Queen Elizabeth II Dies - End of an Era

[benkostka]

So that leaves the people only to deal with the Deep State and hunt them all down - perhaps administering their own lethal vax poisons to them!

It’s fair to say that this type of comment taken out of context is what can lead to investigations by government agents and I wouldn’t want to see anyone go through that again. There’s really no call for some sort of reverse eugenics where supposedly “good” people hunt down the evil with their tools.

The C’s have offered solutions to dealing with the Deep State, and none of them involve violence as you’re suggesting.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

This video clip is the one that creeped me out, glad you posted it.
I slowed it down and grabbed this facial expression he makes.
Facial expressions say a lot, at least, according to the research and material compiled by a large body of research into “micro expressions”.
In times of stress, overwhelm and confusion it becomes impossible to “mask” or fake a personality.
These genuine “facial clues” reveal a set of universal emotions, and are considered to be shared with humans as well as all sentient mammals on this planet, as per the findings of Dr. Paul Ekman, and his fellow researchers.
I see a vicious, primal “threat to bite”, a glare of loathing, and dismissal, once the offending pen case is removed, all coming from the inner primal nature of ol Chuckie.

What do you all see?

View attachment 63818

To me it looks like someone who can't handle a mild inconvenience without anger/frustration, is a terrible communicator (can't or won't use words), and has no humility or ability to laugh at himself at all, and sees his staff as objects rather than people and thus unworthy of words (or he really is that dumb and couldn't think of any words). I get it, he's on the spot, there's a crowd staring at him, and he's trying to get through this smoothly and quickly. Some people are awkward. But still, Elizabeth would probably ask someone to kindly remove it, and most likely would make a joke about it. Something like "I got so distracted by these pens I almost signed the wrong name!" Everyone would laugh and the staff would promptly remove it. Or, you can be Charles - just grunt and grimace like an angry chihuahua trying to reach peanut butter inside a chew toy. You do you, Charles.

 

[MJF]

Although you are right in that sense, the probability of that happening is way inferior than having the constant fantasy of a democracy where psychopaths already have control on every institution and they not end up just killing their own population because of stupids decisions (deliberated or not) but other’s countries population as well. On top of that, a ponerized population it’s easier to develop in that model compare to a monarchy. Nevertheless, there are many factors in play as well, take for example Saudi Arabia where the monarchy is something similar to a cancer to that country, with their religious interpretations of the law and all that.
I think the British monarchy is the only one that could work in a modern world. Because technically is the only thing that add value and identification to the united kingdom. It represent their religion as well, compare to other monarchies where the religious factor is not attached to the figure of the crown, for example; Thailand and Spain, which Buddhism and catholic Christianity has nothing to do with their king/queen. They may say “that monarch is elected by God” or whatever, but is not the same as the British. Same example for the one mentioned before; The Arabia, same for Japan, etc. Perhaps some African countries has something similar to the British monarchy but definitely not as influential.
Basically, in short, the United Kingdom is the United Kingdom because of the monarchy. Obviously of course, but you know what I mean.

I certainly appreciate what you are saying. I made my comments after remembering a conversation I had in France with a Frenchman who was a true royalist (there are more of them than you think) and wanted to see the French monarchy restored as an absolute monarchy. I said that was fine but what if you ended up with a tyrant like King Henry VIII, who was an absolute monster of a man. Of course, the French had King Louis XVI who was an absolute monarch and reigned through a parliament, which he tried to control but eventually lost all influence over, leading him to lose his head. In the course of time he would be replaced by Napoleon Bonaparte, originally a revolutionary, who reigned as an emperor, although he was a dictator in all but name who, like Hitler a century later, would seek to create a united Europe under his total control. And like Hitler, he marched into Russia and lost a huge number of soldiers in seeking to carry out his imperial designs, which in the end only brought around his downfall. Strange how history repeats itself. Perhaps that is why Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery had three golden rules of warfare, which were: never invade Russia, never invade Russia and never invade Russia. I suggest the current American administration, and the British for that matter, should heed his sage advice.

