Right Royal Coincidences

"HORATIO
Now, sir, young Fortinbras,
Of unimprovèd mettle hot and full,
Hath in the skirts of Norway here and there
Shark'd up a list of lawless resolutes
For food and diet to some enterprise
That hath a stomach in 't; which is no other
(As it doth well appear unto our state)
But to recover of us, by strong hand
And terms compulsatory, those foresaid landsSo by his father lost." Will. Shakespeare. Hamlet.


http://www.buckinghampalace.co.uk/assets/images/bp1.jpg

Harry puts his foot in it!

Prince Harry's latest remarks in an American interview have set tongues wagging.

He is reputed to have said - and it hasn't been denied so we must presume it to be an accurate representation of his feelings, though not necessarily of others to whom he refers - he once "wanted out" of the Royal Family and he, "doubted any of the royals want to be King or Queen."

Of course if true, this would imply that neither his father or brother, or even the Monarch herself, wish to fill the role! The actual quote is as follows: “Is there any one of the royal family who wants to be king or queen? I don’t think so, but we will carry out our duties at the right time.”


http://c8.alamy.com/comp/GAEHJW/queen-duke-of-edinburgh-diamond-wedding-royal-wedding-diamond-anniversary-GAEHJW.jpg

In so saying, in this the twentieth anniversary of her untimely death, he appears to be taking a leaf out of mother's figure of speech, who in the famous Bashir interview, said that she did not expect to be Queen, only the "Queen of people's hearts." Harry has also been rather good at that.



But he did not stop there. Referring to the funeral arrangements for Princess Diana in 1997 when he was required to process behind the cortege as a twelve year old, he said: “My mother had just died, and I had to walk a long way behind her coffin, surrounded by thousands of people watching me while millions more did on television. I don't think any child should be asked to do that under any circumstances. I don't think it would happen today”.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/06/07/article-1024903-0005307D00000258-392_468x312.jpg


It is hard to view this other than a direct criticism of the parenting style of his father, grandfather and uncle. Clearly the experience left a lasting and painful memory, compounding rather than mitigating the grief he was experiencing. Still we might wonder had he been excluded from the proceedings, he might now as a grown man, resent the fact?

However as a grown man he must also have known roughly what he would be asked and what he would say, and the way in which it would be interpreted. To be caught naked on camera by an unprincipled guest is one thing; an organised interview quite another. Was this in fact a naive slip of the tongue or a rather calculated homage to his late mother's famous interview?

In a specific reference he said, “We are incredibly passionate with our charities and they have been chosen because they are on the path shown to me by our mother.”

The interviewer specifically chosen?

The interview was with free-lance journalist Angela Levine, who rather interestingly has written frankly about her own troubled childhood and a mother she disliked intensely. "However, having a horrid parent remains a taboo subject. After all, if all your friends have a lovely mother and/or father, or your difficult parent puts on a front in public, it can make you seem very disloyal if you disclose the truth." (1) Someone chose her do the interview. Was this a factor?

Apparently Harry, has flown off to South Africa and one of his pet animal charities, maybe to avoid the controversy, spoke in the context of numerous events that impinge on both him and the unique family of which he is part.

Shocking allegation by dying man

First, as already mentioned, it comes in the twentieth anniversary year of Princess Diana's death, in what can only be described as very suspicious circumstances, only recently reinforced by the account of a dying man.

'YourNewswWire.com' reports as follows: 

"An 80-year-old retired MI5 agent, John Hopkins, has made a series of astonishing confessions since he was released from hospital in London on Wednesday and told he has weeks to live. Hopkins claims to have been involved in 23 assassinations for the British intelligence agency, including Princess Diana." (2)


http://www.unilad.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/john-hopkins.jpg

The article goes on to describe his career working for MI5 from June 1973 to December, 1999,  during a period he says “the MI5 operated with less external oversight.” Hopkins says he was part of a cell of seven operatives who were trusted to carry out political assassinations across the UK. Most victims were politicians, activists, journalists and union leaders. The Princess of Wales, he said was the only woman and only Royal he ever assassinated. 

