Royal Babylon and the Power of the Monarchy

Via Orwellwasright

The British press can always be counted on to mask the depradations of the royal family – after all, they’re a national treasure who bring in much-needed revenue through tourism, right? Not quite. While David Icke might refer to them as shape-shifting lizards, others see them as parasites, leeching public money to maintain their palaces, country retreats and lavish lifestyles.

Of course, when the Queen gets the shits and has to spend a couple of days in her Freemasonic hospital, we can rely on the BBC and the Daily Mail to litter their screens and pages with endless coverage of this non-event; as for the thousands of “ordinary people” dying under the failing NHS – a system the Queen is quite happy to assist in the dismantling of – the same media is largely silent. Upon her release she was unfit to perform her public duties, but nevertheless found the time to sign the Commonwealth Charter, ensuring the interests of the realm continued to be protected.

Her son, Prince Charles, may be next in line for the throne, but the future is uncertain – in perhaps one of the bizarrest twists on the absurd concept of royal succession, member of the House of Lords Lord True wants to prepare for a lesbian queen who conceives using donor sperm, an idea which makes the arranged royal marriages of old seem somewhat quaint. The debate in the British parliament over the Succession To The Crown Bill and its efforts to bring the monarchy up to the present day on the issue of same sex marriage overlooks the long history of interbreeding and incest which characterises the sexual habits of royalty through the ages. That’s not to suggest that the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas – who changed their name to the more English-sounding Windsor during the Great War with Germany – practice this method of keeping the bloodline “pure”, although rumours abound over the paternity of Prince Harry.

Prince Charles is seen by many as a champion of the environment who has dedicated his life to protecting the beautiful undulating green pastures of Britain; an eccentric who talks to the plants. A carefully crafted myth perpetuated by slavish journalists, the reality is he’s no different to any other royal – while the Prince of Wales tells his “loyal subjects” to “work in harmony with nature”, behind the scenes his rapacious side comes out to play as he smothers the nature he claims to respect  in concrete, all in the name of profit. Not content with the £18 million his land and property brings him annually, he plans to develop 1000 houses on an unspoilt field which once inspired the poet and novelist Thomas Hardy.

Evidently, Charles’s love of money supercedes his professed love of the natural world. He certainly had no qualms dipping into the public purse to support his lavish lifestyle – along with the rest of the royal family their expenses were scrutinised by an inquiry, carried out by agents of Her Majesty’s government. As for the question of royal tax avoidance, Her Majesty’s Custom and Revenue are sure to do a thorough job …

This lover of the natural world isn’t afraid of endorsing draconian measures to reduce fertility worldwide, having openly expressed support for biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich’s study calling for population reduction. Perhaps he shares the sentiments of his Nazi father Prince Phillip, who once said, “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation”. The Ehrlichs can count themselves as members of the rising tide of modern eugenicists who feel that it is imperative that the global population needs to be drastically reduced. “Until and unless we can humanely begin to shrink the global population, following the lead of over-consuming and over-populated European nations, the future seems grim.”

It would be wise to treat the word “humanely” with a modicum of suspicion – the bloodlines of the Ehrlichs and the Windsors aren’t unlikely to be threatened by any population cull carried out in the name of saving the planet. The idea of redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor certainly isn’t one Ehrlich favours: “We have too much consumption among the rich and too little among the poor. That implies that terrible thing that we are going to have to do which is to somehow redistribute access to resources away the rich to the poor.”

Needless to say, Ehrlich’s views on the imperative for population reduction is shared by the Royal Society. This attitude towards the “useless eaters” of the world perhaps makes more sense in light of the Prince of Wales’ lineage, which has been traced back to none other than Vlad the Impaler, the inspiration for Dracula. Vlad had a neat and efficient way of dealing with the peasant population – he invited them all to a huge banquet, locked them in and burned the building to the ground. “Transylvania is in my blood,” quipped Charles. “The genealogy shows I am descended from Vlad the Impaler, so I do have a bit of a stake in the country.” Some have claimed that porphyria, the blood iron deficiency upon which the vampire myth is based, runs in the royal family – perhaps it runs the colour blue.

