by StarmanSkye » Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:57 am
Antiaristo: Thanks for clarifying the complex issues re: the Queen calling the shots behind the scenes and w/r/t Prince Charles, and his contradictory role in his being the 'Head' of a Church which cannot sanction his marriage to Camilla -- it is all SO bizarre.<br><br>Zangtang:<br>Thanks for the Heads-UP!<br><br>(Antiaristo: I don't see where additional or related motives for the House of Windsor to eliminate Diana are in any respect inconsistent with your thesis or render it invalid. I don't think it's accurate, necessary or even esp. helpful to deny there are a number of reasons why Diana was considered a threat to the Windsors and the PTB, aka the "Firm'. Certainly, Diana's role as a public activist drawing attention to Angola's horrific landmine problem resulting from Britain and the House of Windsor's secret scheming, and her alliance with the Stuart's and their controversial challenge of Windsor legitimacy, and her impending marriage to a Muslim and how that would confound official 'policy', as well as the obstacle she presented re: the public ever accepting Camilla as a stand-in Queen -- all contribute to motive related to the Windsor's protection of privelege re: the Treason Felony Act.)<br><br>re: Boston Brakes:<br>My speculation re: mechanical modification as part of a remote-operated 'accident' wasn't based on anything specific or technical I'd read, but considering the Establishment's evident motives to eliminate the threat to their power reflected by Diana (more on that below), I pondered the most likely means and opportunity how such a thing might effectively be done. So I was mildly astonished to find supporting affirmation in following-up on your (Zangtang's) 'Boston Brakes' reference via google that it's apparently a tried-and-true Spook Black-Ops technique.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.gnooks.com/discussion/darren+finch.html">www.gnooks.com/discussion...finch.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>--quote--<br>Boston Brakes, now where do I start?!<br><br>First used in Boston Massachusettes (apologies for spelling if wrong) to eliminate a leading underworld figure and believed to be invented by the CIA to create an 'accident' affect. It has been used by the SAS and MI6 on several occasions although this has never been admitted. It involves fitting a remote control device to a cars brakes, accelerator and/or steering, enabling 'someone else' to control these vital elements of a vehicle. To be within transmitter range, the 'someone else' would usually follow in another car, wait for a bend in the road, bridge, dangerous tunnel etc. and could then accelerate the car, disable the breaks and control the steering. I think buddy's earlier reference to "driving the white car" was in regards to the white fiat that collided with Princess Diana's car just before the 'accident' but was never traced. Think about it, the most famous woman in the world is killed in a RTA (Road Traffic Accident), and the authorities "can't" find a small car that was involved? Yet they were quick to find alcohol in the drivers blood even though no one had seen him drink that night?? <br><br>Any victims car involved in such an 'accident' is always compounded and checked by an 'expert', so evidence is never...well, evident!<br><br>Hope this hasn't put you off HRD's magical mystery tour! I know I want to book my place and I hope I haven't upset him/her by posting this first!<br><br>PS Don't want to get all conspiracy theory on this site and steal DF's thunder (VBW, LOL), but members of the regiment were reported to have been preparing a souped up, armour plated fiat weeks before Diana's death in Hereford...Coincidence maybe?<br><br>>>By Sheba<br>*****<br>AND-- Reprinted in entirety because it's SO spot-on intriguing re: this thread:<br>(on edit-- replaced truthseeker's link to the below book review with another, more credible and objectively nuanced;<br>-S)<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.50connect.com/hiddenevidence/review.html">www.50connect.com/hiddene...eview.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence<br>Book review by Stephen Reid<br><br>In its pre-launch promotional blurb, this book was billed as 'a serious literary inquiry' into 'the political and historical motives behind the death of Diana, Princess of Wales'. And in its own uncompromising way, that is precisely what it is. <br><br>Incredibly, “Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence” claims foreknowledge of an MI6 plot to “eliminate one of the most prominent figures on the world stage ... within days from now”. According to the authors this information came from a “US Special Forces veteran and CIA contract agent” (with whom they had already forged a working relationship) one week prior to the crash in Paris. Even more incredibly, this claim is then corroborated by an MI5 source and a second source inside “British Military Intelligence.” <br><br>Doubtful? Inconclusive? OK, but that is where any doubts regarding the authenticity of this book begin and end. The authors are quick to point out that their findings do not depend on this information. It is included, they say, purely to explain their reasons for investigating Diana's death in the first place. The full interview with the “US Special Forces veteran” is included in the book, and is very revealing indeed. <br><br>But that is only the beginning. This book