldsmiths, and such like. In fact they are secret societies fundamental to the control of the City institutions and much further afield. In the 1350s, in the wake of the plague known as the Black Death, government of the City was passed from the ward councils to the City Livery Companies.

    The Templars were still very active behind the scenes and the power appeared to be concentrated in the Masons Guild. This network interlocks with its offshoots around the world. In 1979, the year that Margaret Thatcher became British Prime Minister, the Honourable Company of Freemen of the City of London of North America began to hold meetings in New York and Toronto, and on October 21st 1991 the Association of Liverymen of the City of London in Hong Kong was founded and all their members appeared to be architects (Freemasons). The late author, Peter Jones, researched some of the Livery Companies in the 1990s for his book, The Obedience Of Australia, which exposed the manipulation which led to the removal by the Queen of Australian Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam. These are some of the names he found within these ‘Companies’:

    Engineers: Duke of Edinburgh.

    Airline Pilots and Navigators: Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Andrew.

    Butchers: Queen Mother, Lord Vestey (of the meat family and the Lord Prior of the Order of St John of Jerusalem).

    Merchant Taylors: Queen Mother, Lord Whitelaw (alleged Satanist and former deputy prime minister to Margaret Thatcher), Lord Hailsham.

    Glovers: Margaret Thatcher, Sir John Fieldhouse (the Admiral of the Fleet), both at the forefront of the 1982 Falklands War.

    Poulterers: Margaret Thatcher, Duchess of Devonshire (Chatsworth House).

    Fishmongers: Duke of Devonshire, Duchess of Devonshire, C. E. A. Hambro (Hambros Bank, Taylor Woodrow, P & 0), Lord Inchcape (Inchcape plc, P & 0, Her Majesty’s Lieutenant of London).

    Goldsmiths: J. H. Hambro.

    Grocers: Edward Heath (Satanist and former British Prime Minister, Bilderberg Group and architect of Britain’s entry into the European Community).

    Salters: Duke of Kent (Grand Master of English Freemasonry), Lord Armstrong (the man with the long list of government and business appointments I mentioned earlier).

    Clothworkers: Sir Peter Gadsden (a Grand Master at the United Grand Lodge), Lord Carrington (Bilderberg Group chairman, President of the Royal Institute of International Affairs and major Brotherhood operative).

    Another name that appears in many of these Livery Companies is McAlpine, the construction family, with the Satanist tendencies. These groups link into the Freemason networks. There are more Freemasons per square foot in the Square Mile of the City of London financial centre than anywhere else on Planet Earth. The Bank of England has its own Freemasonry Lodge (Lodge No 263), do other banks like Lloyds (Black Horse of Lombard Street Lodge, No 4155), and there is the elite Guildhall Lodge, based at the Mansion House since 1905. The Mansion House is the official residence of the Lord (Freemason) Mayor of London and more than 60 Mayors have been Masters of the Lodge. Look at that Lloyd’s symbol, the Black Horse (Black Sun) of Lombard Street Lodge. Lombardy was a financial fiefdom of the Black Nobility Venetian/Phoenicians. The Windors are part of this reptilian network of financial and political manipulators, Satanists and ritual child killers. Knowingly so. The network has among its number, via its countless secret societies, the leading judges, policemen, politicians, business people, top civil servants, media owners and editors. Under these kings and generals of the network come the corporals and the foot soldiers who have no idea of the scale of the Agenda they are involved in.

    If the Brotherhood want someone framed, prosecuted, or murdered, it happens. If they want one of their people protected from prosecution, it happens.

    If they want a controversial proposal like a new road, a building or law change to be approved, they make sure one of their guys is appointed to head the official ‘inquiry’ to make the decision they want. This network selects the prime ministers through their manipulation of all political parties and appoints the leading government officials. The Black Nobility networks do the same in other countries, including, no, especially, in the United States.

    pharoah queen The Windsors are wealthy beyond description. The Queen’s title of the ‘richest woman in the world’ hardly tells the story and no wonder Prince Philip calls the Windsors ‘the family firm’. They have inherited the accumulated wealth of the Queen’s Black Nobility ancestors in land, homes, art treasures and jewels. Some of them the Queen owns and others are officially owned by the ‘state’, which, as a result, she can pass on untaxed to each generation of her family. Ownership by the state means ownership by the Black Nobility which controls the state.