As regards the Spanish monarchy, I believe it is nominally Catholic in what is increasingly a secular country. However, a catholic monarch can never be the supreme governor of the Church within his country, as this would undermine papal authority, which was exactly the reason why Henry VIII took the step he did to make himself supreme governor. Every Catholic monarch was in the past sworn to defend the position of the church within his realm and enforce its teachings and practices throughout. The only major Catholic monarchies left in Europe today are those of Spain and Belgium, which like the United Kingdom are constitutional monarchies. In the past, the Spanish king was always referred to as "His most Catholic Majesty". Whether that still pertains today I shall leave to a Spanish Forum member to clarify.
​

 

[MJF]

When I first heard about the amount of mourning, my immediate reaction is "Why so much hysteria" for the people who professed "Democracy" as a "civilizing" people for centuries. I can understand the "stability" factor that gets stronger as more time passes( in this case many centuries) even if it meant a ceremonial position. But, I can relate it to the Indian situation.

I felt this type of grief the day Indira Gandhi was assassinated in 1984. Noisy-crazy-busy streets became empty and silent (As if there is a curfew) and few people walked were crying as if they lost in their family , fear of what will happen next is on the air. In theory, it is a democracy. No body has any good impression of Indira- particularly about her "demockery" ( Ruling what is good for her is good for her party and the nation, imposing the emergency to stay in power( 1975-77), her crucial role in splitting the opposition to miniscule pieces (1979)) of the governance.

The nation was young after painful process of fighting against British Raj and piecing together of 500+ little princely states with broader land. No body has faith in opposition that got once in lifetime chance in 1977 and squabbled to become invisible little pieces with in 2 years. And suddenly no body (who majority of people can agree - at least in theory) exist to rule? But all this went "poof", when her son Rajiv Gandhi was announced as the leader with in a day or two. This taught me one thing - how ever symbolic or real the position is, people needs some reliable head to trust on. After all the life itself is painful with all sorts of surprises and this trust ( god or king or ruler) is a sort of psychological anchor to walk through the challenges.

About the Royalty as Privilege: It may be privilege for some for few years and all powerful universe always teaches them their place (or lessons). This is obvious in every celebrity's life you can find every where. This Nehru-Gandhi family is one example. To day, the show still continues with Indian Bojo Rahul Gandhi still the reluctant contender, goofing up the basic facts to become the entertaining material of BJP's simple and effective campaign material.

Some times, you feel sorry for the family- family who can't live simple peaceful life they crave for despite all the money/power/fame one can have, running around giving political speeches which they themselves detest (from their body language). If they go out of politics, they will end up in Jail, because their own lackies who used their power will make sure that. This quote is appropriate.

How did a Democracy became reliance on Dynasty?

With destruction of opposition party in 1979, every Indian at that time know that Indira's younger son Sanjay Gandhi (considered as ambitious rogue) is in the line. But he died in air plane crash in 1980 ( rumors exist that she is responsible for the death). There were enough rumors' that Indira arm twisted her dis-interested -elder-pilot-son Rahul Gandhi( and her Italian born wife) to come into politics.

In fact, Rajeev Gandhi down to earth( or call it middle class approach) showed sense of hope for few years (1984-1986) started removing the barriers of "License Raj" his mother created. Inexperience caught up with him to discredit him and the mess he created the left vs right paradigm still exist. If he had survived his assassination in 1991, probably he would have done corrected it. But, that is not meant to be and as he was assassinated to gave a rare chance to family outsider to run the country for 5 years and open the economy ( which was unthinkable at that time).

The Family ( Italian born widow Sonia Gandhi and Family) could have gone out of country ( in 90's), but they know better ( family sins will come back in the form of corruption charges). She stayed back, raised the children to be next PM's, kept the puppet prime minister ( Manmohan Singh who ruled for 2004-2014) until they are ready. Sonia couldn't become PM because of label of "Italian Born" is acceptable for her coalition partners.

Even after literal no body named Modi became PM with consistent 90% approval ratings for 8 years ( ridiculously high for diverse nation), there is some desperation in his slogan "Congress Free India". He can give REAL protection to judiciary to prosecute the family and hear the voices "How can you prosecute Gandhi Family". That is the extent one can go. People can fall back to Congress if he does any mistake and people are scared of politicians that pull the fabric of nation like dogs for petty instant gains. That is nature of reality.