is the product of a 2-year investigation, and includes testimonies from many other highly respected sources - crash experts, security and intelligence experts, medical experts, constitutional and historical experts - all of whom offer threads of evidence which the authors string together into a very coherent and compelling case. And when, on occasion, evidence is gleaned from an 'unnamed' source, the authors are quick to substantiate that evidence with the testimony of at least one 'named' source. Often more than one. <br><br>One such 'unnamed' source - a former SAS sergeant - reveals that the 'accident' in which Diana died bore all the tell-tail signs of a known special forces assassination technique known as the 'Boston brakes'. Agreed, on first hearing, this sounds a bit James Bond - contrived. But bear with it. Because then you go on to read the testimony of former SAS officer and world famous explorer, Sir Ranulph Fiennes, who confirms that the 'Boston brakes' is indeed a commonly employed assassination technique used by hired 'hit squads', and that it involves the use of a device which remotely controls the target-vehicle's steering and brakes. Fiennes goes on to say that this method has been used at least once in England, and in this regard describes in some detail the assassination of one Major Michael Marman, who was killed in a 'car crash' near Stonehenge in 1986. There's no doubt that the operation that killed Major Marman, as described by Fiennes, as well as by former Equerry to the Queen, Air Marshall Sir Peter Horsley, was chillingly identical to the series of events that killed Diana. Once again I have to say that the way the authors are able to continually corroborate their evidence in this way, throughout the book, is very impressive. <br><br>Another thing that impressed me about this book was its format. From the outset the authors make no bones about the fact that they believe Diana was murdered; hence they present their findings in the form of a courtroom trial - the authors assume the role of prosecuting counsels while the reader assumes the role of jury. <br><br>In the dock, accused of 'conspiracy to murder', are MI6 and the CIA, together with the British Royal Establishment. And I have to say that the case brought against them is both disturbing and convincing. No wonder the authors were forced to go to America in order to get this book published! <br><br>Exhibit number one in this 'literary trial' must surely be the two secret letters obtained by the authors - letters written by Diana only months before her death. Addressed to an investigative journalist in America and signed by Diana's personal secretary, the letters shed a new and somewhat sinister light on Diana's landmines campaign in Angola. They clearly show that the Princess was aware of the dangers she faced in defying the Establishment and pursuing her campaign. And that those dangers were far greater than any of us knew at the time. <br><br>But perhaps the most intriguing contribution comes from a former Foreign Office historian, who claims that he worked for a department whose 'special remit' is to monitor the “counter-monarchy problem.” He told the authors that MI6 are in possession of genealogical records and historical documents that (a) date back centuries; (b) highlight the ongoing power struggle at the heart of the British Monarchy; and (c) challenge the legitimacy of the present Royal Family on the basis of their dubious pedigree. These records and documents are, therefore, being deliberately concealed from public view, the source asserts. Sensational stuff! <br><br>But what is even more sensational is the suggestion that Diana had herself become part of the above-mentioned “counter-monarchy problem”. Following her ostracism from the Royal Family, the source claims, Diana was courted by supporters of the little-known Merovingian royal bloodline from which she herself descended, and which is today largely represented by Britain's forgotten Royal House of Stuart. As the authors discover, and despite media propaganda to the contrary, the Stuarts are still alive, well and politically active. And what's more, they still bear legitimate designs on the British Throne. <br><br>Anyway, the evidence strongly suggests that, in her not-so-private war with the Windsors, Diana became secretly involved in a “succession fight ... a fight over the structure of the future of the Monarchy”. It really is difficult to convey the full range of complexities here, given the space limitations. What I would say, though, is this: those still ignorant of the Stuarts' claim to the Throne; their ongoing struggle to be heard; and perhaps more to the point, Diana's own Stuart heritage, should read this book. At the very least it will cast the Princess in a new political light, one that reveals her as - potentially - a massive threat to the continued succession of the Windsors. And therefore as a prime target for 'removal'. <br><br>Throughout the book these claims, though no doubt offensive to some, are supported by a wealth of meticulously researched and hitherto 'hidden evidence' from which the book takes its name. Also included here is a wonderful insight into the history of the British Crown - how it has been bought, sold, bought again, and ultimately usurped. From the Plantagenets and the Tudors to the overthrow of the Stuarts and the coming of the House of Windsor, this book lays bare the ongoing bloodline struggle and more (plus, of course, the significance