    This is just some of the Windsor booty:

    The Queen has more than 300 residences, including castles or palaces like Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Kensington Palace (where Diana lived), St James Palace, (the London base of Prince Charles), Holyrood House in Edinburgh, Balmoral Castle in Scotland and Sandringham in Norfolk where Diana first met Prince Charles. She owns the Duchy of Lancaster with around 40,000 acres of land, mostly agricultural, but including prime development sites of enormous value. Parliament passed a bill in 1988 to allow her to develop and sell some of this land around the Strand in London. Like much of her wealth, the contents of the Duchy of Lancaster was stolen, in this case from Simon de Montfort junior by the son of Henry III after de Montfort’s efforts to establish a strong parliament were defeated in 1265. If you look at the records you will probably find that the de Montforts stole it from someone else. The Windsors own another Duchy, that of Cornwall, administered by Prince Charles. This is another 44,000 acres which also includes plots in the most expensive parts of London. The Queen has inherited or purchased the world’s biggest private collection of jewels. The Koh-i-noor Diamond, then the world’s largest, was presented to Queen Victoria after the East India Company had defeated the Maharajah of the Punjab in 1851. The Cullinen Diamond was a peace offering to British royalty after the Boer War in South Africa which was engineered by Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Milner, the Rothschilds and the Round Table.

    Other gifts have come from Arab oil sheikhs and various heads of state. More than 7,000 paintings and 20,000 drawings by old masters are owned by the Royal Collection Trust which the Queen controls. She privately owns a vast collection of other works and all this will be passed down the Windsor line when she dies, unless the nation wakes up and brings an end to the monarchy. No-one knows what the Windsors really own because it is forbidden for Parliament even to discuss the fact that the Queen keeps her private wealth a secret. Such secrecy is vital to prevent outrage by her ‘subjects’ and to allow her to use her privilege for insider trading, a practice which is illegal. Insider trading is to be in a position to hear privileged information which could be used to make a financial killing and then to use that knowledge to do just that. The Queen, with her colossal portfolio of global investments, is in the perfect position to make unlimited profits. She is constantly kept informed, via meetings with prime ministers, ministers, officials, British Intelligence and other sources, of the secret happenings in the world. She knows through these channels and others, where the best and worst investments are going to be and through her secret network she can ensure that the most effective financial use is made of that information. It was exposed in 1977 that the Bank of England, the creation of the Black Nobility, had established a company called the Bank of England Nominees Ltd (BOEN), to hide the Queen’s investments.

    The Windsor line has had a particularly profitable relationship with the City of London since the reign of Edward VII, the son of Queen Victoria. Edward’s leading financial advisor was Ernest Cassel, the Black Nobility banker. Cassel’s daughter and heiress, Edwina, would marry Lord Louis Mountbatten, the foremost influence on both Prince Philip and Prince Charles. Edward VII, a leading Freemason, was also close to the Rothschilds, the Sassoons (an offshoot of the Rothschild bloodline), and the American Payseur-Rothschild clones, Morgan and Harriman. Other financial names with long royal associations are Barings and Morgan Grenfell. The private financial advisor to George VI, the father of Queen Elizabeth, was Sir Edward Peacock of Barings Bank and the Bank of England. The King awarded Peacock a Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, so the advice was obviously very profitable. George VI also made Lord Cromer his Lord Chamberlain, the highest rank in the Royal Household. Cromer was at one time managing director of Barings. Researchers like Philip Beresford, the author of The Book Of The British Rich, say that Queen Elizabeth invests in the major corporations like Rio Tinto (formerly Rio Tinto Zinc or RTZ), Royal Dutch Shell, ICI and General Electric. This makes sense because these are all pillars of the Black Nobility. The Queen appears to have substantial investments in Rio Tinto, the biggest mining company in the world.

    It was established in 1873 by Hugh Matheson of the global drug running operation called Jardine Matheson. Rio Tinto was in at the start of North Sea oil and, along with Texaco, was using the refineries of BP in which the Queen is also believed to have major investments. The Queen would have made enormous profits at each point in the operation and she would have had insider knowledge of the North Sea potential. Perhaps the most blatant conflict of interest to be identified was Rio Tinto’s involvement in a cartel formed in 1971 to fix the price of uranium. A federal grand jury and the 1976 US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Frank Church, exposed the sting. It also included a company called Mary Kathleen Uranium of Australia. This company had been secretly encouraging the Aborigines to occupy uranium lands in Australia to take them out of production and so raise the price on the world market. The manufactured shortage of uranium had a serious effect on the American Westinghouse company who sought to take legal action against Rio Tinto for price rigging. An American court ordered that Rio Tinto officials answer questions, but this was quashed by the British Law Lords (Black Nobility and their clones). The Australian government passed legislation to the same effect. This was after the Australian Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, had been dismissed from office by the Queen’s Governor General of Australia, Sir John Kerr. Whitlam was pursuing a policy of buying out the mining and raw material cartels, like Rio Tinto and Anglo-American, to stop them raping Australia’s resource base, while giving nothing in return.

