Royal watch

It is really rather convenient that you will find very few men in the vast multitude which throngs to the Holy Land who have not been unbelieving scoundrels, sacrilegious plunderers, homicides, perjurers, adulterers, whose departure from Europe is certainly a double benefit, seeing that people in Europe are glad to see the back of them…It is certainly beneficial to those who live on both sides of the sea, since they protect one side and desist from molesting the other. [Bernard de Clairvaux 1090-1153]

At a time of shoddy and fake journalism perpetrated not only by Millennials, it’s a pleasant surprise to see the wording by the Express on the Harry/Megs nuptials:

THE Archbishop of Canterbury is to be asked to give his blessing to a church wedding for Prince Harry and US divorcee Meghan Markle, the Daily Express understands.

Archbishop Justin Welby is said to have no objections, clearing the way for a royal wedding at Westminster Abbey or another Anglican venue in 2018.

Officials at the Abbey, who have previously confirmed they allow divorced people to wed there, said the couple would require a marriage licence from the Archbishop’s faculty office.

This post is not about the nuptials, it’s partly about the journalistic approach to information which comes through and I’d like to think that that attitude runs through this post, saying, “Look, we can’t be absolutely sure but indicators seem to be …”

I was watching a video which was not well put together but it did give chapter and verse – dates, locations – and it produced two violent reactions in watchers [comments thread below it].

One reaction was the old school God, Queen and country which said it was utter balderdash, that there was not a “shred of evidence” and that the purveyor was despicable and disgusting etc. etc., the lowest of the lows.

The other reaction was ardent republican, detesting the whole notion of royals and these in particular.  Presumably, God gets thrown out too with the bathwater.

My reaction was circumspect – the detractors were certainly onto something but how much dot-joining was going on, only the reader can decide for him/herself.  I’m no ardent republican and I love the pomp and pageantry, the Wills/Kate wedding, the whole thing about “Princess” Pippa and so on.

At the same time, the royals are not getting a free pass.  While I see the need for a royal family to do all the handshaking and hospital opening, plus it adds gravitas to a nation, this particular bunch of incumbents has much against it.

One case in point was this:

The 30 year old Christoph had become engaged to Prince Phillips sister, Sophie when she turned 15. Phillip began meeting the future queen when she was 13.

My first reaction was “what utter bollox”, suggesting for a moment that Phil is into little girls. My criticisms have been about the historical roots of the Welfs and about Charles’s bizarre claims of descent, not mixing the current paedo scare into it.

Then I saw this:

All right, thought I, just because a 13 year old attracted him and was besotted by him, that’s a far cry from children disappearing in a locality any time the royal yacht pulled in, it’s a far cry from Fenian claims about Mountbatten, about who was actually onboard when the boat exploded and where those children had come from, how and why.

The only way I can see of approaching this topic today is to keep comments on for an hour now, then switch them off until evening because I’m out most of the day, also to supply almost entirely links and topic headings, making little comment on them. 

Theory is that those not interested and the scholastically lazy will not bother and will get nothing from the post, while those deeply interested will follow those initial links and find plenty more to explore as well.  Then it’s up to each reader to decide, no need for open debate on it, coz how can we finally know?

The last point I’d make in this preface is that there is considerable danger to any who do comment [and I include DR here], as this is directly taking on The Man, naming names, and people who do that get tracked down and have a habit of suffering unfortunate accidents down the track.  Let alone litigation.

Methinks you’d need to be damned sure of your facts when taking on this lot – entirely different to taking on Tessa and Co.

To begin:

Uh huh.  I understood that it could not just jump straight to Wills but I do understand Camilla’s angst with Kate.

All right, let’s now get down to it. As a former academic, you’d understand I get impatient with people who just will not read the material and yet wish to debate it … and it becomes bleedin’ obvious they haven’t from their comments – many just skim through something and miss the little nuggets here and there.

One little nugget was that the Guelphs were mercantile, whilst the Ghibellines were more land based.  Thus, if you were tracing the origins of usury in its formalized, pan-European sense, a huge issue in the church at that time, then the Guelphs are your go-to starters and they are the Welfs and the Este family and Venice/Lombardy comes into it in a big way.

An alternative history to what Wiki will give you is here:

Which brings in:

The six Grand Priories are:

Grand Priory of Rome
Grand Priory Lombardy and Venice
Grand Priory of Naples and Sicily
Grand Priory of Bohemia
Grand Priory of Austria
Grand Priory of England

The Knights of Malta see the Masons as their sworn enemies by the way.

Some of it gets left field but there is an immense amount of detail in here, much of which checks out in straight historical terms:

A more recent illustration of the war going on between the orders is:

… a dispute between the previous leader, Grand Master Matthew Festing, and Pope Francis led to Festing’s resignation in January 2017 …

Explore that one – it tells you much if you have eyes, as the Good Lord was wont to say.

The “purity” of the royal lines seems to be paralleled by the “purity” of the leading families through history and also the “purity” of the supposed illuminati.  Most people at least accept “shadow government” today, which makes this blog’s task a bit easier.

Now, that business of the royal yacht visiting curious places, with curiously different sets of royals onboard:

And so to the nasty issue – I posted long ago on the royal families of Europe:

Check these out at your own leisure:

Kincora Care Home in Belfast

Haute de la Garenne, Savile and Heath

Royal Alpha Lodge in Kensington Palace

Paul Kidd

Telegraph article, 5th of September 2004, concerning Valery Giscard d’Estaing and friend [one of our royals]

There are many more which will come out of that, including Dolphin Square, Epstein and various care homes.

Comments are on.

1 comment for “Royal watch

  1. November 24, 2017 at 02:41

    While I see the need for a royal family to do all the handshaking and hospital opening, plus it adds gravitas to a nation, this particular bunch of incumbents has much against it.

    Send them back to Germany where they came from. Merkel might let them in as refugees.

    Long live King Francis II, rightful kIng of England.

    Anything would be better than Elizabeth the Useless.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.