by antiaristo » Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:38 am
Peg C<br><br>Truly, it doesn't matter WHICH of them actually gave the final order for the murder to take place. They work as a team, notwithstanding the public relations lies about splits within. They do, after all, call themselves "The Firm".<br><br>What matters is WHY they gave that order, and that is what I have outlined earlier on in this thread.<br><br>It's ALL about the Treason Felony Act, and getting a replacement, compliant queen on the Throne.<br><br>Peg C, Mother,<br>Yes, they were there, back in October.<br>A tour of the United States had been arranged, with the single purpose of making Camilla Parker Bowles acceptable to Americans as the future queen consort.<br><br>The whole purpose was to stimulate the thought in the minds of Americans "Aren't they NICE people. What's wrong with Camilla? You are prejudiced against women! Why CAN'T she be queen if he becomes king? It's NOT FAIR!"<br><br>What better means than to show how much they care for all those poor unfortunate black people?<br><br><br>This is the latest from today's Observer. Bear in mind there is a lockdown on the British media, and that the Observer is a pale shadow of its former self.<br><br>Note how the underlying assumption is that he has a right to ascend to the Throne when his mother vacates.<br><br>That is untrue.<br><br>Read the Act of Settlement (link provided with the original article). Charles Windsor is debarred from the Throne according to the laws of England. He can have the Throne of Scotland. But not the Throne of England.<br><br>Please also bear in mind that the "royal prerogative" is the cover name given to the Treason Felony Act of 1848.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE FONT START--><span style="font-size:small;">Charles to put down pen when he puts on crown</span><!--EZCODE FONT END--> <br><br>David Smith and Gaby Hinsliff<br>Sunday February 26, 2006<br>The Observer <br><br><br>Prince Charles has accepted that his days of speaking out on contentious political subjects - and sending handwritten 'black spider' memos to ministers - must end when he becomes king.<br><br>A senior Clarence House source told The Observer that although the Prince will keep circulating journals of his thoughts to a close group of friends, he is aware that his role as monarch would mean an end to his efforts to influence the government and opinion formers.<br><br>The Prince of Wales's interventions in issues ranging from climate change and GM foods to teaching methods and inner-city deprivation were under the spotlight last week as he brought a case at the High Court against the Mail on Sunday for breach of privacy and infringement of copyright.<br><br>The newspaper has eight journals written by the Prince, one of which was made public, revealing his description of Chinese diplomats as 'appalling old waxworks' and his belief that British government decisions are 'based on market research and focus groups'.<br><br>'The Prince writes to ministers, gives speeches and appears on television to raise issues of public concern, but never in a party political manner - nobody knows whether he's on the left or the right,' said the source. 'He is fully aware that monarch is a different job and he will change accordingly.<br><br>'He will not need to write to ministers because he will see the Prime Minister every week and be able to make his views known then.'<br><br>Lord St John of Fawsley, the constitutional expert, said: 'The Prince of Wales has traditionally been able to speak on all sorts of topics. But when Charles ascends the throne, he'll have to be very much more circumspect.'<br><br>Robert Hazell, director of the Constitution Unit at the London School of Economics, which is shortly to produce a report on the relationship between church and state, said he did not believe the Prince had overstepped the mark.<br><br>'Prince Charles is not the monarch, and it would not be the first time in political history that a Prince of Wales has generated controversy. The key is how he behaves once he is king. He then does have formal powers to encourage, to advise and to warn and he has an opportunity once a week to do so.'<br><br>The controversy over the China journals does not appear to have stopped the Prince approaching politicians. He is understood to have been in contact last week with Gordon Brown to discuss the Chancellor's plans for a national volunteering scheme, in which he is interested.<br><br>The powers of the monarchy will come under separate scrutiny this weekend when the ancient powers of the royal family will be discussed in the House of Lords. A bill this week will suggest scrapping many of the formal powers.<br><br>The powers of the royal prerogative range from patronage - the right to appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the chairman of the BBC - to decisions on crucial matters, such as granting pardons to wrongly convicted prisoners or refusing British passports to 'undesirable' citizens.<br><br>The most controversial is the power to declare war on another country without requiring a vote in parliament. Senior Conservative sources in the House of Lords said they expected to 'whisk through' a bill tabled by the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Lester, which would return the so-called royal prerogative powers to the control of a democratically elected parliament.<br><br>Lester, whose bill is due to receive its third reading this week, said it put such powers firmly back 'under parliament, not under the crown' adding he hoped it would now get Conservative support: 'I hope that the new Conservative Party, the so-called liberal Conservative Party, will take an enlightened view on this.'<br><br>The powers are all exercised now on behalf of the monarch by her Prime Minister or Cabinet ministers, and scrapping them would not personally affect the Queen, but would be a step closer to separating state and monarchy. Tony Blair does not intend to scrap the prerogative powers over war, but Brown has indicated support for a review.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1718383,00.html">observer.guardian.co.uk/u...83,00.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Lord St John of Fawsley is a disgusting little man. He owes his title to the fact that he was a member of Thatcher's Cabinet for about a year at the beginning of the 1980's, when Norman St John Stevas. He is no constitutional expert, but is wheeled out whenever the Windsors require a mouthpiece on constitutional matters. Nobody is allowed to challenge him, for to do so is illegal under the Treason Felony Act.<br><br>He is a Rupert Murdoch pimp. A supposedly "independent" non-executive director of Sky TV he was instrumental in placing Murdoch's son into the position of chief executive of Sky (News Corp controls about 42 percent of the equity). He is paid about $100,000 per annum for attending twelve board meetings a year. Further, his own pet causes are generously funded by the Murdoch empire.<br><br>You thought Murdoch was a "republican"? Hah! He works diligently for Her Majesty, and in return is never prosecuted for his many crimes. He is under her protection.<br><br><br>"Robert Hazell, director of the Constitution Unit at the London School of Economics" is a new one. It looks like one of those American "think tanks" that produce "findings" to the liking of the New World Order. The fact that it "is shortly to produce a report on the relationship between church and state" leads me to believe we can soon expect a full-frontal attack on the Church of England. The Church of England is the only institution that stands between Charles Windsor and the Throne of England.<br><br>The Lester bill is a distraction. If they leave the Treason Felony Act in place it is exactly the same as cutting down a bush but leaving the root system in place. Given time, the bush grows back stronger than ever.<br><br>THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS TO GET RID OF THE TREASON FELONY ACT. Everything else is a diversion. <p></p><i></i>
