Royally Screwed: British Monarchy Revealed Read online

  So it came to pass, the 'People’s Princess' was gone, and the people slowly came to terms with her passing and they watched as her sons began to grow and reunite with their father and become a family without a mother. And the people watched how they behaved together, and believed that a great deal of the romping and playing with father and sons appeared awkward and “stage managed” because verily they were.

  And it came to pass after many years that the Prince now felt it was safe to appear in public with the ‘ye olde’ crone, his long time mistress. And the press took pictures and deemed them to be a couple and noted how “happy” the Prince appeared. And the people were told how important it was that the Prince be “happy”, for whence he became King, he could not be a King known for his depression and misery, but a King, filled with joy and happiness. And some of the people were taken in by this, because time had passed and they had thought that the people had forgotten about the Princess and the distress that this infamous couple had caused her.

  And it came to pass that the great Queen who once called the adulterous crone a wicked women was worn down and was convinced that an official union was best for England. For at heart, although she was a Queen, she was still a mother and would try to do what was best for her son.

  And it came to pass that the great day of doom and despair was arranged, albeit the great Queen was unable to attend the initial ceremony which took place in a lowly Office of Registry, close to her castle at Windsor. For it had long been decreed, since the beginning of Monarchy, that no Royal should deign to appear or even marry in such lowly, humble places. For even though His Royal Highness Prince Chucky was himself Royal and indeed intended to be King, and though these rules applied to every Royal since the beginning of time, he ordained that it did not apply to him. And even though he knew that he was breaking the law by marrying for the 2nd time in England and not Scotland as decreed by the Marriage Act pertaining to Royalty since 1949, verily, it was an olde act and really not worth adhering to. And so it happened that the great Queen Elton, married in the very same office the following month to his longtime partner and Bride, David Furnish. But indeed, neither party was Royal, even though both were gay and considerably more attractive.

  For verily, once divorced, Royalty were not to marry again, as t’was written in ye olde constitution. But the new Archbishop was weak and believed that t’was time to change the Law. For verily, as we stated before, it was olde and there was no point in keeping it. Thus the blessing went ahead in a Church in the eyes of God. Although God’s eyes were closed for this was a spectacle He did not wish to see.

  And it came to pass, that the great Pope, John Paul II, went into a coma and died. And the Great Queen insisted that the Doomsday Wedding be postponed for a day as the Prince, ordered by his Mother, went to pay his respects to the Pope.

  And verily the Pope’s funeral was deemed an occasion of nobility and elegance, and the glorious and the mighty attended and admired the grandeur and majesty.

  As it is written, the Pope’s funeral being a day of magnificence heavily weighed against the following day which a wedding was deemed miserable and one of intense embarrassment.

  And the mighty and the fabulous attended the Great Pope’s funeral and the lowly and the unnecessary came to the Royal wedding.

  Yeah, as it is written, this wedding was attended by the grass growers; the tree huggers; the chicken pluckers; the hedgehoggers; the fish farmers; the bum sniffers and all manner of toadies who were in employ of the Prince, who came (and were paid) to cheer the repugnant couple and line the streets and wave flags as they passed.

  And it came to pass that the wedding was one of shame and misery. And the air in the Church was filled with sin and wickedness, and ye olde Bride and ye ancient ‘Groom-e’ knelt before God and the world and begged forgiveness for their evil deeds, the disgraceful pair spake thus, ‘we acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness… provoking most justly Thy wrath and indignation against us.’

  And the Great Queen turned her back on the adulterous couple as they spake thus, and the people listened and were appalled that the situation had come thus far, and had no belief that this dreadful couple recognized their evil and they believed in their hearts that this couple were sorry for little and bewailed shit!

  And the people understood that the person to whom they needed to apologize was no longer able to hear their words and they turned to God for justice.

  And it came to pass, that nine years hence, whence over half the population in Ol Blighty believed that their Princess had indeed been 'done in', the truth began to slowly emerge.

  It came to pass that it was seen that the French investigation was ‘une grande cock ouppe’.

  The driver was indeed not drunk. It took over an hour to get the Princess from the car into the ambulance and another 50 minutes to drive four miles to the hospital. And all this took place whilst the people of Ol Blighty slept and by the time they awoke, their Princess was already gone and the only news they were able to report came from the French!

  As it is written, we may never know why this happened. And verily though we understood the facts in the year of our Lord, nineteen hundred and ninety seven, we were no wiser in the year two thousand seven (10 years after), even though we were possessed of infinitely more facts; none seemed to lead closer to a truth. Only this seemed to make most sense… that this accident was verily a unique accident and unlikely, an act of God.

  Let us pray, that the truth will out and justice be seen to be done in the lifetime of the people who were witness of all the events that came to pass.