"He claims to feel “ambivalent” about Princess Diana’s death. On the one hand, Diana was “a beautiful, kind-hearted woman” who did not deserve to have her life cut short. But according to Mr. Hopkins, "she was also placing the British Crown at risk."

Duke of Edinburgh implicated in assassination?

Even more inflammatory the allegation that this was on the direct orders of the Palace and specifically the Duke of Edinburgh! He said, "My boss" (who he said died a few years after the operation) "told me she had to die – he’d received orders directly from Prince Philip – and we had to make it look like an accident. I’d never killed a woman before, much less a princess, but I obeyed orders. I did it for Queen and country. We got away with murder."

Those familiar with the notorious death of Diana in 1997 and the controversy that followed it, up to and including, her inquest ten years later, will of course be aware that Dodi's father Mohamed Al-Fayed had consistently claimed that the Duke was personally responsible. (9)  

It should be noted that in summing up the Coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker concluded that there was "not a shred of evidence" that Diana's death had been ordered by the Duke of Edinburgh or organised by the security services.

In  August 2013, Scotland Yard revealed that they were examining the credibility of information from a source that alleged that Diana was murdered by a member of the British military. (10)

Is it any wonder Harry is somewhat conflicted over the death of his mother and the family of which he is part?

 
http://www.hellomagazine.com/imagenes/royalty/2016010829125/prince-harry-nepal-visit-confirmed/0-143-445/PrinceHarry--a.jpg


James Hewitt recovers after near death

Then another rather strange event: the near-death of James Hewitt aged 58 but now released after eight weeks in a Devon hospital where he underwent emergency heart surgery. 

 
http://www.devonlive.com/exeter-s-james-hewitt-princess-diana-s-former-lover-is-released-from-hospital/story-30408445-detail/story.html Posted: June 25, 2017


Strange because of the conflicting initial reports that he was "unlikely to survive", whilst others said he was "recovering". In fact some reports stated he had "died"! (4)

Of course it is well known that the ex-Army captain and Gulf War veteran had a five-year affair with Diana while she was married to Prince Charles. It is claimed the pair met at a party in London in 1986 when she was aged 25. He was 28. 

If accurate this would rule out the rumour that he is actually the biological father of Harry as the latter was born on 15th September, 1984. His illness also came only weeks after Hewitt's televised denial he was Harry's father. (3)

However the remarkable facial and personality similarity  - not to mention its absence in relation to Prince Charles - is there for all to see. If not related, the likeness is rather extraordinary. The principle of "an heir and a spare" could be seriously challenged if the rumour was well founded. Of course the paternity issue could be settled fairly easily, scientifically.

'Emergency meeting' called at Buckingham Palace

On the 3th May, 2017 the news media was awash with stories about an unprecedented "emergency meeting" of the Royal Household called at Buckingham Palace. 

Some even thought it was the harbinger of bad news. According to the Guardian the code phrase to be used among government officials when the Queen dies is 'London Bridge is down'. In touching on this sensitive subject the Independent commented rather ominously: 

"She is likely to have one of the most grand state funerals in modern British history. "She will get everything,” a source told the newspaper. “We were all told that the funeral of Churchill was the requiem for Britain as a great power. But actually it will really be over when she goes.”

In due time it emerged it was in fact just to announce the forthcoming retirement from official duties of the Duke of Edinburgh then aged ninety-six from September onwards. (5)

It can hardly escape notice that the twentieth anniversary of Diana's death occurs on the 1st September. Surely not planned to distract from the latter and the now alleged part played in it by the Duke himself?

A central positive role played by Monarch and Consort in nation's history

Whatever the truth surrounding these events and the allegations made, the central role of the monarch and her consort in the life of the nation over at least seventy years cannot be gainsaid, nor their influence for stability and good which must count for something.