The diverse nations need to have some thing to hold on to keep it united. It is that name "Gandhi" that came out of no where 100 years back (1917) when M.K Gandhi came to India from South Africa and became trusted name in 2 years with his first stint against British in India in 1917. It is hard to shake off. Is this trust of a people is a privileges' or Curse? It depends.

Why can't people move on instead of holding on to these names?

For some reason, Caesar's comment on "People are selfish and fickle" resonates with me w.r.t masses. No one leader can solve every citizen's need. So the democracy and periodic elections exist. Politics became so corrupt all across the world. Even if politicians are not corrupt, people always compete for one thing or other, fair or unfair making the political selfish groupings inevitable.

Often, I wondered why people who look at their family with best intention they can have and see the complexities of the situation, but fail to see what is good for the nation (or polity). May be people are not mature enough and I wonder whether it is related to 50% of the world population belong to OP's.

People need to rediscover the concept of the common good, which is an STO outlook. Unfortunately, ever since the Second World War the PTB have promoted the 'me first' society or individualism, which is the prevailing outlook today.

 

[Lone herbal witch]

As a Canadian citizen, you are fully entitled to express this view. However, as I have said earlier, careful what you wish for. Moreover, as per Ursus Minor's comments above, who is to say that Trudeau is not more of a Rothschild glove puppet than King Charles is. In effect, whether as a republic or a constitutional monarchy, you will probably lose both ways as things currently stand.

As for King Charles tetchiness at St. James's Palace, yes I suspect he is a functioning alcoholic, which might explain things. I know that an Australian friend of mine, whose family is very establishment (his brother was the chief of the Australian Navy), had to take a bottle of whisky away from Charles once, as he was getting very drunk. His aide quietly thanked my friend for taking this action.​

Thank you MJF. At least it is confirmed that he is a possible alcoholic. With those red cheeks and that bulbous nose, I should have realized that!
Thank you for your response about my own opinion. You are right, of course; those in power may be be in league with the PTB from the banking cartel. Nothing would surprise me.
As a people, we need to take back our country. How, that is the question as there seems to be very little choice in the matter, isn't it?
Having Charles III representing us is like getting ourselves in deep mud, and getting deeper by the day! But then again, our current political arena is pretty much the same!
A republic may not be the answer for now, but whose to say in the future?
I hold on to hope, if ever there is hope! If not, then we are doomed!

 

[MJF]

Thank you MJF. At least it is confirmed that he is a possible alcoholic. With those red cheeks and that bulbous nose, I should have realized that!
Thank you for your response about my own opinion. You are right, of course; those in power may be be in league with the PTB from the banking cartel. Nothing would surprise me.
As a people, we need to take back our country. How, that is the question as there seems to be very little choice in the matter, isn't it?
Having Charles III representing us is like getting ourselves in deep mud, and getting deeper by the day! But then again, our current political arena is pretty much the same!
A republic may not be the answer for now, but whose to say in the future?
I hold on to hope, if ever there is hope! If not, then we are doomed!

I really believe Charles will not reign for very long. We can only hope that his son, William, will prove a better servant of the people. He is dreadfully woke like much of his generation (not their fault as this is due to the present educational system) but I think he, like his mother, is a naturally more empathic personality. He does seem to have a good wife and beautiful family that appear to enjoy a proper family life, as the Queen herself did. I could be wrong of course and it may just be window dressing for the masses but I don't think so.

I have never met William but recall a conversation with a barmaid I once had where she explained that he had rescued her from a cliff face when she had badly injured herself and had got into great difficulty. At that time, Prince William was flying air sea rescue helicopters for the RAF. She was winched on board in great pain and distress and was effing and blinding. When she saw who was flying the helicopter she was dreadfully embarrassed at her behaviour. However, he just smiled at her and was more concerned with how she was.

We can therefore but hope.​

 

[Il Matto]

Btw, can King Charles actually do anything? If the position is symbolic, then won't he just kind of be in that position as a figurehead who occasionally makes some speech but actually can't do anything to change or influence events?

