Showing posts sorted by relevance for query queen. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query queen. Sort by date Show all posts

Thursday, 8 September 2022

 "The Queen is dead. Long live the King!"



KING LEAR
Blow, winds, and crack your cheeks! rage! blow!
You cataracts and hurricanoes, spout
Till you have drench'd our steeples, drown'd the cocks!
You sulphurous and thought-executing fires,
Vaunt-couriers to oak-cleaving thunderbolts,
Singe my white head! And thou, all-shaking thunder,
Smite flat the thick rotundity o' the world!
Crack nature's moulds, an germens spill at once,
That make ingrateful man!

Fool
O nuncle, court holy-water in a dry
house is better than this rain-water out o' door.
Good nuncle, in, and ask thy daughters' blessing:
here's a night pities neither wise man nor fool.

SHAKESPEARE - KING LEAR. ACT II 


At six o'clock I went for a walk. I had been following the BBC's coverage of the momentous events taking place at Balmoral Castle, in the Scottish Highlands, where a longstanding Monarch - I am tempted to add, 'of the Glen' - was gravely ill. 

According to the BBC, Queen Elizabeth II was at that time, still alive. In fact we were later informed she has passed away earlier in the afternoon, and the pretence was maintained for several hours in accordance with Palace and family protocol, presumably in order for numerous persons around the world to be informed and procedures put in place. Nevertheless for several hours the 'News' was effectively inaccurate and misleading. 

When I went out, I put the BBC internet broadcast on pause, so when I got back roughly two hours later nothing seemed to have changed, so imagine my surprise when I watched Canadian PM Trudeau announce the death of the Queen. It appeared that Canadians were being informed of an historic event denied to the British audience.

Of course this was not the case, merely me getting confused by technology. Clearly a lot had transpired whilst I was out. Time and events had moved on. I was still stuck in the past.

My circular walk had taken much longer than usual. This was because I kept attempting to shelter from the rain under trees and hedges. I had never seen rain like it! The heavens had opened. It was portentous. It was apt. 

Heavy continuous rain for two hours with only minor respite, filling the gutters with rushing water, turning roads into ponds, millions of droplets hitting the ground, so that they could be both seen and heard. 

When eventually, soaked to the skin, I got to my lane, it had literally turned into a river, and I had no alternative but to wade, ankle-deep, up through it. I left the house still in the Second Elizabethan Age. I returned to the third Carolean one! 

The Queen's reign was synonymous with my life. I had known nothing else. It was a constant. Similarly the new King, being the same age, we had lived parallel but very different lives. 

Just as his mother held the record for the oldest and longest reigning British Monarch, so her Heir holds the record for the oldest person to take on the role. Both of us our in our respective final Act. What that will be, waits to be seen. In matters of the Crown, continuity is all but there is no doubt that the late Queen will be a very hard act to follow. 

For me in my anonymous, insignificant life, the day the Queen eventually passed, will forever be the day I took a walk on the wild side, caught in a deluge, returning home wet and cold, to discover we had entered a new age. Rain or reign, it all eventually passes over.


Some of the Articles relating to the British Royal Family on this Blog:


Thursday, 21 April 2016  Queen Elizabeth II - Primus inter pares.

The ambivalent nature of monarchy in the 21st Century.  https://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/search?q=primus

Sunday, 25 June 2017 Right Royal Coincidences 

https://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/search?q=duke+of+edinburgh


Friday, 1 September 2017   Charles and Camilla to Split?

(Reliable or fake news?) https://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/search?q=charles

Tuesday, 24 September 2019 'Prorogue' gone Rogue? And the 'Queen is not amused'! 

https://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/2019/09/porogue-gone-rogue-and-queen-is-not.html


Sunday, 20 October 2019  "Prince Charles: A Mad King in Waiting?" https://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/2019/10/prince-charles-mad-king-in-waiting.html

 

Friday, 9 April 2021. Wednesday, 27 November 2019  Queen Elizabeth And Prince Charles Force Prince Andrew To Cancel Engagem..  https://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/2021/04/wednesday-27-november-2019-queen.html


Saturday, 19May 2018   The Wedding. Which Wedding? 

https://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/search?q=harry+meghan


Sunday, 5 May 2019   "The King (to be) and I." 

https://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/search?q=prince+of+wales