  And may we say thus,

  “God Save Us All”

  (From Queen Camilla)”

  Amen.

  All Millie’s Achievements

  Things for which she is famous

  Things she has done for her country

  England’s Future

  Royals with Relevance, Riots and Rogues

  When Queen Elizabeth 1st was on the throne, she made a point of regularly mixing with her subjects and washing the feet of the poor. The reasons behind this are relatively unknown but it appears she felt it was good for the soul: i.e. the soul of Her Majesty and the sole of the foot of the peasant.

  As there were no such thing as ‘spin doctors’ or focus groups in the 16th Century advising her that it would improve poll numbers, we will have to conclude that it was something she did, because she felt it was the right thing to do.

  King Charles II believed that as a King he had the power to heal the sick. He would announce his healthcare walkabout and several thousands would show up to receive this benefit.

  Unfortunately, there was no crowd control and more people died in the crush than were healed by His Majesty. But his heart was willing and certainly in the right place. It was a gift he believed he had inherited with the Crown and he wished to share it with his people. Again it was the right thing to do.

  During the blitz of the Second World War, the Luftwaffe mounted an extremely vicious attack on the English city of Coventry. They bombed the city for six hours without a break one night and laid it to the ground. Thousands died.

  King George VI and Queen Mary with daughters Elizabeth and Margaret standing on the balcony of Buckingham Palace.

  The next morning, King George VI was walking through the rubble and devastation, talking to firefighters, rescuers and citizens, listening to dreadful stories from survivors of what occurred the previous night and offering words of encouragement. The psychological boost that he gave to this broken city was enormous and made a valuable difference to all those that survived the previous night, giving them encouragement and the heart to carry on.

  Throughout the Second World War the King and Queen refused to leave London despite Buckingham Palace being attacked. After they were bombed the Queen was heard to say “thank God, now I can look the people of the East End in the eye. This was because the East end of London had been so severally damaged because it was close to
the docks which was the Luftwaffe’s ultimate target. The King and Queen often visited the citizens living amongst the rubble and the Queen felt she was now able to commiserate on their level.

  The late Princess Diana was a consummate humanitarian, throwing a light on the plague of the eighties - the Aids disease. She sat with Aids victims, holding their hands and offering comfort, at a time when people believed it was contagious. She proved that it wasn’t and took her young sons to visit these terminally ill patients.

  On December 9th, 2010 Prince Charles, the future King of England and his second wife, against police advice, chose to drive through the streets of London in a £500,000 Bentley car during the worst riots London had experienced in 40 years.

  The riots had been caused by the recent austerity measures perpetrated on students by the new coalition government. They had been informed that their tuition fees were to be raised to three times the current level. They took to the streets to protest in force.

  If the Prince thought the students would be pleased to see him in his £500,000 car, he was sadly mistaken. The car was pelted with eggs and paint, and his wife was poked with a stick through an open window. And the crowd was heard to yell “off with their heads”.

  It could have been worse, the police could have opened fire into the crowd and someone could have died. The Royal couple went home in a blacked out police van, so why couldn’t they have travelled there in the same vehicle??

  Ultimately it was the wrong thing to do. This couple lives with spin doctors and poll watchers and yet they couldn’t have gotten it more wrong. They exist and live in another world, on another planet, and are clueless as to what is happening here on Earth. Silly I know, but maybe it’s just me.

  Would it be fair to assume that in the eyes of the GBP and possibly the world, this couple commands very little respect and has no relevance or value for their, now more than ever, hard earned tax revenue?? Is it the role of the people to support, spoilt, self indulgence on such a grand scale? Just wondering.

  “Charles!!!... Charles!!!”

  “Oh, for heaven’s sake, Camilla, do shut up!”.

  Now that they are a boring old married couple and no longer an “exciting illicit affair”, Charles has “other” uses for her now un-necessary tampons.

  The Royals at Christmas

  Where did they get that hat?

  Camilla and The Queen in their REAL FUR

  Christmas Hats

  Queen and Camilla Slammed for Wearing Fur on Christmas

  “Orf – with her hat!”

  And the Queen was not amused that her daughter-in-law chose to wear exactly the same style of hat – a dead animal on their heads!

  Queen Elizabeth and her daughter-in-law, Camilla, have annoyed animal rights activists by wearing fur to attend church on Christmas Day.

  Her Majesty wore a Cossack-style fox fur hat and a cream-colored wool coat with fur trim on the cuffs. Camilla, the wife of Prince Charles whose title is the Duchess of Cornwall, wore a similar Russian-style hat by the milliner Phillip Treacy.

  Royal Tiaras: Which One Will Kate Middleton Wear to Her Wedding?