To some, the British royal family are a token feature of Britain’s great heritage; to others, an archaic remnant of the past. Many believe that the Queen’s role is purely ceremonial and holds little real power. The reality is much different. The fact that her face appears on all our money should in and of itself be revealing – beyond this, every major institution in the country is “Her Majesty’s”, from the government to the armed forces, of which she is Commander-in-Chief to whom all members swear allegiance.   As for political power, along with Prince Charles the Queen has the power to veto any new laws being drafted – the coalition government were unable to block the documents revealing this information after a court order demanded their release. Liberal Democrat MP Andrew George said of the revelations, “This is opening the eyes of those who believe the Queen only has a ceremonial role.”

When royalty drives past the flag-waving crowds, behind the smiles they might well be laughing.

23 Comments on "Royal Babylon and the Power of the Monarchy"

  1. BuzzCoastin | Apr 5, 2013 at 8:30 pm |

    the only thing more preposterous than the English Royal Pain Family
    is the Royal Family of Der Homeland, Der Bushies
    & they’re loyal toadies, the political class of Der Homeland

  2. LifelongLIb | Apr 6, 2013 at 2:09 am |

    Here in the U.S. some people think the British system is better than ours because the Royals handle all the symbolic/national pride functions, leaving the Prime Minister to deal purely with the business of governing. U.S. presidents have to handle both sorts of things and the one sometimes gets in the way of the other.

  3. Frank_Black | Apr 6, 2013 at 6:32 am |

    LOL Vlad Tepes did not lock groups of poor people in buildings and light them on fire, that is how he dealt with the Boyar merchants who plotted against his thrown ceaselessly. The author does not have his history straight.

    • Andy Dilks | Apr 6, 2013 at 7:35 am |

      Ah, so it was merchants, not peasants – that makes it okay then. Thanks for making the distinction clear – I’m sure it completely undermines the general thrust of the rest of the article.

      • that does in fact make the distinction clear, does it not?

        • Andy Dilks | Apr 6, 2013 at 11:03 am |

          I’m not sure that it makes a great deal of difference to the personality of Vlad – is his cruel and sadistic reputation in any doubt? This comes across as nitpicking over a minor detail – considering the man tortured and killed untold thousands and burned villages to the ground this criticism is pedantic, to put it mildly

          • Andy Dilks | Apr 6, 2013 at 11:22 am |

            If you disagree there’s no harm in explaining why, is there? Not that I mind down votes – they’re a point of pride on disinfo 😉

          • Calypso_1 | Apr 6, 2013 at 2:30 pm |

            How familiar are you with the history of the ottoman advance into Europe that his tactics brought to a halt?

          • Andy Dilks | Apr 6, 2013 at 2:53 pm |

            Superficially – I haven’t studied it in detail but that said I’ve read some interesting things today. I have to admit he’s one of the most intriguing historical figures out there. What’s your view of him? Can you recommend any interesting books/sources? I’d be interested to hear how one can reconcile valid military tactics with a penchant for extreme torture etc.

          • Calypso_1 | Apr 7, 2013 at 2:12 am |

            I am torn for any simple recommendations. This geopolitical arena is a transhistorical crucible. To look at any one biography without extensive perspective and dynamic context is subject to hyperbole, especially in the case of this figure.
            There are tremendous wiki resources you can chase if you will devote the time you would to book length sources. Try 10-20 hrs – Ottoman, Hungarian history, early Hapsburg, Baltic, Bulgarian Empire, Romanian history (Western Scythia, Roman, Wallachia, Transylvania, Székely Land), Fall of Constantinople. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Golden Horde. Those are all places to start to give you depth across the centuries.
            As far as books: Kinross’s ‘The Ottoman Centuries’ is a good broad sweep & shows a great deal of the international rivalries that existed in Europe and their alliances w/the Ottomans. Rebecca West’s ‘Black Lamb & Grey Falcon’ though a ‘travel book’ and about the Balkan states gives an incredible sense of the history of this region, the impact on the people & the powerful forces that have torn at them for millennia.