Saturday, 11 January 2020  Harry and Meghan to give up "royal highness"
titles, according to statement from Buckingham Palace
 
https://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/search?q=the+queen

Saturday, 22 August 2020 Duke Visits Flood Disaster Town; And Scavengers At Dump (1968) https://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/2020/08/duke-visits-flood-disaster-town-and.html


Tuesday, 9 March 2021 The New Prince of Bel Air  

https://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/search?q=royal+family


Sunday, 18 April 2021  The death and funeral of HRH the Duke of Edinburgh. (A personal assessment)  https://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-death-and-funeral-of-hrh-duke-of.html


Apropos 'YouKnowWho': You can't buy class or cover up the lack of it. Her innate sense of social inferiority, and trying to compensate for it, is at the root of all the problems she has brought upon herself, her husband, her wider family and the Institution of the Monarchy. As I was once told, I think as a refined insult, "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear." When the testosterone wears off, what will Harry be left with but embarrassment and regret?

Thursday, 15 September 2022

Lying in State


(A personal view)




It has been an extraordinary week for the late Queen's family and Britain. H.M. Queen Elizabeth II has set records for being the oldest and longest serving Monarch in British - indeed World - history, respectively ninety-six and seventy years.  But more important than the quantity, it has been the quality of her reign that has made its mark, truly justifying what Boris Johnson coined, in perhaps his most impressive speech to Parliament, as 'Elizabeth the Great'.  In the future annals of history, the label will probably stick and sets an formidable bar for the unfortunate King Charles III to meet, in what must inevitably be a relatively short reign.

A week has now passed since the news of her death was announced at Balmoral in the Scottish Highlands on Thursday 8th September, 2022.  At lunchtime the concern of her doctors was made public and she passed away, we must assume, shortly after. The public pronouncement by the BBC was held back until six-thirty pm. The rationale for this has not been given, nor details of who was physically in attendance at the time but it is fair to assume that both Charles and his sister Anne were. It is unlikely the other siblings and grandchildren reached the bed chamber to witness her passing, although able to pay their respects immediately following it. A cause of death has not been given but it may be assumed that it resulted from a combination of advanced years and an underlying medical condition that had pre-dated the event by many months.

There is no doubt, despite her stoicism and amazing constitution, the decline and death of her husband of over seventy years on the 9th April 2021, hit her hard. Who can forget the image of that lonely masked figure in St Georges Chapel, abandoned by, and separated from, the world? Both had received a Covid 'vaccination' on the 9th January, 2021and two subsequent ones. She later (10.4.2021) reported that the infection 'had left her very tired and exhausted.' Following the first vaccination, Prince Philip was admitted to hospital on the 23rd February, 2021 'with an infection' which was not specified, although stated to be unrelated to the vaccine. He was to survive for only another forty-five days. 

Later that year on the 14th November, 2021, the Queen herself was admitted to hospital 'for tests' and received treatment for some unspecified condition, which was reported publicly as a 'mobility problem'.  It is unlikely to have been that simple.  In any event, from that time onwards, there was a progressive and marked decline in Her Majesty's physical, though not mental, state. What is beyond doubt, both the Queen and Prince Philip suffered from symptoms of Coronavirus after inoculation with the experimental vaccines and both suffered a marked decline in heath leading to their deaths following it. It is a moot point whether the vaccines or the illness hastened their demise, as it has done to many thousands of others.


Despite her underlying illness, she continued performing her duties right up to the very end. Only three days before her death she said goodbye to Boris Johnson and hello to the new incoming Prime Minister, Liz Truss. At those meetings, as Mr Johnson subsequently confirmed, it was clear her health was failing. In the days that followed it was reported that Prince Charles visited frequently and at her side, which did not bode well, until the sad news finally broke to the world. To a select inner circle the serious nature of the circumstance was known as indicated by the discrete in the number of personnel planning the funeral. The Earl Marshall, the 18th Duke of Norfolk, stated as early as April the number had increased from twenty to two hundred and eighty.

Elizabeth II has filled the role of Monarch for so long, indeed for most of the lives of those now living, that it it hard to adjust to the fact that she will no longer be there.  No one now alive will have witnessed another British Coronation or State Funeral other than hers, although many will remember similar ones afforded Sir Winston Churchill, Lady Diana Spencer, Princess Margaret and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.  She stated she was herself a great believer in continuity and the importance of history and she made sure all the necessary arrangements were put in place for King Charles with Camilla at his side as Queen Consort. Both were given her public blessing before she died, he having previously taken on the role of Head of the Commonwealth at her recommendation.