London Bridge Terrorism Coincidences

Given the code word for the Queen's demise referred to above, it is more than strange that London Bridge was indeed "down" when it was allegedly attacked by terrorists on the 3rd June, 2017 - note precisely one month after the emergency meeting had been called! AND only one week before the  traditional date for the Monarch's Official Birthday celebrated with the 'Trooping of the Colour' this year preceded by one minute's silence for the victims of the Grenfell Tower! 

Even if these singularities have been missed by general public and media, it is highly unlikely the astute members of the Royal Family will have done so.

This 'terrorist event' was of course the third to have occurred (Westminster Bridge on the 22.3.17 and Manchester Arena on the 22.5.17) prompted the government to put up to 5000 troops on the streets in addition to heavily armed policemen. One of the sites to be afforded extra protection was Buckingham Palace despite the fact that it has been long guarded by detachments of the Queen's Guards from the Household Division.

Interestingly in an historic move, to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the founding of Canada a detachment of Canadian soldiers, headed for the first time by a woman - Capt Megan Couto - are serving as the Queen’s Guard on select dates until 3rd July. 

It is the "Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry", based in Shilo, Manitoba, named after Princess Patricia of Connaught, daughter of the then governor general of Canada. Princess Patricia had special links with Buckingham Palace, the place of her birth on 17 March 1886. Her father was Prince Arthur, the third son of Queen Victoria.

Life imitates art?

The topics of succession, Harry's parentage and tanks on the forecourt were all dealt with in the play "Charles III", which was made into a film and was broadcast by BBC2 on the 10th May 2017 - note seven days after the 'emergency meeting' at the Palace, which itself took place exactly six weeks after the Westminster attack. (6)


https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/167CC/production/_95980129_13145085-low_res-king-charles-iii.jpg

The substance of the fiction was that Charles would be forced to abdicate in favour of his son. In this context Harry's words have an ominous ring to them.

In addition there have been some very strange precedents set. In particular, as early as the 27th April, 2017  - six days prior to the 'Emergency meeting' called at Buckingham Palace - it was announced that for the first time in over forty years, the Queen would take part in a 'dressed-down' State Opening of Parliament. Also for the first time in 33 years the premier Order of the Garter ceremony would be cancelled to accommodate it. For only the second time in her reign, the Queen wore “day dress” and a hat for the State Opening of Parliament, abandoning the traditional Robes of State. 

The date set was the 19th June, 2017. In the event, it actually took place on Wednesday 21st June, seven weeks after the Emergency Meeting and seven days after the Grenfell House fire. Apart from no soldiers guarding the route, there were no Heralds to announce her approach. The Duke of Edinburgh set to join her in morning dress rather than uniform, found it necessary to enter hospital with an infection and his place was taken by the Prince of Wales. Was this a subtle response to the theme of 'Charles III'? (We need not dwell on the fate of Charles the 1st or 2nd)

The 'Euro' Hat!


http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/State+Opening+Parliament+2017+TgoepRzUiw6l.jpg

But this was not all. Mrs May's government announced that the State Opening would be abandoned altogether the following year (2018) and the speech itself was hardly worth the velum on which it had been written. So thin in content, cheap paper would probably have been more appropriate!

So at a time when 5000 troops could be deployed to the streets to protect us from alleged terror, none could be found to protect the Monarch forced to dispense with the ceremonial symbols of the Crown? Is all this merely administrative convenience or should we see in it dark forces at work intent on removing tradition and the protections it affords the citizen?

