The Merry House of Windsor
"It's known that Charles vetted at least 275 draft laws since 1970."
For those Brits who believe they live in a free and democratic country, a bit of uncomfortable reflection is in order. Why? Well, the Windsors are displaying an audacity rarely seen since William of Normandy declared that all land (in England) belonged to him. The children of the pen have pulled back the curtain on the shenanigans played by the Windsors to protect their interests.
I blow hot and cold on the merits of the Guardian newspaper. The fawning over victimhood, allied with a mindless affection for all aspects of woke culture, is bloody tiresome. Then, when I'm about to banish them from my reading, pops a superb piece of legitimate journalism.
Likewise, I blow hot and cold on the House of Windsor. The Windsors are feeling the chill this week while the Guardian is on fire.
In several articles, the Guardian exposed how Brenda and her family, including the Prince of Piffle, Charles, manipulate the law to their advantage. Are the freedoms that Britons enjoy contingent on the Windsors acquiescing? Looks that way.
The 'Queen's consent' practice gives one unelected woman the right to change draft laws. Moreover, evidence is emerging that she used this privilege to protect herself and her family from taxes and gained other exemptions. Examples include avoiding scrutiny of their investments and allowing Charles to prevent long-term residents on his estate from buying their homes. He is the only landlord with such preferential treatment.
Residents on Charles's land do not enjoy the rights given to other tenants under the Leasehold Reform Act. An exemption allowed Charles to avoid the laws applied to others so that he could keep an income stream.
Brenda made changes in the 1970s that allowed her to hide her investments. Since then, the Panama papers have revealed the vast sum of money she placed offshore to avoid UK tax.
The 'Queen's consent' grants the monarch the right to vet incoming laws before they may proceed. In the past, this process was sold as a formality. We can now see that is not the case. Moreover, the documentation of these actions is lacking. As draft laws get amended to please the Windsors, telephone calls and private conversations in corners suffice.
Thus, when the lackeys in the royal household declare that the Queen never blocks a bill, they're on solid ground.
The legitimate question must be, 'Is this a genuine democracy?’. Or are we witnessing the theatre of a parliament that votes on legislation agreed by the Windsors? Some commentators suggest that the UK remains a feudal fiefdom with a veneer of democracy, which overstates the case. Not all draft legislation goes to Brenda; only stuff that may impact her domain.
Nonetheless, a whole world of vested interests is out there, doing their best - and succeeding - to keep this hidden. In the UK, many mock and revile other places for their secrecy. Are not the Windsor peas in the same pod?
Charles's greed (aka the Duchy of Cornwall) and how he treats those he claims to help are distasteful. Cornwall is one of the most impoverished areas in Western Europe. Yet he lords it over this area as a future king, who seems so dim to be genuinely oblivious to this situation. Asserting that Charles is too dumb to notice grants him the benefit of the doubt. The alternative is that he knows the abyss between his wealth and those living on his land.
It's known that Charles vetted at least 275 draft laws since 1970. These bills covered such subjects as fox hunting and inheritance. We don't know how many amendments he proposed because he's declined to say.
However, the most significant offence is against the supposed democracy and the rule of law. The idea that the Queen - and those close to her - have a mechanism to influence law-making is breathtaking. Worse, they seem to be trying to brush it off as nothing to see here. Move on.
We're told the monarchy is a figurehead that doesn't engage in politics, but that facade is starting to crumble.
If Britons honestly claim themselves a free country, then this affront to democracy must go. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not desperate to see the monarchy abolished; they have some utility. And what do you replace them with, if indeed a replacement is necessary? God forbid a President Blair.
Support for the monarchy continues to wane, especially among young people. Brenda, the adroit royal survivor, had better take note because her ‘light-weight’ son was busy talking to the plants in the corner.
A good start for the UK would be a written constitution establishing the perimeters, with checks and balances on power vested in the House of Windsor. Until then, they'll continue to fudge the issue and hold off on reform.
February 2021
I blow hot and cold on the merits of the Guardian newspaper. The fawning over victimhood, allied with a mindless affection for all aspects of woke culture, is bloody tiresome. Then, when I'm about to banish them from my reading, pops a superb piece of legitimate journalism.
Likewise, I blow hot and cold on the House of Windsor. The Windsors are feeling the chill this week while the Guardian is on fire.
In several articles, the Guardian exposed how Brenda and her family, including the Prince of Piffle, Charles, manipulate the law to their advantage. Are the freedoms that Britons enjoy contingent on the Windsors acquiescing? Looks that way.
The 'Queen's consent' practice gives one unelected woman the right to change draft laws. Moreover, evidence is emerging that she used this privilege to protect herself and her family from taxes and gained other exemptions. Examples include avoiding scrutiny of their investments and allowing Charles to prevent long-term residents on his estate from buying their homes. He is the only landlord with such preferential treatment.
Residents on Charles's land do not enjoy the rights given to other tenants under the Leasehold Reform Act. An exemption allowed Charles to avoid the laws applied to others so that he could keep an income stream.
Brenda made changes in the 1970s that allowed her to hide her investments. Since then, the Panama papers have revealed the vast sum of money she placed offshore to avoid UK tax.
The 'Queen's consent' grants the monarch the right to vet incoming laws before they may proceed. In the past, this process was sold as a formality. We can now see that is not the case. Moreover, the documentation of these actions is lacking. As draft laws get amended to please the Windsors, telephone calls and private conversations in corners suffice.
Thus, when the lackeys in the royal household declare that the Queen never blocks a bill, they're on solid ground.
The legitimate question must be, 'Is this a genuine democracy?’. Or are we witnessing the theatre of a parliament that votes on legislation agreed by the Windsors? Some commentators suggest that the UK remains a feudal fiefdom with a veneer of democracy, which overstates the case. Not all draft legislation goes to Brenda; only stuff that may impact her domain.
Nonetheless, a whole world of vested interests is out there, doing their best - and succeeding - to keep this hidden. In the UK, many mock and revile other places for their secrecy. Are not the Windsor peas in the same pod?
Charles's greed (aka the Duchy of Cornwall) and how he treats those he claims to help are distasteful. Cornwall is one of the most impoverished areas in Western Europe. Yet he lords it over this area as a future king, who seems so dim to be genuinely oblivious to this situation. Asserting that Charles is too dumb to notice grants him the benefit of the doubt. The alternative is that he knows the abyss between his wealth and those living on his land.
It's known that Charles vetted at least 275 draft laws since 1970. These bills covered such subjects as fox hunting and inheritance. We don't know how many amendments he proposed because he's declined to say.
However, the most significant offence is against the supposed democracy and the rule of law. The idea that the Queen - and those close to her - have a mechanism to influence law-making is breathtaking. Worse, they seem to be trying to brush it off as nothing to see here. Move on.
We're told the monarchy is a figurehead that doesn't engage in politics, but that facade is starting to crumble.
If Britons honestly claim themselves a free country, then this affront to democracy must go. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not desperate to see the monarchy abolished; they have some utility. And what do you replace them with, if indeed a replacement is necessary? God forbid a President Blair.
Support for the monarchy continues to wane, especially among young people. Brenda, the adroit royal survivor, had better take note because her ‘light-weight’ son was busy talking to the plants in the corner.
A good start for the UK would be a written constitution establishing the perimeters, with checks and balances on power vested in the House of Windsor. Until then, they'll continue to fudge the issue and hold off on reform.
February 2021
Copyright © 2015