In the long history of England, dating right back to the Roman Conquest and before, the population has subscribed to Kingship, from small tribes and geographical areas, to larger ones. It was a continuously developing story of peoples and their leaders, through Anglo Saxon to Norman times, up to the present day. Essentially it was in Thomas Hobbes terms a trade off between State and individual citizen - an unstated contract for security and protection from enemies without and within. That essentially remains the case, and all the military pageantry now on display is a reminder of that relationship, with Monarch still at the apex of it all. We should remember that all armed services vow allegiance to the Crown not the Government, as do government Ministers themselves. 




In the 17th Century the country engaged in a bloody civil war over the principal of the 'Divine Right of Kings', and where executive power to act and tax actually lay. For a decade or so Britain was a republic to which a sizeable minority would have us return, yet monarchy and most of its trappings has survived with the consent of both Parliament and people. Despite a very different world, both physically and philosophically to that of 1066, the history and religious-based ritual, still endows the occupant with a mysterious, indefinable quality, that evokes affection and respect, as has been amply demonstrated in the case of the late Queen. Few, if any, politician or any other celebrity can lay claim to this remarkable public reaction, combining both respect and affection and we may wonder what the secret ingredient is? Whether Charles will be able to illicit the same degree of loyalty and awe remains to be seen. He certainly has a hard act to follow.

In the case of Queen Elizabeth it was a combination of factors. The double and tragic nature of her accession, first with the abdication of her uncle and then the untimely death of her father. As Princess in line to the throne she was already a notable and romantic figure, having fallen in love at the tender age of thirteen with someone who has been described by his cousin as a 'Greek God'. From images of Prince Philip at eighteen it would be hard to disagree. Married in 1947, with two beautiful children, in 1952 the death of her father from the strain of the war, his natural diffidence, heavy smoking and lung cancer, involved "a very sudden taking on, and doing the best you can," as she said herself. 

She benefitted from the mythic stature of the first Queen Elizabeth, to shape a new Elizabethan Age, full of technological promise after the agonies and deprivations of not one but two World Wars. Her Coronation in 1952 was resplendent in pomp and circumstance, the first to be made generally accessible to the public via the new medium of 'television'. 

But we should not underestimate the personal attributes this young woman brought to the role and her star quality. She bore the responsibility lightly - "she was never grand" as Boris Johnson so neatly put it - yet with grace and commitment, never shirking her duty, as many monarchs had done before her. Throughout her reign, her integrity based on her religious faith, shone through. It was as if she was guided by her father and wished to honour him - surely achieved in full measure.

Can there be anyone in the world, who for seventy plus years has had a life so minutely and precisely dictated by time and engagements? Almost every minute of those seventy years was organised and predicted. She became a creature of her diary, her year marked by regular state and other events. She could almost set her clock and calendar by them.  Visits abroad, the continuous arrival and departure of diplomats, the weekly private conversation with fifteen Prime Ministers from Churchill on.

For this very reason there can be no doubting her last trip to Balmoral was both intentional and fully informed. She knew, as firmly as anyone can, she would die there. Two Prime Ministers visited her there. It was her last political act. She chose Balmoral both for personal and political reasons. Personal because she loved the place with all its happy family memories for her and her husband. Political because she knew it would be her final statement of affinity with Scotland and with the importance of the Union dating from 1707 and of the Crowns since 1603. The Scots demonstrated their loyalty at her death, notwithstanding a strong nationalistic sentiment. The UK's political establishment has patently failed to resonate with the Scots in the same way. Blair's devolution has been a huge failure but that's another story.




I have referred to the timing of her death elsewhere. One wonders if it could have been wholly coincidental? Only the death of a Queen of her standing could push the 25th anniversary of Diana's death off the front page, or the 21st anniversary of the events of 9/11. As we have already noted it was almost exactly five years since her husband officially retired and a year and five months since he passed away. The announcement of her death was made at 6.30 pm. The journey from Balmoral to Holyrood took six hours.  Her cortege set off from Buckingham Palace at precisely 2.22 pm on the 14.9.2022 and arrived at Westminster Hall at 3 pm where it will lies in state for five days. The vigil will last until 6.30 am on Monday 19th.