of that struggle in Diana's death). Suffice to say here that the 'bloodline' section of this book is worth the cover price all by itself! <br><br>All in all, Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence is surely the most historically and politically important book of its time. It is certainly the most thought-provoking book I have read in years. Apart from anything else it includes a fascinating and thoroughly researched investigation into the secret histories of MI5, MI6 and the CIA; and an equally disturbing exposé on how British and American banks and corporations funded Hitler's rise to power - all backed up with official FBI and US government documents. In fact the section on The Bid To Unite Europe covers a multitude of corporate sins, from the Bank of England's investment in the House of Windsor (and vice versa) to the Crown's nefarious dealings in Angola (where Diana's landmines campaign was centred). <br><br>The fact that all of these themes are woven into a most coherent and compelling scenario; and the added fact that, staggeringly, they combine to present the most convincing case in favour of assassination, surely makes this book the most 'should-be-read' volume of our times (especially when you remember what this book is all about - the very real possibility that the Princess of Wales was murdered). <br><br>If I were to be scrupulously honest I would say that, having read this book, I am now convinced that Diana's death was no accident. And that, as the authors conclude, if we care at all about the accountability of our intelligence and security services (and the Establishment czars who run them) then it is high time that a public inquiry was launched in Britain to discover precisely what happened on that tragic and fateful night in Paris. And perhaps more to the point - why it happened. <br><br>A must read for all those who cared about Diana - and all those who care about the truth. <br><br>[Note]: Prepare for a sting in the tail of this fascinating book, as the authors finally track down and gain an interview with HRH Prince Michael of Albany (who subsequently also agreed to write the book's Foreword). The interview was conducted only a short time before the book went to print, and proves the most credible and damning corroborative testimony that even the authors themselves could have hoped for. Prince Michael is a distant relative of Diana and the current Head of Britain's Royal House of Stewart (formerly Stuart). By his own admission he is the first senior Stuart heir since 1887 to officially raise the issue of the Stuarts' claim to the Throne. And as the authors discover, he has paid the price for doing so - his passport has been revoked, making him an effective prisoner in Britain; he has been repeatedly harassed by the authorities, by Special Branch and MI5; and he has been either ignored or debunked by the British media. In other words, Prince Michael is a man on the inside of royal politics - he knows first-hand how the British Royal Establishment deals with 'loose cannons' like Diana, and he is not afraid to speak his mind about it. <br><br>Indeed, the Royal Family, MI6 and the British Royal Establishment will no doubt rue the day this book was ever written – gripping stuff! <br><br>Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence by Jon King and John Beveridge is published by SPI Books New York and priced at £18.99. The book is also available from its British distributors Roundhouse Publishers tel: 01237 474474 <br>--unquote--<br>******<br>Curiously (and quite coincidently) I had just earlier read about the controversial challenge to the Windsor's legitimacy and argument suggesting the Stuart family is the rightful heir to the crown, dating back to the Act of Settlement and some extremely convoluted rulings re: rights of succession -- although the conclusion reached in the article cited affirms an emigre eccentric aussie is the rightful King, not the House of Stuart. I believe this is the first I've read of this aspect of British Royalty -- well, the first I recall, anyway. Below are links I found that preceeded the bombshell above:<br><br>The 'true' legitimate heir to England's monarchy?<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://genealogyblog.com/categories/the-royal-family/">genealogyblog.com/categor...al-family/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>--quote--<br>A NSW man has been identified as the rightful King of England by a leading historian.<br><br>Medieval scholar, Dr Michael Jones says he can prove Queen Elizabeth’s claim to the throne is illegitimate and it should belong to Michael Abney-Hastings.<br><br>British-born Mr Abney-Hastings, who moved to southern NSW as a teenager, is the subject of a British documentary.<br><br>Mr Jones, one of Britain’s leading historians, believes he has proved through painstaking research that the Royal Family’s right to rule is based on a lie. <br>--link--<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://washingtontimes.com/world/20040127-092827-7878r.htm">washingtontimes.com/world...-7878r.