    The Queen, with enormous investments in both companies, removed Whitlam by using some of her wide range of ‘Prerogative Powers’ which she can instigate when necessary. The Queen has no power these days? Sure. Part of the scam is to encourage people to believe that she has no power while giving her amazing powers should the need arise for emergency action by the Brotherhood. Sir John Kerr, a former high level operative for British Intelligence, an arm of the Black Nobility, was made a member of the Privy Council and the Royal Victorian Order for his loyal and most profitable service to the Queen’s portfolio. He was later murdered, however, when there was a danger of the truth coming out about the removal of Gough Whitlam. The Queen has massive investments in America and many of these relate to the founding of the Virginia Company under James I and Sir Francis Bacon which carved up those lands from the very start. The British Crown still owns America (possibly on behalf of the Vatican) and, with the London-based Brotherhood, the Queen enjoys an amazing income from the raw materials and other profits generated by the United States (the Virginia Company).

    In 1966 two US congressmen described in the congressional record how the Queen owned one of the world’s largest plantations in Scott, Mississippi, close to the Arkansas border, called the Delta and Pine Land Company. It was worth even at that time some $44.5 million and yet it paid its hundreds of black labourers a pittance. Note the name, too. Delta (the triangle or pyramid) is a major symbol which is why the Elite US Military unit is called Delta Force. The pornography collection in the Library of Congress is known as the Delta Collection and the Delta, or Triad, is featured in the logos of hundreds of American businesses, including Delta Airlines. Not by coincidence Delta is also the symbol of Royal Arch Freemasonry. This is where the name of the Chinese organized crime operation, the Triads (triangle), comes from and the Elite grouping called the Trilateral Commission. When Adnan Khashoggi, the notorious global arms dealer, opened an American branch of his operation he called it Triad America. Khashoggi, a relative of the Fayeds, is an associate of George Bush, who is a close friend of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip. From 1968 the Queen’s Delta and Pine company attracted US government subsidies of $1.5 million. Senator McIntyre said in Congress on April 16th 1970 that the government had “Paid the Queen $120,000 for not planting cotton on farmland she owns in Mississippi” The New Yorker Magazine also reported that the Queen is the biggest owner of slum property in New York City and her holdings include the theatre district, 42nd Street.

    It is reckoned that between 3,000 and 5,000 families own and control the world economy, but the number of people at the core of that control is far, far fewer: a relative handful. The Windsors are definitely among or very close to that inner circle Elite. This Brotherhood cartel controls every aspect of the global economic network, the banks, insurance companies, raw materials, transportation, factories, finished products, major retail groups (and by market rigging all the rest), the stock and material markets, governments, media, intelligence agencies and so on. This is coordinated through the secret societies and one of their most important vehicles is the City of London-House of Windsor operation called the Club of the Isles. It was named after King Edward VII, Queen Victoria’s son, who was the first to carry the title Prince of the Isles. The title is held today by Prince Charles. Edward was heavily involved with Black Nobility barons of the Square Mile London financial district and helped them to engineer the Crimean War, the Russia-Japan War, the preparations for the First World War and the Opium Wars with China. Through the central organization of the Club of the Isles comes the fantastic web of interlocking directorships which hold apparently independent’ companies in a network of common control and common agenda.