The BBC has a habit of using fiction to forecast disastrous events as it did with the collapse of Building 7 on 9/11 and the London tube/bus attacks on 7/7! Nor should it be forgotten that it had a team (7) working at the Queen Mary Hospital at just the right time to capture the admittance of the alleged Westminster Bridge attacker, shot dead by mysterious official gunmen. (8) 

Sequence of events

Wed. 22nd March, 2017: Westminster attack.
(Exactly six weeks to)
Wed. 3rd May, 2017: Emergency Meeting
(Three weeks (less 2 days) to)
Mon. 22nd May, 2017: Manchester attack
(Twelve days to)
Sat. 3rd June, 2017: London Bridge attack.
(Exactly six weeks after emergency meeting)
Wed. 14th June, 2017: Catastrophic fire Grenfell House.
(Exactly four weeks following Manchester attack)
Mon 19th June, 2017: Finsbury Park attack.

Constitutional implications of events

There could be no event with greater implications for Crown and Country than the decision to leave the European Union, commonly called 'BREXIT'. Following the decision by David Cameron in 2016 to call a national referendum on the subject, a narrow majority voted 'leave' against all expectations and prognostications. 

As coincidence would have it, in the year leading up to the referendum in in June 2016 a record number of terrorist attacks were planned, foiled or carried out in European Union countries this including Nice attack in France, Brussels attack in Belgium, an explosion at an airport in Istanbul and several others. Most (I think) are listed below:

November 2015 Paris; Jan. 2016 Valence and Goutte d’Or district in Paris; Feb. 2016 Hanover; March 2016 Brussels; April 2016 Essen; June 2016 Magnanville; July 2016 Nice and Normandy; July 2016 Ansbach, Wurzburg and Reutlingen; December 2016 Zurich, Ankara, Berlin.

In the month of June 2016 alone it should be noted that no less than 236 terrorist incidents are recorded world wide here (11) with about 2000 killed as a result and countless injured, yet we hear very little about them.

Following assurances that a General Election would not be called, Mrs May the Prime Minister reversed her decision with catastrophic consequences for her control of Parliament and her EU negotiating position.

Viewed objectively the violence in mainland Europe has helped IS terrorists not at all. In fact any strategist would see that it would have worked against it. The only group to benefit have been those supporting repressive measures at home and a more aggressive stance abroad - particularly in Syria and the Ukraine. It is not difficult to see this is a US led NATO prospectus and it is where the terrorism finger points particularly as it has 'previous' in this regard of using violence for political purpose. (12)

The issue of terrorism is already being touted as reason not to leave the EU or the so-called 'soft brexit'. (13) The United States made no secret of the fact that it wanted Britain to remain within the European Union. Only the naive would rule out deep state efforts to make the process even more difficult than it would otherwise be. The popular discontent in Britain was reflected in the US with the election of Trump where a parallel establishment/media/'terror' events campaign has been mounted. 

Clearly nothing has gone according to plan.

REFERENCES

1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4262328/ANGELA-LEVIN-mother-cruel-horrid-woman.html#ixzz4l0sCaMDp

2.  http://yournewswire.com/mi5-agent-killed-princess-diana/

3.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4503686/James-Hewitt-suffered-heart-attack-stroke.html#ixzz4l16mPFqt 

4.  http://news.tv-bbc.com/princess-dianas-former-love-james-hewitt-is-dead-breaking-news/

5. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/buckingham-palace-queen-elizabeth-ii-royal-staff-meeting-emergency-highly-unusual-meeting-prince-a7716746.html

6.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Charles_III_(play);

7.   http://label1.tv/

8.http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-06-20/bbc-documentary-hospital-features-astonishing-footage-of-westminster-terror-attacker-and-the-survivors-fight-for-life

9.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-515542/Tony-Blair-gave-order-kill-Diana-Al-Fayed-tells-crash-inquest.html

10.  Addison, Stephen (17 August 2013). "British police studying new information on Princess Diana death". Reuters. London. and  http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/427036/EXCLUSIVE-Soldier-s-claim-SAS-hit-squad-did-kill-Princess-Diana-is-utterly-convincing

11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_June_2016

12.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

13. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/813245/London-Bridge-terror-attack-Theresa-May-slammed-threat-to-quit-EU-terror-pact-Brexit