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>--excerpt--<br>"What it meant was that if Edward IV was illegitimate, then that whole line that followed him from Henry VIII right down to Queen Victoria and Elizabeth II ought not to be there," Mr. Abney-Hastings said. <br> According to a senior scholar of the Middle Ages, an original document found in France reveals that Edward IV was conceived not by his royal father, Richard the duke of York, but by a French archer, and that Edward's official father was fighting the French at Pontoise near Paris, while Edward's mother, Lady Cicely Neville, was having an affair with a commoner. <br> It would have been a five-day horse ride for the king to reach the queen. <br> Genealogist Michael Jones' research contends that Edward IV, who reigned from 1461 to 1483, ought to have been replaced by Edward IV's younger brother, George, the duke of Clarence, of whom Mr. Abney-Hastings is a direct descendent. <br> King Louis XI of France is recorded as shouting about Edward, "His name is not King Edward — everybody knows his name is Blaybourne," the name of the French archer. <br> But the British royals did their best to hush up the scandal, even going so far as to suggest the conception had taken place in May 1410 in Yorkshire before the royal father set sail for France — which would have involved an 11-month pregnancy. <br> "I always knew I had Plantagenet blood in me, but had no idea that I might be more than just a minor royal. I was astounded," says Mr. Abney-Hastings. <br> So does Mr. Abney-Hastings dream about what might have been? <br> "Oh no — just look at the royals today, would you? How they stagger from one crisis to another. I don't harbor ambitions to live in that sort of goldfish bowl and be written about all the time," he said. <br>--unquote--<br><br>More:<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://genealogyblog.com/categories/the-royal-family/">genealogyblog.com/categor...al-family/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>--quote--<br>Had the Act of Settlement not banned monarchs from marrying Catholics and enshrined male primogeniture --the law that boys leapfrog their older sisters to the throne -- Signor Gasche would be the heir to the throne, The (London) Times and Burke's Peerage have discovered. Giant wrinkled mastiffs would pad around the gardens of Buckingham Palace rather than corgis and Prince William would be usurped in the public's affections by a beautiful 18-year-old Italian schoolgirl, Uberto's daughter Maria-Christina.<br><br>Campaigners are seeking to abolish the controversial Act, which was introduced to resolve a succession crisis in 1701 ‚?? although the debate has been temporarily suspended for more pressing discussions about the constitutional implications of the Prince‚??s marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles.<br>. . .<br>The Act of Settlement has regulated the line of succession to the throne for three centuries. Towards the end of 1700 King William III was ill and childless. The prospective Queen, Anne, had just lost her only surviving child and, abroad, the supporters of the exiled King James II were active and numerous. The Act decreed that the Royal line was to pass to the House of Hanover and, in the process, set some key constitutional laws. Campaigners today say the Act is antiquated, sexist and institutionalises religious prejudice.<br>--unquote--<br><br>According to The Times and Burke's Peerage:<br>Alternative line of succession <br><br>QUEEN ANNE<br>Ruled 1702-1714<br>Succeeded by her brother<br><br>King James III<br>The Old Pretender<br>Ruled 1714-1766<br><br>King Charles III<br>Bonnie Prince Charlie<br>Ruled 1766-1788 <br><br>King Henry IX<br>Cardinal York<br>Ruled 1788-1807<br>Cardinal York had no children so the line ended there. The next monarch would have been a descendant of Charles I: <br><br>Queen Amalia<br>Princess of Saxony<br>Ruled 1807-1870<br>Succeeded by her brother <br><br>King John II<br>King of Saxony<br>Ruled 1870-1873 <br><br>King Albert I<br>King of Saxony<br>Ruled 1873-1902<br>Succeeded by his sister <br><br>Queen Elizabeth II<br>Duchess of Genoa<br>Ruled 1902-1912 <br><br>Queen Margherita I<br>also Queen of Italy<br>Ruled 1912-1926 <br><br>King Victor Emmanuel I<br>also King of Italy, supporter of Mussolini<br>Ruled 1926-1947 <br><br>Queen Yolanda I<br>Exiled Countess and famous beauty<br>Ruled 1947-1986 <br><br>Queen Mary III<br>b. 1924<br>Exiled Countess who married Robert Gasche in Egypt <br><br>King Uberto I<br>(Uberto Omar Gasche) b. 1951<br>Dog breeder, photographer and aristocrat <br><br>Research: Hugh Peskett, Burke's Peerage<br><br>-- However, a reader disagrees:<br><br>Sir, Your assessment of an alternative genealogy for the Royal Family (report, February 14) after the exile of King James II is not the one generally accepted by those interested in the House of Stuart. The direct line of Stuart inheritance ended with the death of Henry (IX), Cardinal York, the brother of Bonnie Prince Charlie.<br><br>After that the best line of Protestant descent is from Charles I's daughter, Henrietta Anne. The entitlement to the throne later passed by marriage to the House of Modena-Este and later to the Bavarian House of Wittelsbach. The current head of that House is Duke Franz.<br><br>Yours sincerely,<br>STEVE LORD<br>(Author, Walking with Charlie, Pookus Publications, 2003),<br>2 Mill Street, Eynsham,<br>Witney, Oxfordshire OX29 4JS.<br>February 14.<br><br>****<br>And re: Lady Diana's role in this controversy:<br>Re: Illegitimacy of House of Windsor, Diana's royal peerage:<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://genealogyblog.com/categories/the-royal-family/">genealogyblog.com/categor...al-family/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>--quote--<br>The current British royal family are imposters. The House of Windsor is a fraud. But the lineage of Lady Diana Spencer goes back to Charles II of the House of Stewart. The House of Stewart is of *true* royal blood. Diana’s sons, William and Harry, have 3-quarters true nobility in their blood.