All the ceremony, religious services - six in all - and ritual serve a purpose of channelling the nation's grief and accommodating the public mind to a new new Monarch - King Charles III pending his own Coronation early in 2023.  To look in on Monarchy is not the same as looking out. ("Uneasy the head that wears the Crown" as Shakespeare put it) To ride in convoy behind the Queen's car (as I once did) is to get just a glimpse of the psychological impact of being surrounded by thousands upon thousands of well-wishers. She and the Duke had experienced that all their long lives, on virtually every continent and in most countries. The Queen once said, "I have to be seen to be believed". Countless millions, even in death, proved that to be true. Monarchy is a weird throwback to a British past that has somehow survived the centuries but the Queen made it international. That it has retained its magic for seventy years is plain to see. Only time will tell if it survives the modern secular, cynical and disputatious world, in the capable hands of her son and heir.











Thursday, 21 April 2016

Queen Elizabeth II - Primus inter pares.
The ambivalent nature of monarchy in the 21st Century.

Queen and Duke of Edinburgh wave to crowds from car http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36104696

Today many people in Britain and around the world will be aware that Queen Elizabeth has reached the grand age of ninety years. On a personal level it is cause for celebration and congratulation, in which as loyal but insignificant subject, I am pleased to join.

All such events provoke mixed emotions of pleasure and pain and we recall them from our own families, redolent as they are of memories and the inevitable shadow of transigence. In the midst of celebrating life, hopefully well lived, we are reminded of suffering and loss. Of our own kith and kin, friends and family, that have passed on.

Joy and sorrow reside cheek by jowl. At the very same time as crowds packed the streets of Windsor patriotically waving flags, men, women and children, desperate to escape situations of tyranny and chaos, were drowning in the unforgiving waters of the Mediterranean, with no one coming to their rescue, or indeed appearing to care a great deal. 

In some ways these mental images starkly epitomise the gulf in circumstances affecting humans on the earth. Perhaps to a lesser extent they also exist in Britain and throughout the Commonwealth of which Elizabeth II is Monarch and Head, a situation that many regard as ambivalent.

'Ambivalence', means 'the state of having mixed feelings or contradictory ideas about something or someone.' As regards Monarchy and the present Queen's fulfillment of the role, ambivalence can be experienced in a number of ways. It may be contrasted with 'consensus' of approval much in evidence in Windsor this afternoon. However even those that wave flags and cheer patriotically may harbour misgivings and doubts. It is quite possible to support and admire the Queen in person, whilst holding reservations on the place of Monarchy in the 21st Century.

The Queen's approval rating and popularity is a great credit to her personally. It is not merely a product of a public relations effort, although no one would claim it is not a factor, but a genuine reaction of affection by a public, to a good person, dedicated to a particular job, for an inordinately long period of time. Admittedly she has been afforded every convenience and support and provided with the best that life has to offer, but even so the obligation and responsibilities are huge and the pitfalls many. She has managed with great dexterity and aplomb to fulfill the former and dodge the latter. 

Her children have brought her both pleasure and pain, including an 'annus horribilis' in 1992 and five years later, with the suspicious circumstances of Princess Diana's death, perhaps even a threat to the continuation of the institution itself.  With time the unparalleled display of public emotion and recriminations have faded with the apparent success of Prince Charles remarriage and the popularity of his sons, but the issue is still not wholly resolved in the public mind.

There is little doubt that had it not been for the personal popularity of the Queen herself, the 'family firm' might well have crashed at that point. Stories of sexual impropriety in the royal household in connection to the Jimmy Savile scandal remain a current and future threat. 

How all these issues will impinge on the continuation of the institution in the person of Charles, is yet to be revealed. At the great age of ninety years some devolution of responsibility is to be expected, although there is no indication the present Queen's position as Head of State, Church and Commonwealth, is to be abdicated. 

Perhaps Charles will at some point be created 'Prince Regent', although as a student of history, he would probably not wish to be associated with its precedent. In its absence he could well be in his late seventies before obtaining the functions or position of King.

In the well known words of Walter Bagehot, the 19th Century journalist and writer, a 'constitutional monarch' has the threefold right to be 'consulted, to encourage and warn', the practical application of which continues to this day, most notably in the weekly Tuesday evening meeting with the current Prime Minister. 