    Some of this web include:

    The Bank of England

    Anglo-American Corp of South Africa

    Rio Tinto

    Minorco Minerals and Resources Corp

    De Beers Consolidated Mines and De Beers Centenary AG

    N.M. Rothchild Bank

    Barclays Bank

    Lloyds Bank

    Lloyds Insurance Market

    Midland Bank

    National Westminster Bank

    Barings Bank

    Schroders Bank

    Standard Chartered Bank

    Hambros Bank

    S. G. Warburg

    Toronto Dominion Bank

    Johnson Matthey

    Klienwort Benson Group

    Lazard Brothers


    J. P. Morgan and Co

    Morgan Grenfell Group

    British Petroleum

    Shell and Royal Dutch Petroleum


    BAT Industries

    Assicurazioni Generali SpA, (Venice) Italy


    General Electric

    Cazeenove and Co

    Grand Metropolitan

    Hanson plc

    HSBS Holdings (Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank)

    Imperial Chemical Industries

    Inchscape plc
    Inco Ltd

    ING Group

    Jardine Matheson

    Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co (P & 0)

    Pilkington Glass

    Reuters Holdings

    Glaxo Wellcome
    SmithKline Beecham

    Unilever and Unilever NV

    Vickers plc

    And that is just a few of them! Each of these corporations have staggering lists of subsidiaries going on for page after page. Lonrho alone at the time of writing has 640 subsidiaries

    diana dodi memorial Mohamed Fayed, the former owner of Harrods, has disclosed that he burned the Royal warrants after they were removed from the four corners of the London department store.

    The Egyptian tycoon, who steps down as honorary chairman of Harrods in November after selling the company to the Qatari royal family for £1.5 billion, claimed that the warrants had put a "curse" on the shop. In a letter to The Sunday Telegraph, he writes: "I ordered their removal. Later, I had them burned. They were a curse and business tripled following their removal." The warrants – from the Queen; the Duke of Edinburgh; the late Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother; and the Prince of Wales – were taken down in 2000. They had been displayed since the late Queen Elizabeth first gave her approval in 1938.

    The Duke had written to the businessman five months earlier to inform him that he would not be renewing his warrant after 40 years because he no longer patronised the shop in Knightsbridge. He had been accused by Mr Fayed in court of masterminding the deaths of the tycoon's son Dodi and Diana, Princess of Wales, in a car crash in 1997. In his letter, Mr Fayed, 77, also calls for the store's new owners, who enjoy close links to the British Royal family, to retain the two memorials that he erected to the memory of his son and the late Princess.

    This newspaper's Mandrake column reported last weekend that the Qataris were considering their removal. "Unless and until this country gives the Princess the thanks and devotion she deserves in the form of fitting public memorial, this statue, Innocent Victims, should remain to remind the world of what was lost when two young people, on the brink of happiness together, were killed," he writes. The tycoon did not say whether he had been given any reassurances by the Qataris about the future of the bronze statue, which was erected in 2005 and depicts the pair raising their hands to a seagull.

    He claims, however: "I believe the new owners of Harrods regard it with the same reverence as the thousands who visit it every week." He adds: "It is the only memorial to the Princess in the country, if one discounts the misconceived municipal water works in Hyde Park that every year causes casualties among the children who slip over when paddling in it." The second Harrods memorial, which was unveiled in 1998, consists of photographs of the pair behind a pyramid-shaped display that holds a wine glass still smudged with lipstick from the Princess's last dinner, as well as a ring Mr Fayed's son purchased for her the day before they died during a visit to Paris.

    Helen Bowman, of English Heritage, said that although Harrods was housed in a listed building, the memorials could legally be removed. She said: "These are temporary structures, and, as such, were not part of the original assessment of the building's architectural and historic merit. We appreciate, however, that there may be affection for them." A spokesman for Harrods said no decision about the future of the memorials had been made.

    diana dodi memorial Notice the pyramid ? Was this a battle between two illuminati ultra wealthy families the Windsors and the Al Fayed's?

    Eager for Harrods to regain the patronage of the Royal Family, the store's new Qatari owners are considering the removal – at a discreet interval after Mohamed Fayed steps down as the company's honorary chairman in November – of the two memorials that the Egyptian tycoon erected to the memory of his son, Dodi, and Diana, Princess of Wales.

    "I can't see a member of the Royal Family resuming patronage while they remain in the store," a senior courtier tells Mandrake. "One of the memorials is entitled Innocent Victims, which is consistent with Mr Fayed's bizarre claims that the Duke of Edinburgh had a hand in the deaths of the princess and his son. Obviously, this is offensive in the extreme." It was Fayed's allegation that Prince Philip "ordered" the car crash which killed Diana and Dodi which proved the final straw for the Windsors. In 2000, when they ceased to be patrons, the coats of arms of Prince Philip, the Queen, the late Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother and the Prince of Wales were removed from the four corners of the iconic shop's Knightsbridge premises.