            As to extreme torture and valid tactics, I will make no attempt to reconcile that for you. Vlad was also the source of intentional disinformation in his lifetime. Consider that he was held as a negotiated captive with the Ottomans for years. By European standards the Ottomans were not sweethearts. The Europeans of that time weren’t particularly nice either. Check out those inquisitions. At home Vlad cleaned house; on the battlefield he fought a brutal psychological guerilla war that was the real frontline of East v West until the Hapsburgs picked up the sword a century later.

          • Daenerys_Targaryen | Apr 7, 2013 at 7:24 am |

            Yep, the real life Count Dracula doesn’t deserve his bad rep. In Romania he’s regarded as a national hero for good reason.

          • Calypso_1 | Apr 7, 2013 at 10:49 am |

            From a kingship POV he did a smashing good job given the size of the forces he stood between. I don’t think the level of ‘atrocities’ were as aberrant as most western euro views would have. Nobody on the lines of eurasia played nice. Tokhtamysh certainly didn’t when he promised to enter Moscow peacefully.

          • Daenerys_Targaryen | Apr 7, 2013 at 11:34 am |

            Were they ‘atrocities’ or rather why is atrocity bad? In such circumstances to appear violent and bloodthirsty can actually prevent violent confrontation.

            The Turks and the Romanians both learned their terror tactics from the Byzantines, people forget that.

          • How did Vlad III merely appear violent and bloodthirsty as opposed to actually being violent and bloodthirsty?

          • Daenerys_Targaryen | Apr 7, 2013 at 2:46 pm |

            No difference in this context, I was pointing out the degree of violence was exaggerated as a display to prevent more violence. Other nations like the Assyrians did the same kind of thing.

            If you want peace prepare for war, and make clear that aggression carries costs to the aggressor.

          • Andy Dilks | Apr 7, 2013 at 7:56 am |

            Excellent stuff, many thanks for the recommendations, I shall get hold of ‘The Ottoman Centuries’ and start from there. I suspect the torture/tactics issue is probably irreconcilable – when you’re dealing with groups of people who are ostensibly various shades of “bad/evil” discussing morality seems a bit absurd and pointless, where every act of torture or murder is justified by the potential for your enemy to do the same to you

      • Daenerys_Targaryen | Apr 7, 2013 at 7:23 am |

        Do you have any idea what the boyars were actually like?

  4. jasonpaulhayes | Apr 6, 2013 at 6:00 pm |

    Now tell me all about your pain
    Down to the detail
    Don’t say it’s love
    Your fragile heart feeds my contempt

    Wailing your sorrow
    is only my way to comfort you

    Waiting for morrow you’re lonely
    I name your solitude
    I speaketh the truth

    I am the thorn in your side
    That seeks accomplishment
    Reminding the mortal of death

    I am the spore of your pride
    An angel heavensent
    The master of all
    I am the urge of the flesh
    Reminding the mortal of death

    Chase the heathen call
    We belong…you and I
    Unison in all you deny

  5. I find it MOST amazing that in Canada, TECHNICALLY the british monarch/crown does NOT rule over Canada. Technically she’s the CAnadian Monarch… We have our own royal family… Still her :p So she holds two titles over two lands in this case, not one title over two lands. So if England ousted her, she’d still legally be Queen of Canada till we ousted her. Our official main stream media is officially instructed to never call her the queen of England, but only the Queen of Canada. I find this very interesting for some reason even though it’s just semantics in power structure and title.

  6. Ittabena | Apr 6, 2013 at 8:40 pm |

    No she don’t… Your friends aunt is an intellivision game system and she rarely gets played with these days. Go away bot boy!

  7. Daenerys_Targaryen | Apr 7, 2013 at 7:21 am |

    “As for political power, along with Prince Charles the Queen has the power to veto any new laws being drafted – the coalition government were unable to block the documents revealing this information after a court order demanded their release.”

    Shame she never vetos any of ’em then, look at the state the country is in.

Comments are closed.