So, as a constitutional Monarch, King Charles has no power over such things as legislation and he cannot openly influence the executive. He does, interestingly, have the authority to dissolve parliament, which would spark a general election. I think I'm right in remembering that Charles I was the last Monarch to do this.. which led to a whole series of events that didn't end well for him! (Though I could be wrong on that..)
The thing that concerns me (and should concern any sensible British person), is that King Charles has shown himself to be much more 'politically active' and more forthright with Greenie/Leftist claptrap. My sense is that he is quite likely to try and forward this agenda in the shadows.

 

[Glenn]

A most interesting essay by John Carter which lays out what Elizabeth MIGHT have done had she been more - what, courageous?

Lament For the Hollow Crown

Elizabeth II’s empty legacy

barsoom.substack.com

While I don't disagree with what Carter is saying in that article, I feel that if she had decided to go against any of the policies that he highlighted, would she have been given the platform to do it? As we have seen with Trump, media platforms disappear, or are not made available if you are speaking against a powerful system. The only thing that she is able to do is give generic Christmas messages and such. You can't underestimate the forces at play here. IMO. The media is a weapon, only to be used by the most powerful. On the scale of things, she really had little or no power to go against the system...

 

[Tyomodachi]

The last time we had a thread about the monarchy, I basically commented that although in a perfect world elections would be the most sensible thing to do, there's a major problem with how we do them. In practice it seems like it creates an "in" for psychopaths, whereas with monarchies it's more of a roll of a dice if it's a family thing, and psychopaths have to influence from the sidelines like Rasputin and hope for the best. You could get an Elizabeth, could be a Charles, could be a Caesar. The reason electoral systems seem doomed to failure the way we do them now is that although "the best of us" should be our representative, there are a few problems:

1. Nobody knows who the best of us are, we are all so isolated from our communities now.
2. Even if we did, we don't know how to get them in front of 300 million people for everyone else to get to know them, evaluate them, and trust them like you might.
3. Everybody has a fantastic neighbor Bob who they think can be a great president.
4. Those who do have the resources and clout for massive ad campaigns tend to be the "baddies". So those who CAN get themselves in front of 300 million people are often suspect, and even then, it's just ads, no one knows who they really are. You don't get to know the product from the company's ad. And there are few Caesars and Putins who pop up.

So good guys being elected seems to be even more unlikely than good guys being born into monarchy families. So maybe that's why it was helpful to have both - it's a way for people to hedge their bets, a type of "checks and balances" which unfortunately still relies too much on luck of the draw. You could have a jerk monarch and a jerk prime minister and people would have no recourse at all for a while.

So I keep coming back to what Laura said years ago, maybe in the creating a new world thread, that we have too few trying to represent too many. 300 million people will never be able to get to know, evaluate, appreciate, and trust the same person in a meaningful way. But a village or community can! Except as I mentioned earlier, even at the local level, communities hardly exist anymore thanks to hyper individualization of society where everyone is a lone wolf, no one knows their neighbors anymore never mind the rest of the town. This is intentional of course, but this is what needs to be fixed at the very least or we will always be stuck at the mercy of chance, or worse, just unmitigated corruption. Republics/Democracies only work if people are informed, but how can 300 million people be truly informed about any one person? It's hard enough to know who's good/bad in our own circle of friends without serious prolonged observation and thinking with a hammer, so it just seems like an impossible task at that scale.

So although monarchies served their purpose as a workaround for an otherwise broken electoral situation, and certainly they were better than relying on that corrupt system alone, I do think that a better approach is to simply bring back communities where families know other families, and a natural leader (or even better, a group of wise trusted elders, because a network is always better than an individual) is "in charge" so to speak. And no more federal government that even attempts to represent 300 million people. Maybe something like this works on 4D where everyone can read everyone's minds so everyone can truly be on the same page about a single person or a group, but until then, it's just no bueno.

And of course any sort of world government, again without some kind of "social memory complex", is also contraindicated and would be the pinnacle of "terrible ideas" for humanity.