    Since the Qatari royal family bought Harrods in a £1.5 billion deal in May, there has been much talk of a "step change" in the way that the business conducts itself. I disclosed the following month how the new owners appeared to be trying to mend fences with Prince Philip by inviting his friend Joanna Lumley to open the store's summer sale. In the event, the actress had to withdraw, citing work commitments. A spokesman for Harrods insists that no decision about the future of the memorials has been made. One potential stumbling block had been seen as the building's listed status, but Helen Bowman, of English Heritage, confirms that the memorials could legally be removed. "These are temporary structures, and, as such, were not part of the original assessment of the building's architectural and historic merit. We appreciate, however, that there may be affection for them."

    Innocent Victims, which was unveiled in 2005, is a 3m high bronze statue of Diana and Dodi dancing on a beach beneath the wings of an albatross. An earlier memorial, unveiled in April 1998, consists of photographs of the pair behind a pyramid-shaped display that holds a wine glass still smudged with lipstick from Diana's last dinner as well as a ring Fayed's son purchased for her the day before they both died during a visit to Paris.



    london lion

    Just as the gun changed the equilibrium of the masters and servants, the internet and information sharing will be the death knell of the brutal regimes that have dominated the globe and at the very top of the tree are the British royals.

    How they have managed to brutalize a country, its people and the world for so long providing themselves with the power and wealth to rule with an iron fist, is down to ONE thing. They have been able to control the flow of information, and through their masonic henchmen, the mass media in a way that has created an illusion of grandeur , pomp and ceremony that belongs in the dim and distant past. They clearly hold onto that in the hope this monster they have created will allow them to keep the position of top dog with all its evil tentacles of power.

    They have made a fatal mistake however in failing to stem the rise of technology that has leapt ahead and provided the LOWER ORDERS with a means to express history from the perspective of looking up, not as they have done for so long , from looking down. Like the wheel they CANNOT un-invent the technology that can finally get to the truth as to how the most evil despots on this planet have provided themselves these powerful and wealthy positions using the most devious and treacherous use of the law, the courts, corrupt judges, corrupt lawyers, corrupt cops and the myriad of hangers on required to fleece the public using the most draconian and tyrannical forces short of war. By controlling the mass media for so long this has allowed them to get away with absolute murder. No longer can they OPENLY get away with MURDERING enemies and dissidents but they now use more subtle and deadly forms of removing their adversaries using psychological torture and psychiatric gulags. Make no doubt about it the world is being transformed , given a little more time, as the continuing exposures of what the powerful and wealthy have been getting up to for centuries using satanic oaths to get their duped goons to swear allegiance to their now LOST CAUSE.

    Those in their ivory towers must be shaking in their boots as to how the masses are being educated and reverse brainwashed from the propaganda that has allowed these evil dynasties to get away with so much for far to long. We may not be able to change their systems so quickly but they will find fewer and fewer people to EXPLOIT when they know how to avoid the devious ploys and pitfalls used to screw the world and its people for centuries using the same despicable scams. One look on the Thames at Cleopatra's needle shows the same enslavement system used by the pharaoh's has been allowing LONDON to control the world with its evil masonic tentacles of power.

    queen protection


    Queen's holiday costs £1m in security (including guards and even a Royal Navy warship)

    She may have paid for the 30-cabin cruise liner out of her own pocket. But the Queen's Scottish staycation is still costing the taxpayer rather more than an average UK family break. An estimated £1million security bill - including the services of a Royal Navy warship - for the ten-day cruise around the Western Isles has drawn criticism from some quarters. The luxury Hebridean Princess liner, hired by the Queen for £300,000, is being shadowed by a Royal Navy Type 23 frigate as well as divers, MoD police launches, local police and Scotland Yard bodyguards. They also help ensure privacy when the Royals take impromptu trips ashore during what Buckingham Palace describes as a 'private family occasion'.

    The warship alone costs taxpayers £717,000 in operating costs over the ten days - though Ministry of Defence sources insist the ship can continue normal training exercises while following the holidaymakers. Officials have never divulged the cost of protecting the Royal Family round-the-clock and the vast expense was not included in the 62p-per-person annual cost of the Queen released by the Palace earlier this month. Royal aides pointed out that the monarch can never totally escape her work, even on holiday. She will still go through her official papers on the cruise. However, the board games including the word game Articulate and a 1,000-piece jigsaw spotted being loaded on to the ship should provide some family fun.