Her Majesty is also in theory and practice the Head of the Armed Services and an important element of the threefold Parliament of Commons, Lords and Sovereign, all of which must concur before any legislation can become the law of the land. Her many honorary positions places her centrally and influentially at the heart of the nation.

Bagehot also highlighted the twin roles of monarchy: 'dignified' - that of symbolism and ceremonial on the one hand and 'efficient' - practical governance on the other. Despite the passage of 150 years, these remain the guiding criteria of her constitutional role, from which she has never deviated. 

To his we must add the complex position of the 'established' Church of England, of which she is also the 'Supreme Governor', that dates back to her forebear Henry VIII's split with Rome. Despite this she retains the title 'Defender of the Faith' (Fidei Defensor in Latin) bestowed on him by Pope Leo X in 1521. Of course Henry went from Papal favourite to declared heretic in the course of his reign, a rupture that has only been to some extent repaired during the course of Elizabeth II's.

We need not remark on the great changes that have occurred in attitudes particularly as they relate to Christian teaching and reconciling it to scientific discovery, since that time, nor of Prince Charles' desire to become the 'defender of faiths', but on a personal level it is clear Elizabeth II has taken this particular role and her Christian beliefs, very seriously. Who could argue that it has not at every stage influenced her attitude and behaviour in an ethically positive way? How this will play out on her eventual and inevitable passing, remains to be seen.

(to be continued)

Do not be misled: the way the matter of 'historic abuse' has been expertly handled to: 1. keep it focused on the past; 2. to keep attention fixed on expendable entertainment celebrities rather than establishment or politicos; 3. where the evidence against latter becomes irresistible, ensure individuals are either dead or die shortly afterwards; 4. label accusers as unreliable or complicit; 5. wrap records in 70 year secrecy on pretext of protecting the children; 6. close and/or demolish institutional buildings allegedly implicated; 7. alternatively subject same to redecoration or improvement thus incidentally removing any remaining evidence; 8. criticise police investigations and methods; 9. increase pressure or dismiss any police doing their job; 10. engender sympathy for alleged abusers; 11. close down any current cases; 12. persecute/prosecute 'whistle-blowers'; set up police and other 'independent' inquiries, that either discover 'nothing to see' or take so long to report, or are rigged to exclude sensitive areas, so that the issue is effectively shelved for half a decade or longer. 13. change the law to protect vulnerable parties. These are the methods that have been and are being successfully applied to the matter. We should be in do doubt about that whenever leading politicians claim to be intent on getting to the root of the problem. See: http://veaterecosan.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=hampstead for a current casestudy in some of the methods employed by the state.

Saturday, 11 January 2020

Harry and Meghan to give up "royal highness" 

titles, according to statement from Buckingham Palace


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y3K6v4o7hk

Walking Out.



History repeating itself: Edward & Mrs Simpson; Margaret & Capt Townsend; Margaret & Snowdon; Anne & Mark Phillips; Andrew & Fergie; Charles & Diana. The wreckage is strewn across half a century. Yet people never learn from the past or from the previous mistakes by others of course. Only Elizabeth and Philip , despite some very rocky moments, have held the whole thing together. No wonder this Hollywood actress has run back to Canada with her split jeans. What a disgrace to Queen and Country.

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/video/2016/feb/01/roger-allam-king-lear-blow-winds-and-crack-your-cheeks-shakespeare-solos-video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W3J8uHH4_I&t=66s
The caring mother ("No sign of Archie") https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/royal-family/exclusive-grinning-meghan-markle-breaks-cover-for-the-first-time-since-leaving-the-uk-as-she-boards-a-seaplane-from-victoria-harbour-airport-but-no-sign-of-archie/ar-BBYXrJw?MSCC=1579044780&ocid=spartandhp

Image of Meghan Markle leaving Heathrow Airport for Canada 10.1.2020
Image result for megan markle leaving images"
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1ARAB_enGB463GB464&sxsrf=ACYBGNS4j9ftG1op5jtp3uzalAVNlq9cGg:1578779330922&q=megan+markle+leaving+images&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZ6sqpw_zmAhWkUhUIHe6wBTYQ7Al6BAgKECQ&biw=1248&bih=844#imgrc=MlifVernh-rBAM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6wmfu8kQDs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCRy5aaNkus

Sunday, 25 June 2017

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 lands
So 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. 

 Exeter's James Hewitt, Princess Diana's former lover, is released from hospital
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