Not in the context of Elizabeth, but in the context of monarchy, I am reminded of a book by the Russian monarchist of the White Movement, Solonevich, "The People's Monarchy". The essence of his book is this "people's monarchy" as the original and only suitable form of government for Russia, as was said about the previously mentioned theme of the monarch as the people's tribune against the oligarchy. The Moscow Empire was born on the basis of the principality of Vladimir, which was the periphery of Russia, precisely because it was the periphery, and there were no elites, so local princes, having direct support in the form of commoners, concentrated enough power in their hands to unite the Russian lands into a single autocratic centralized state, and not be lobbyists for the aristocrats as European feudal monarchs who were not autocrats but only the first among equal aristocrats, and in modern times they threw off the influence of other lords, they jumped to the other extreme, becoming completely uncontrollable absolute monarchs.
Although Solonevich says that this people's monarchy is a unique feature of the Russian monarchy I immediately remembered how Theodore Mommsen described Caesar's rule as a "democratic monarchy". But it doesn't matter because this kind of power lasted only 5 years until his murder. And all this ended with the Westernization of Peter the Great who systematically exterminated the Russian culture, although it was not necessary for the technological progress, and otherwise imported to Russia the European aristocratic monarchy, enslaved the peasants, created a parasitic landed gentry, and most importantly, ripped the elite from the people by germanization. He also draws the line between autocratic monarch and absolute monarch. In matters of national importance, the Moscow autocratic tsars relied on the people's class representative body, the Zemsky Sobor (even if it didn't take peasants into account), while the absolute monarchs took into account the interests of other aristocrats at most, and their aristocratic-feasant-fortress system brought the peasants down to the level of cattle in the general socio-cultural plan. And in terms of the separation of powers, the autocratic monarchy is the centralization of power at the "top" with extensive communal self-government at the "bottom" (the church community).

 

[Iain]

An interesting personal take on A Farewell to Her Majesty The Queen from David Scott at UKColumn

A few selected quotes I thought were of particular note, starting with something many have expressed - a wish that she would have been more than maybe she was:

Hence, my sadness at her passing is mixed with another sadness; that she was not more. Not a bigger part of my life; not a rallying point for truth in an age of lies; not a leader; never quite the symbol she should have been.

That said, she did try! Look at her 1957 Queen's Speech, the first to be televised:

The part of the speech David Scott highlights I think may reveal something of why so many still adored the Queen and felt she still offered something (even though this speech was made so long ago):

But it’s not the new inventions which are the difficulty. The trouble is caused by unthinking people who carelessly throw away ageless ideals as if they were owed and outworn machinery. They would have religion thrown aside, morality and personal and public life made meaningless, honesty counted as foolishness and self-interest set up in place of self-restraint. […]

Today, we need a special kind of courage, not the kind needed in battle, but a kind which makes us stand up for everything that we know is right, everything that is true and honest. We need the kind of courage that can withstand the subtle corruption of the cynics so that we can show the world that we are not afraid of the future. It has always been easier to hate and destroy. To build and to cherish is much more difficult.

Later in the article he looks at parts of Boris Johnsons Speech in the Commons where at one point he states that the Queen 'gave, loved and served'. This is a bone of contention among many but I think David Scott's response sums it up fairly well:

Give? Well, she gave her whole life to her duty, so I would say yes, she gave.

Love? She certainly had that capacity, but in her elevated position does love not mean taking personal risk for others; does it not mean telling the truth when it will be resisted, even when it will almost certainly be rejected? Does it not entail sacrifice? There is surely a lack here.

Serve? Yes I believe she did; her life was service.

He also addresses a common theme, that of the Queen being placed in this position of figurehead of a corrupt system due to circumstances outside of her control:

For the vast arch of the British state is corrupt and rotten. Lies abound. Falsehood is built upon falsehood. Reason has been jettisoned and prejudice substituted for it. Strength, integrity and courage are not to be found, and in fact are actively eliminated. The Queen, whether she wished it or not, has been made a figurehead for a system that, at its core, is in rebellion against truth and justice.

The concluding statement is particularly powerful with something many of us could take away from:

So what, then, do I conclude is the legacy of Queen Elizabeth?