<br><br>Princess Diana was in a powerful position. Two main factions vied for control over her: (1) the New World Order faction, founded on an alliance between King William III (Bank of England, modern system of finance, and “national debt” all beginning during his reign) and later, the Rothschilds, and (2) the true nobility of Europe.<br>--unquote--<br><br>The article treats this whole line of thinking as balderdash crackpot conspiracy-theory idiocy, about on a par with heresy and treason. Hmm, Why so much hostility? Poisoning the well?<br><br>Interesting, about the German roots of the Windsors:<br>Apparently King George V camouflaged the family's unpopular Teutonic heritage by changing its name from Battenberg to Mountbatten.<br><br>Royal Roots Are International <<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://genealogyblog.com/the-royal-family/royal-roots-are-international-2980>">genealogyblog.com/the-roy...onal-2980></a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>by Leland Meitzler:<br>When the Queen made a state visit to Germany this week she was reviving ancestral as well as political links. Allan Massie explains why the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas decided to become the plain old Windsors.<br><br>“You know what they call them on Deeside?'’ The wee man in the Glasgow pub thrust his face closer to mine. “The Germans, that’s what they call them, the Germans.'’ Though I lived for several years on Deeside, about 20 miles from Balmoral, and had never heard any locals refer to the Royal Family as “the Germans,'’ I didn’t argue. It was that sort of Glasgow pub, and the wee man had already told me about the knife he always carried. Besides, even if he wasn’t absolutely right in what he said, he had a point, sort of, anyway.<br>Kings and queens are symbols of national unity. For royalists they even embody the nation. Yet they have rarely been thoroughgoing members of the nation or nations over which they reign. This is because from at least the early Middle Ages royals have chosen or been required to marry other royals, who have been almost inevitably foreigners.<br><br>So, for example, Spain came to be ruled by Habsburgs, who were German, and then by Bourbons, who were French. Elizabeth of England’s rival, and sometime brother-in-law, Philip II of Spain, had only one Spanish grandparent, and, being blond, he took after his Flemish (or Belgian) grandfather, and didn’t look Spanish at all. Our own Royal Family is no different. It is true that the Queen can trace her descent from the Saxon king Alfred, heroic defender of Wessex against the Danes and also from the 11th-century Scottish king Malcolm Canmore (the Malcolm of Shakespeare’s Macbeth); but there have been rivers of foreign blood since. Royalty are among the most successful of immigrants.<br><br>Read the full article about the British Royal Family’s International Roots <<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=580003>">news.independent.co.uk/uk...ry=580003></a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> in the November 5, 2004 edition of The Independent. <br>****<br>And some more geneological desiderata:<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://genealogyblog.com/categories/the-royal-family/">genealogyblog.com/categor...al-family/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>--excerpt--<br>Prince Charles and Camilla are both descendents of Henry Cavendish, 2nd Duke of Newcastle. Prince Charles’ family history can be traced back to the Duke’s elder daughter Margaret Cavendish, while Camilla’s family tree leads to the Duke’s younger daughter Catherine Cavendish.<br><br>A second and more scandalous possible tie also exists that would make the soon-to-be married couple half second cousins once removed. It is believed that Camilla’s grandmother, Sonia Keppel, was the illegitimate daughter of King Edward VII. If this is true then she and Charles would be half second cousins once removed. The half denotes that Charles and Camilla are descended from different partners of Edward VII (Charles from Edward’s wife and Camilla from Edward’s alleged mistress, Alice Edmonstone).<br><br>Go to Ancestry.com toview the full family trees. <br><br>In addition to the family ties between Prince Charles and Camilla, Ancestry.com has uncovered links in other famous family trees including George W. Bush to John Kerry, Clint Eastwood to Arnold Schwarzenegger and Madonna to Celine Dion. Other royal family connections include Princess Diana to Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York. This connection is unique because it is not through Princess Diana’s marriage to Prince Charles, but rather hrough a nineteenth-century duke named James Hamilton from the Princess’ side of the family.<br><br>In addition, Andrew Firestone, former Bachelor star and heir to the Firestone wine and tire fortune has been linked to Prince William.<br>--unquote--<br>****<br>It's enuff to make my head ache.<br>(Between the giggles and astonishment -- similiar in its way of abuse of authority and imperial crimes as seen in the tragicomic farce that passes for American politics).<br>And so it goes ...<br>Starman<br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=starmanskye>StarmanSkye</A> at: 2/8/06 12:08 am<br></i>