    Despite the Queen's reputation for frugality, questions were raised last night over the appropriateness of the holiday. Fiona McEvoy, of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said: 'Even though it is the Queen's own money that is paying for this trip, there are large sums of public money involved in the huge security operation. 'With huge pressure on Government finances, it's essential that savings are made in all areas of public spending, and that includes Her Majesty's tours.' The cruise is particularly special because it celebrates landmark birthdays for two of the Queen's children - Princess Anne will be 60 next month, while Prince Andrew turned 50 last February.

    His children Beatrice and Eugenie and the late Princess Margaret's children Viscount Linley and Sarah Chatto also boarded the liner with the Queen, who dressed relatively casually in a lime green trouser suit when the ship left Stornoway, on the Isle of Lewis, on Friday. The family's Scottish nanny Mabel Anderson, who looked after all four of the Queen's children, is a special guest on the liner, which made another stop in Stornoway to pick up Prince Philip yesterday. Prince Edward, his wife Sophie and their children Louise and James are believed to have joined him. But Prince Charles, the Duchess of Cornwall and Princes William and Harry will not join the holiday. A royal source said the Queen took 'very few' holidays, adding: 'It [the trip] is quite exposed. When people in senior positions travel, they are protected. This is true of ministers and it is true of members of the Royal Family.'

  • How police spend £350,000 every 24 hours protecting royals, VIPs and diplomats
  • Scotland Yard advertises for 'gay, lesbian or transgender' bodyguards for the Queen
  • THIRD of Scottish MSPs snub Queen's visit to celebrate 10th anniversary of their £430million parliament
    royal pile

    There is certainty about one thing across the UK and the world , all of the licenced media kow tow to the richest despots on the planet, the British royal family. No other regime gets the mass media attention and platforms that Lizzie and her offspring get, due to how her masonic henchmen control virtually every network that has a media lawyer, behind the scenes acting for their bar association and ultimately controlled via the Inns of Court in London. You have to give these evil bastards credit for creating a global network of information deception that ensures she, along with her many henchmen, get adoration and worship and promoted as some sort of godly creatures when in fact there is mountains of evidence showing how they ruthlessly and brutally treat UK citizens to ensure those ivory towers they live in are not disturbed.

    The rich lists that the Times and Forbes produce are a MYTH in that they leave the richest families across the globe out of their statistics, for fear of rousing the peasants, and at the top of the list by a very very long way should be the British royals. Never has so much time and effort been spent in hiding and safeguarding the extreme greed and opulence the British royals bask in. They have wealth no ordinary person could truly understand were at the last count the Queen alone owns one sixth of the world's land mass, not through her kindness and generosity but through her forefathers ruthless rape and pillage during the rise of the British empire. They have relied on 100,000's of masonic henchmen who all get a piece of the pie including powerful positions in office and her troops have instant access to massive gun arsenals while British citizens are jailed indefinitely for daring to even touch a loaded weapon.

    Those with the power and wealth have so much of it now that they believe they are UNTOUCHABLE. They are turning Britain once again into a society of feudalism harking back to the middle ages were the serfs are being returned to tugging the forelock and were any dissent is punished with a lose of occupation, forcible eviction from your home and in the worse cases permanent incarceration in the many psychiatric gulags were victims can disappear without a trace. Britain's complicit media are wholly responsible for failing to expose this monstrous evil satanic network as they are owned and controlled by establishment masons who take orders from the United Grand Lodge of England ensuring only heavy propaganda and royalist bullshit is pumped out in a now desperate attempt to contradict the growing exposures circulating across the internet.

    How do we know so much of this? We have personally been victims of this system and have witnessed friends and acquaintances, en masse, being fleeced of their life's work and who dared to challenge the might of the judicial mafia that has for centuries been getting away with murder in secretive court systems that ensure the money keeps rolling into the royal and masonic henchmen's coffers. The UK is literally much worse than the South African apartheid system that some of our group have many years of experience of , were armed thugs masquerade as cops and who head the massive white collar crime that sees corrupt judges, lawyers and bailiff's seizing ever increasing amounts of land , properties and business's. These have been stolen using a form of English law that assures the crown and its royal descendants long term prosperity as long as the system remains in the hands of the criminals meting out despicable judgements that destroy lives on a daily basis.