She presided over the decline of Britain as a great nation. That decline was unstoppable by the time she ascended to the throne. By then, a century of error, intellectual and moral decline and the burden of two world wars had left the nation exhausted. What followed was moral decay and economic decline, misrule and wavering. She presided over all this, but did not cause it. When she spoke out, she was called a “priggish schoolgirl”; and she spoke out too seldom.

She seldom tried to lead—and when she did, it was with a gentleness that, in rough times, could easily be ignored. She was neither our leader nor a risk-taker. But she was faithful to our people, she was a servant of our nation, and she did endure until the end in faith and in duty; and for that I am very grateful.

So Elizabeth was our servant, but not our leader; our companion, but not a warrior fighting our battles. We must face the fact that the decline we bemoan in our nation is one that we have brought about. We need to repent of our weakness; of our willingness to compromise with corruption, with evil, with lies and with deceit. If these failings were sometimes visible in our Sovereign, I suggest that is a reflection in her of the nation as a whole rather than her unique deficiency.

And as we lay Her Late Majesty to rest, let us also lay to rest those weaknesses that have too long characterised us as people. As we remember her service, let us also remember the absence of strength in the nation which accompanied her reign. Let us, each and every one, resolve to be weak no more and instead to be warriors for the truth.

This story is looked at in detail in the latest UKColumn video (the first 30mins or so).

What I found interesting was the discussion following David's piece around the reason for hugely emotional response and the outpouring of grief around the nation(s) that seemed somewhat unexpected (at least to me). Some of this could be due to the heightened emotional states people are still living in after all the events of the past few years.

However, something that was brought up that I had been considering myself over the last few days; Is some of this emotion we are seeing directed at people feeling they are 'losing their culture' as suggested by Brian Gerrish, or is it that maybe some people are 'remembering who they are' as suggested by David Scott? Does the passing of the Queen, one who presided over such huge changes in the country and world have the effect on some that her death is symbolic of a older way lost, that we cannot now go back to? Or is it in some way reminding people that maybe there was another way and if enough people remember, maybe something of it could be recovered?

I am inclined to think it is a mix of both among other things, but is it a bit too much wishful thinking that people might just be remembering a little of the virtues mentioned in the Queens' 1957 Speech? A lot of this is probably just due to the sheer amount of articles doing the rounds reminding people of all sorts of her old speeches, but I found it interesting.

 

[MJF]

So, as a constitutional Monarch, King Charles has no power over such things as legislation and he cannot openly influence the executive. He does, interestingly, have the authority to dissolve parliament, which would spark a general election. I think I'm right in remembering that Charles I was the last Monarch to do this.. which led to a whole series of events that didn't end well for him! (Though I could be wrong on that..)
The thing that concerns me (and should concern any sensible British person), is that King Charles has shown himself to be much more 'politically active' and more forthright with Greenie/Leftist claptrap. My sense is that he is quite likely to try and forward this agenda in the shadows.

You are not quite correct about Charles I being the last Monarch to dissolve Parliament since his son James II did so also. James continuously prorogued Parliament for more than a year and a half until he finally dissolved it in July 1687.

Traditionally it had always been within the constitutional power of the British monarch to dissolve Parliament and trigger a general election at will. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act of 2011 then removed this power whereby an election could only be called outside the five-year Parliamentary cycle by one of two scenarios: (1) if two-thirds of the House of Commons voted in favour of one; or (2) if the Government lost a vote of no confidence in the House.

Parliament is normally dissolved automatically five years after the day on which it first met or earlier by the Sovereign by royal proclamation made by virtue of the royal prerogative. However, the Sovereign's prerogative power to dissolve Parliament was then revived by the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022, which repealed the The Fixed Term Parliaments Act of 2011.

The Monarch must still give their permission for an election to take place and he/she has the power to refuse such a request if it breaches certain constitutional conventions.

However, the Monarch can still refuse a request to dissolve Parliament. The Lascelles Principles is a constitutional convention that allows the sovereign to refuse if the existing Parliament is viable; if a general election would be detrimental to the country; or if the sovereign can "rely on finding another PM with a working majority in the House of Commons".