  Britain’s Daily Mail reported that the hat-maker used “vintage fur” which had previously belonghed to the duchess’s mother. The paper quoted Andrew Tyler, director of the UK charity Animal Aid, saying” This strikes me as an ostentatious display of cruelty. To parade fur in 2010 says something unpleasant about the person wearing it.”

  Royal Engagement Rings

  Britain’s royals have long been split on the acceptability of wearing fur. The wife of Prince Edward the queen’s youngest son, apologized after being criticized for wearing a fur hat in 2000, calling it “an error of judgment.”

  But the Queen herself has enjoyed many traditional pastimes of the aristocracy which seem cruel to modern sensibilities, including shooting weekends and fox hunting (which is now banned in Britain.)

  Camilla attracted criticism for wearing fur twice last year during an official visit to Canada. (However, for royal ostentation and fur, it’s hard to go past this picture of Princess Anne standing on a polar bear skin on her wedding day.)

  And where does Britain’s lt-Royal, Kate Middleton, stand on fur? While she is not know for draping herself in animal skins, she did controversially wear a mink fur hat to a horse racing event in 2006.

  Maybe she’ll tone it down on her wedding day and just pose for pictures standing on a Pillow Pet?

  Don’t forget you can get your royal wedding new at RoyalWedding.aol.com

  Morality/Shmorality –

  Can we talk Legality??

  I can only hope that in the previous 150 pages we have made our case that someone with the moral ethics of a house slug cannot be considered to be the right person to become Queen,

  But if you buy into the great love story (which I’m afraid we don’t) and you don’t care about the moral values of our future King and Queen, then what about investigating a little further into the legality, or lack of it, of this liaison?

  In 1772, King George 111, created a Royal Marriage Act, which made a law that only the Royal Sovereign could give permission for a Royal marriage, this was to protect the line of succession and to keep riff raff and the undesirables from getting near the throne. No comment.

  In 1836, the civil marriage act was introduced into British law, allowing couples the right to a civil ceremony, but explicitly excluding Royalty from benefiting from the same rights in section 45 of the act, it stated that if you were Royal, you could only be married in consecrated ground, by a minister of the Anglican church.

  In 1949, the act was amended but section 45 was left intact, so let’s make it plain here, the act of 1949, neither replaced or annulled the exemption pertaining to Royalty.

  In 1955, Princess Margaret, the younger sister of the current Queen, wanted to marry a Captain Townsend, divorcee. The Queen refused to give her permission, because Captain Townsend was divorced, but the Princess was told if she wanted a civil ceremony she had to give up her HRH, her line of succession and her access to the Privy Purse (her allowance).

  The government of the time, was ready to give the Princess what she wanted, the right to marry in a registry office and the right to keep her HRH, her line of succession, and access to the privy purse, as they were secretly trying to change the law. How to sell it to the British public was their problem. But their dilemma was unnecessary, because the Princess acquiesced and decided not to marry Capt. Townsend after all.

  Why are recent governments soo keen to roll over for the crown? The relationship between Downing Street and Buckingham Palace is one that should cause the public concern, when it allows the crown to behave in contradiction to its own laws and maintains their allowance regardless.

  In 2005, the government was keen to roll over again because of Prince Charles and his aging, divorced bride. As both were over the age of 25, well over, the Queen’s permission was redundant, and there was no worry about them reproducing (thankfully) but there was the little problem of marrying a divorcee and a Catholic, which was also an issue. Charles himself was also a divorcee, and of course a widower, so they both needed to marry in a civil ceremony, because it couldn’t be allowed in a church.

  But Charles was a Royal and there was also the little problem of the unchanged section 45. There was always the European court of human rights, so Tony Blair’s government appealed on behalf of the Prince, that he was ‘yuumen’ (oh yeah, since when?) and he deserved the right of a ‘yuumen been’ to marry the women of his dreams. As the European court only deals with human rights, they agreed that as a ‘yuumen’, he deserved the right to marry whoever he pleased. The European court does not deal with laws concerning Royalty. So he was granted his human rights, and the government made a statement that the law of 1949, section 45, was irrelevant and that people who dispute the law had not thought it through fully as far as Lord Falconer, current Lord Chancellor was concerned. The law was ‘over cautious’.

  If Lord Fa
lconer was so sure of his legal grounds, why has he covered them up?

  Doesn’t the public have a right to know?

  Legal advice taken on this matter has now been sealed and will only be made available after the Prince’s death. A freedom of information request was denied, and could not be revealed because it was against ‘the public’s interest’, and that the legality of the government’s decision could be challenged in court!

  We have always known that laws were for the little people and were made to be broken by those who know far better than we do. The Justice department’s argument is that public interest in the matter does not outweigh the opposing public interest, is that true???