    Security for VIPs and the royal family is set to be scaled back in a review of protection arrangements amid increasing concerns over spiralling costs.

    The move by Scotland Yard Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson comes after an exposé of Tony Blair's security revealed that his protection unit claimed £250,000 a year in expenses on hotels and restaurants. Asked about the cost of claims from the officers Sir Paul said: “I think it is time for us to look at the VIP protection arrangements and that is what we are doing with our partners.” The review is being carried out with officials from the Home Office and the Cabinet Office. Sir Paul added that they were examining the “who, why, where and when” of the security arrangements surrounding VIPs and royalty. This year it was revealed that Scotland Yard had been forced to put an extra £4 million into protecting VIPs, including junior members of the royal family. MPs heard how Sir Paul raised the issue with government “almost constantly” as he struggled to control the costs of protection.

    Sir Paul was involved in a dispute with ministers in the previous Labour government over the estimated £50 million a year cost of protecting 22 members of the royal family. He asked that the Home Office should pay the full amount rather than the £30 million it provides.

    The cost of protecting some VIPS, and royals such as Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, has come under increasing scrutiny as budgets are squeezed. There have also been questions over protecting other VIPs, such as the reported £25,000-a-day cost of providing security to former Pakistan dictator Pervez Musharraf at his London flat.


  • Queen makes speech at UN
  • NWO godmother hails work of United Nations
  • Queen at UN on global dangers forgets to mention the dangers her masonic goons create

    Austerity Queen 'will run out of money by Diamond Jubilee'

    The Queen is engaged in an unprecedented austerity drive as accounts reveal she will run out of money within two years. Figures released today show the royal household will be “broke” by 2012 — the year of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee — unless urgent action is taken. The accounts reveal she was forced to take a record £6.5 million from cash reserves just so that she can fulfil her duties.

    The Queen has only £15.2 million remaining of reserves and is expected to draw down a further £7.2 million this year, leaving £8 million, or little more than one year's money, left in the pot. The cash flow crisis has forced palace officials to take the axe to every aspect of the Queen's spending including stationery, staff, uniforms and soft furnishings. Senior aides have had their salaries frozen and a recruitment freeze has been imposed. Spending on furnishings and equipment fell from £400,000 in 2008 to £300,000 last year, while spending on uniforms and protective clothing halved from £200,000 to £100,000.

    Half as much was also spent on computers and information systems — down from £400,000 to £200,000. Spending on equerries and orderlies was £1 million in the year to 31 March 2010, down from £1.4 million the year before. Sir Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse, said: “The royal household is acutely aware of the difficult economic climate. We are implementing a headcount freeze and reviewing every vacancy to see if we can avoid replacement.” The accounts, for the financial year 2009-2010, show taxpayers spent £3 million less on funding the monarch this year than they did last year.

    She now costs each Briton 62 pence a year, down seven pence on the year before. Once inflation is taken into account, the Queen has seen her state support drop by 12.2 per cent in real terms from £41.5 million to £38.2 million in the year 2009-10. Her civil list expenditure — which pays for the running of the royal household including staff salaries — went up £300,000 to £14.2 million. The Queen's budget shrank largely due to less use of commercial charter flights and cuts in travel. Official royal trips cost £3.9 million compared with £6.5 million the year before.

    The accounts also show two of the Queen's most important employees have taken substantial pay cuts. Sir Alan saw his own salary fall from £194,000 to £180,000, while the monarch's private secretary Christopher Geidt saw his pay drop from £155,000 to £146,000. Sir Alan said: “We're freezing the salaries of senior staff so we can provide worthwhile increases for those on lower salaries. We want to be fair to the lower paid as that seems right in the economic climate. Property services funding will be reduced by £500,000 this year. “Work will continue on assessing the condition of the estate, but it is acknowledged that the necessary cuts in public expenditure will have an impact on the backlog of essential maintenance which it is hoped can be addressed in the longer term. In the meantime, the household is continuing to pursue opportunities to reduce costs and generate income from the estate's assets, including commercial lettings and management charges.”

    Chancellor George Osborne announced as part of his Budget that the civil list payment will remain frozen for the coming year. But he hinted that “a new means of consolidated support” would be proposed at a later date. Sir Alan said that a new system will be in place by 2012 — in time to prevent further financial problems. He added: “This year we will be discussing with the Government a new system to provide support for the Queen. It will be in place by 1 January 2012. It would be helpful if the Government rolled together all the grants as it would allow us to manage the household finances more effectively.”