It should be remembered that the ultimate authority in the UK is not the King or Queen per se but it is the 'Sovereign in Parliament' - in other words, Parliamentary action with royal assent. This demonstrates that we have a constitutional monarchy rather than an absolute monarchy in the UK.

In the Sovereign's overseas domains such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand things are a little bit different. There the Sovereign acts through a Governor General. On one occasion in Australia in 1975, the Governor General, acting by the authority of the Queen, did dissolve the Australian Parliament in controversial circumstances.

The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, also known simply as the Dismissal, culminated on 11 November 1975 with the dismissal from office of the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam of the Australian Labour Party (ALP), by Governor-General Sir John Kerr, who then commissioned the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser of the Liberal Party, as Prime Minister. It has been described as the greatest political and constitutional crisis in Australian history.

For more see: 1975 Australian constitutional crisis - Wikipedia.​

 

[Niall]

President Donald Trump, who was the USA's Head of State, but unlike the Queen was also the head of the Executive, talked of "clearing the swamp" but here we are today and the swamp is alive and thriving. Just as powerful forces derailed Trump's attempts to clean house in America, I suspect similar forces would have intervened to stop any similar action that may have been taken by the Queen.

That being said, there is a conspiracy theory (which may have more than a ring of truth to it) that Prince Philip's uncle, Lord Louis Mountbatten, had been involved in secret talks to stage a coup d'état against Harold Wilson's Labour (Socialist) Government in 1968. The plot was designed to replace the government with a coalition to unify the country in what Lord Mountbatten regarded as a time of national crisis. Apparently, the Queen talked Mountbatten out of it as she thought it was rank treachery.​

See: Queen 'talked Lord Mounbatten out of plot to overthrow Labour'

Mountbatten had been a naval commander during WW2 and was appointed the Supreme Allied Commander South East Asia. In March 1947, he became the last Viceroy of India and oversaw the Partition of British India into India and Pakistan.

In 1979, he was killed when the IRA blew up his yacht at his summer home, Classiebawn Castle, in Mullaghmore, a small seaside village in County Sligo, Ireland. Whether the IRA did this purely of their own volition or were directed by the dark forces the Queen mentioned to Paul Burrell is open to debate. Perhaps Mountbatten was not forgiven for his role in the mooted coup d'état and this was payback?

For present purposes though, it is important to note that Lord Mountbatten was not only King Charles' great uncle but also his chief mentor.​

Charles' hero was also a repugnant pedophile.

Lord Louis Mountbatten: The British Royal and Accused Pedophile Who Was Above the Law (FPD CASE VAULT)

Lord Louis Mountbatten was a member of the U.K.'s royal family, but was also an accused pedophile whose crimes weren't known for decades.

www.frontpagedetectives.com

 

[mkrnhr]

Charles, or George, is more involved in politics even if not officially. We've seen throughout the last almost three years that human rights, laws and regulations do not matter when it comes to exerting power over people. The involvement can be behind the veils of the official façade as well such as through lobbying and influencing power positions. He's already a patron of the green agenda, the great reset, Shwabian transhumanism and everything nefarious with the current thing.

 

[Yupo]

I've noticed for a while now that his hands do not look healthy at all. Other than for equestrian stuff, I doubt they've had much wear and tear. Supposedly he's been a health nut, into the whole organic thing for many years. Lord knows he can afford the best of everything. Maybe some vascular disease going on. Maybe some heavy drinking too.
As for being entitled, well, he actually is, to a degree that's about as good as it gets in Western culture. I've heard he didn't get on so well with his parents. His dad thought he was weak from early on or something like that.

 

[Yupo]

Charles, or George, is more involved in politics even if not officially. We've seen throughout the last almost three years that human rights, laws and regulations do not matter when it comes to exerting power over people. The involvement can be behind the veils of the official façade as well such as through lobbying and influencing power positions. He's already a patron of the green agenda, the great reset, Shwabian transhumanism and everything nefarious with the current thing.

And, he's arrogant to the point of being very unlikely to change his mind about anything. Likely he has an established filter system in place, preventing his exposure to any other ideas.