    Key items of palace spending

                                                            2009/10            2008/09
    Garden parties                                £700,000          £600,000
    Food and kitchens                          £500,000          £500,000
    Recruitment and training               £300,000          £300,000
    Stationery                                       £300,000          £200,000
    Legal advice                                  £200,000          £200,000
    Computers and IT                           £200,000          £400,000
    Housekeeping                                £300,000          £300,000
    Furnishings                                     £300,000          £400,000
    Carriage processions                       £100,000          £100,000
    Uniforms and protective clothing     £100,000          £200,000
    Cars and other vehicles                  £100,000          £100,000

    prince charles Prince Charles, disgusted of Windsor

    By meddling in the Chelsea barracks affair, the heir to the British throne has made himself an issue, weakening his own credibility and possibly that of the monarchy as a whole.

    There are two easily exaggerated ways of interpreting the Prince of Wales's role in the Chelsea barracks development row – and then there's the truth. But the truth is bad enough. Exaggeration number one is to pretend that nothing of any consequence happened when the heir to the British throne lobbied the Qatari royal family against a Richard Rogers design for a major London development he disliked and then became embroiled in detailed negotiations which included further lobbying to outflank the planning process.

    Prince Charles's defenders claim the activities, which have been revealed in emails in a high court case, are legitimate campaigning that anyone who feels strongly about such developments might undertake. Such an intervention, though, is hardly an everyday matter – as the prince's anxiety to avoid publicity about the affair underscores. All of us may have the right to make objections to developments we dislike. But a royal objector is infinitely more equal than others. Equally exaggerated, though, is the pretence that this is the thin end of a large constitutional wedge. This argument casts the prince as an incorrigible interventionist whose concerns about Richard Rogers's architecture, though serious enough in themselves, are an outrider for an extensive conservative agenda which would be given fuller rein if and when the prince ascends the throne. If the prince has no intention of living within the planning rules on the Chelsea barracks while he is heir, goes the argument, think what he might get up to when, unlike most elderly Disgusteds of Windsor, the full prerogative monarchical powers of the late 17th century constitutional settlement are conferred upon him. The problem with this argument is that he simply wouldn't dare. But, if he did, he wouldn't last five minutes.

    So is there no problem in the Chelsea barracks affair beyond the fact – undoubtedly an irksome one to those involved – of a titled reactionary interfering in the cityscape and by doing so putting some developers out of pocket? Actually, no, even though this intervention in the London built environment is hardly a small one, or the first of its kind. The larger issue is that the prince is a meddler. This doesn't mean (probably) that he is keen to press his friend David Cameron to cut this or that project, appoint this or that minister or amend this or that bill, let alone that he regards the prospect of a Labour government as utterly ghastly, although he probably does. The problem is that he has made himself an issue. Whether this merely weakens his own credibility or that of the monarchy as a whole, it is further evidence of someone who is simply not well fitted to the role in which fortune has cast him.


    £50,000,000 for cops to protect 22 British Royals.

    Princesses 'to lose police bodyguards'

    The daughters of Prince Andrew are to lose their 24-hour police protection after a row about the annual cost of their bodyguards, it is understood. Concerns have been expressed for a long time by successive Metropolitan police commissioners over the £500,000 a year bill paid for by the taxpayer for providing Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice, and other minor royals with permanent armed protection. The cost of guarding Eugenie, 20, who is in her first year at Newcastle University has been estimated at £250,000. Included in the cost are the salaries, accommodation, living and travel expenses of two full-time bodyguards, Her sister, 21, who is studying in London, also has round-the-clock protection.

    According to The Sunday Times a security review has proposed that the princesses be stripped of their police protection and has been accepted by Ravec, the committee for the protection of royalty and VIPs. It is believed that the princesses will be given protection for high-profile events, the paper added. Sir Paul Stephenson, the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, is believed to have been telling the Home Office for a while that the Met cannot afford to pay the estimated £50m-a-year it costs to protect 22 members of the royal family, many of whom are minor members.

    Last month the princesses' mother, the Duchess of York, apologised for her "serious lapse in judgment" after she was filmed apparently offering to sell access to her ex-husband Prince Andrew for £500,000. The Duchess also admitted her financial situation was "under stress" after the newspaper sting showed her accepting money for an introduction to the prince.